|
Early Release Abstracts
Percutaneous Transluminal Coronary Angioplasty
(PTCA) Versus Thrombolysis in Patients With Indications for Neither
Results From The PERVERT-PAWIN' Trial
Karl P. Voog, MD; Hawthorn Porter, PhD; Patti
Bilch, Producer; Jeanette Binky, Casting; Lowry Noonan, set design and
bagels
BACKGROUND
The ongoing debate regarding the use of PTCA versus
thrombolysis in the setting of acute coronary syndromes has been described
extensively. However, there has never been a study evaluating these two
interventions in people who didn't need them. We performed an unnecessarly
long and drawn-out study to evaluate the effect of these two therapies
on patients with no indication for these two therapies.
METHODS
We evaluated 2004 consecutive patients presenting
to Our Lady of Perpetual Misery Medical Center in Cleveland, OH. Unfortunately,
none of them were eligible, so we waited for another 2004 people to show
up. They were no good either. So we changed our criteria and took the
next 637 patients that walked through the door (we ran out of funding
after that). After excluding those with a complaint that could be construed
as cardiac in nature, there were only 3 patients left, so we called everyone
back and kept them all in the study anyway. These people were then randomized
to receive either thrombolysis with the cheapest agent available, or PTCA
in our state-of-the-art cardiac catheterization and Dolby Surround Sound
Home Theater laboratory. The endpoints measured in this study have been
outlined elsewhere and frankly, we're sick of repeating them.
RESULTS
Of the 318 patients randomized to receive PTCA unnecessarily,
all of them were rather annoyed at being subjected to the procedure. This
was despite the fact that we showed "The Lion King" intra-operatively
and offered an extensive array of beverages. Patients receiving thrombolysis
were annoyed at a rate of only 33%, and most of those patients were apparently
upset because they had really wanted to see "the movie with the Witch
and the Wardrobe."
CONCLUSION
We found that the majority of people, regardless
of whether they received PTCA or thrombolysis, were pretty pissed off
about receiving treatments that they did not need. This suggests that
these interventions should NOT be undertaken unless specifically indicated
by traditional clinical signs and symptoms. If we had had the funds, we
might follow the clinical courses of our subjects for the next 50 years.
Or, we might get the heck out of Dodge while we still have the chance.
Anecdotal reports suggest we do the latter.
Requests for
reprints should be addressed to Dr. Voog at the University Of The Netherlands,
One Netherland Place, The Netherlands, Netherland.

|