An Increased Fear in Cardiovascular Patients for Strokes Versus Non-Fatal Myocardial Infarctions and its Implication on Carotid Revascularization Decision-Making

Sajya M. Singh, J. Goldman, R. Garberich, P. Alden, J. Manunga, T. Sullivan, J. Alexander
{"title":"An Increased Fear in Cardiovascular Patients for Strokes Versus Non-Fatal Myocardial Infarctions and its Implication on Carotid Revascularization Decision-Making","authors":"Sajya M. Singh, J. Goldman, R. Garberich, P. Alden, J. Manunga, T. Sullivan, J. Alexander","doi":"10.21925/MPLSHEARTJOURNAL-D-17-00014","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"ABSTRACT Endovascular stenting of the carotid artery continues to incite debate among practitioners regarding its superiority over the traditional approach of carotid endarterectomy for reduction of stoke incidence. The 2013 Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial concluded there was no difference between the two techniques as carotid endarterectomy increased the prevalence of a nonfatal myocardial infarction while a higher incidence of strokes was observed after carotid stenting. The inclusion of myocardial infarction as part of the primary endpoint has drawn criticism; however, in this dispute, a key component is missing: the patient's perspective. A patient's values and fears are crucial to the choice between therapies carrying different risks. We surveyed 500 cardiovascular patients using a qualitative scale (from 1, not at all fearful, to 5, very fearful) to determine their level of fear of stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and limb amputation as well as their understand...","PeriodicalId":186829,"journal":{"name":"Journal of the Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation","volume":"58 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-06-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of the Minneapolis Heart Institute Foundation","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.21925/MPLSHEARTJOURNAL-D-17-00014","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

ABSTRACT Endovascular stenting of the carotid artery continues to incite debate among practitioners regarding its superiority over the traditional approach of carotid endarterectomy for reduction of stoke incidence. The 2013 Carotid Revascularization Endarterectomy versus Stenting Trial concluded there was no difference between the two techniques as carotid endarterectomy increased the prevalence of a nonfatal myocardial infarction while a higher incidence of strokes was observed after carotid stenting. The inclusion of myocardial infarction as part of the primary endpoint has drawn criticism; however, in this dispute, a key component is missing: the patient's perspective. A patient's values and fears are crucial to the choice between therapies carrying different risks. We surveyed 500 cardiovascular patients using a qualitative scale (from 1, not at all fearful, to 5, very fearful) to determine their level of fear of stroke, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and limb amputation as well as their understand...
心血管患者对中风与非致死性心肌梗死的恐惧增加及其对颈动脉血运重建决策的影响
颈动脉血管内支架置入术一直在从业者中引起争论,关于其在降低卒中发生率方面优于传统的颈动脉内膜切除术。2013年的颈动脉血管重建术内膜切除术与支架置入术试验得出结论,两种技术之间没有差异,因为颈动脉内膜切除术增加了非致死性心肌梗死的患病率,而颈动脉支架置入术后观察到更高的卒中发生率。将心肌梗死作为主要终点的一部分引起了批评;然而,在这场争论中,一个关键的组成部分被忽略了:病人的观点。患者的价值观和恐惧对于选择具有不同风险的疗法至关重要。我们使用定性量表(从1分,一点也不害怕,到5分,非常害怕)调查了500名心血管患者,以确定他们对中风、非致命性心肌梗死和截肢的恐惧程度以及他们对…
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信