8th June 2007
[QUOTE]What is pretty clear at least from RITA-2 is that an angioplasty DOES NOT decrease your risk of heart attack...if anything, rather the opposite.
I wouldn't consider the opposite scenario, but it can't be ruled out. A tutor of a statistical and probility class would ask: What are the assumptions made for the outcome of a random sampling comparison between two groups to be statistically significant considering a margin of error?... The group size studied is not very large, I listed a few assumptions, and the difference of the outcome for groups could be easily within the margin of error.
However, I would have intuitively estimated the medicated group to be significally higher and from that view point the outcome is very interesting.
My question would be WHY the statistics between the two groups are so marginally similar for an MI? With the slight difference between the two groups who would opt for an interventional procedure and an implant of a foreign substance as a remedy?
[QUOTE]Seems the best advice is to go the drug route first and then consider angioplasty if symptoms remain intolerable.
But the best outcome will likely be for those who remain on the drug regimen.
Can't disagree with that. But can't medication alleviate angina? Isosorbide can be taken daily to prevent angina and nitro if there is an episode. I understand there can be a tolerance build up for the medication, so it is advisable to a void of a day or so between applications, and for some the side effects of an extreme headache (an indication the medication is effective) may be unbearable.
I wouldn't consider the opposite scenario, but it can't be ruled out. A tutor of a statistical and probility class would ask: What are the assumptions made for the outcome of a random sampling comparison between two groups to be statistically significant considering a margin of error?... The group size studied is not very large, I listed a few assumptions, and the difference of the outcome for groups could be easily within the margin of error.
However, I would have intuitively estimated the medicated group to be significally higher and from that view point the outcome is very interesting.
My question would be WHY the statistics between the two groups are so marginally similar for an MI? With the slight difference between the two groups who would opt for an interventional procedure and an implant of a foreign substance as a remedy?
[QUOTE]Seems the best advice is to go the drug route first and then consider angioplasty if symptoms remain intolerable.
But the best outcome will likely be for those who remain on the drug regimen.
Can't disagree with that. But can't medication alleviate angina? Isosorbide can be taken daily to prevent angina and nitro if there is an episode. I understand there can be a tolerance build up for the medication, so it is advisable to a void of a day or so between applications, and for some the side effects of an extreme headache (an indication the medication is effective) may be unbearable.