ABSTRACT
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) continues to be frequently performed for patients with stable coronary artery disease, despite clear evidence that it provides minimal benefit over optimal medical therapy and entails small but not inconsequential risks. Many patients and doctors do not fully understand the risks and benefits of PCI, even when presented with the evidence, and this makes informed consent challenging. The best approach is shared decision-making, with doctor and patient together choosing the best treatment option after considering the evidence and the patient’s preferences.
- Copyright © 2018 The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. All Rights Reserved.
- Michael B. Rothberg, MD, MPH⇑
- Vice-Chair for Research, Medicine Institute, and Director, Center for Value-Based Care Research, Cleveland Clinic; Professor, Cleveland Clinic Lerner College of Medicine of Case Western Reserve University, Cleveland, OH
- ADDRESS:
Michael B. Rothberg, MD, MPH, Medicine Institute, G10, Cleveland Clinic, 9500 Euclid Avenue, Cleveland, OH 44195; rothbem{at}ccf.org
ABSTRACT
Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) continues to be frequently performed for patients with stable coronary artery disease, despite clear evidence that it provides minimal benefit over optimal medical therapy and entails small but not inconsequential risks. Many patients and doctors do not fully understand the risks and benefits of PCI, even when presented with the evidence, and this makes informed consent challenging. The best approach is shared decision-making, with doctor and patient together choosing the best treatment option after considering the evidence and the patient’s preferences.
- Copyright © 2018 The Cleveland Clinic Foundation. All Rights Reserved.