Are invasive methods good for treating the patients suffering from acute coronary syndrome?

In most of the cardiology setups for treating the patients with ACS or acute coronary syndrome include the several steps, and for most of these patients, treating their problem with medications is indicated firstly. There is the less proportion of the patients that are selected for the use of PCI or CABG, etc, yet these invasive techniques are not preferred. In most of these invasive techniques, the results are quite good, yet these techniques are not economical. In western countries, these techniques can be affordable with the help of health insurance; however, in the Eastern and developing countries, undergoing these procedures is not easier. According to the research done in New Orleans, the American heart association has approved that using the invasive treatment for all the patients suffering from ACS will good option and will prevent the huge proportion of the patients from the recurrence of ACS.

According to the research done in McMaster University in Ontario, for the patients who are receiving these techniques will reduce the effects of these complications in the later life by 15%. If this score is put up in the GRACE scoring system, then it goes for 140 or even higher which makes it quite good and reasonable for the medical professionals to use for the treatment of ACS. Along with this, the continuation of the treatment for these conditions can also be further prevented in the future with the use of continued course for the antiplatelets therapy.

According to TIMACS trials and the results shown in AHA, these are significantly same. Both of these trials on the non human subjects has shown that the guidelines for selecting the patients for the early management through the surgical intervention can save the patient and prevent him from the future recurrences. In some setups, there were some different results as expected, however in most of the setups of cardiology in the world, most of the time, the risk stratification for the patients went for the early treatment with PCI or CABG showed marked improvement over the period of six months, while in some cases, patients with the early surgical intervention went on for the deterioration in their condition. In most of the studies done on these guidelines, they were coinciding with it by 78% and hence, most of these are reliable. Regarding the results, some parts in the East are still going with the older protocols because as much as 83% patients with the early management with medications and later with the surgical management are getting better.