Risk After Acute Myocardial Infarction Regional Variation in Cardiac Catheterization Appropriateness and Baseline

[1]  H. Krumholz,et al.  Certificate of Need Regulation and Cardiac Catheterization Appropriateness After Acute Myocardial Infarction , 2007, Circulation.

[2]  J. Tu,et al.  Regional Differences in Process of Care and Outcomes for Older Acute Myocardial Infarction Patients in the United States and Ontario, Canada , 2006, Circulation.

[3]  F. Van de Werf,et al.  Intervention in acute coronary syndromes: do patients undergo intervention on the basis of their risk characteristics? The Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE) , 2005, Heart.

[4]  J V Tu,et al.  Validity of the GRACE (Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events) acute coronary syndrome prediction model for six month post-discharge death in an independent data set , 2005, Heart.

[5]  A. Laupacis,et al.  Risk-treatment mismatch in the pharmacotherapy of heart failure. , 2005, JAMA.

[6]  Therese A. Stukel,et al.  Long-term Outcomes of Regional Variations in Intensity of Invasive vs Medical Management of Medicare Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction , 2005 .

[7]  Á. Avezum,et al.  Access to catheterisation facilities in patients admitted with acute coronary syndrome: multinational registry study , 2005, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[8]  Deepak L. Bhatt,et al.  Utilization of early invasive management strategies for high-risk patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: results from the CRUSADE Quality Improvement Initiative. , 2005, JAMA.

[9]  Deepak L. Bhatt,et al.  Utilization of Early Invasive Management Strategies for High-Risk Patients With Non–ST-Segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndromes: Results From the CRUSADE Quality Improvement Initiative , 2004 .

[10]  G. Lamas,et al.  ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction--executive summary. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to revise the 1999 guidelines for the management of patients wi , 2004, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[11]  M. Mamdani,et al.  Lipid-lowering therapy with statins in high-risk elderly patients: the treatment-risk paradox. , 2004, JAMA.

[12]  A. Laupacis,et al.  Age, risk-benefit trade-offs, and the projected effects of evidence-based therapies , 2004 .

[13]  Á. Avezum,et al.  Predictors of hospital mortality in the global registry of acute coronary events. , 2003, Archives of internal medicine.

[14]  P. Austin,et al.  Waiting times, revascularization modality, and outcomes after acute myocardial infarction at hospitals with and without on-site revascularization facilities in Canada. , 2003, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[15]  Harlan M Krumholz,et al.  Regional variation in the treatment and outcomes of myocardial infarction: investigating New England's advantage. , 2003, American heart journal.

[16]  H. Krumholz,et al.  National and State Trends in Quality of Care for Acute Myocardial Infarction Between 1994-1995 and 1998-1999 , 2003 .

[17]  L. Leape,et al.  Regionalization and the underuse of angiography in the Veterans Affairs Health Care System as compared with a fee-for-service system. , 2003, The New England journal of medicine.

[18]  Carl J Pepine,et al.  ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for the management of patients with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction--summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines (Committee on the Management of Patients , 2002, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[19]  E. Braunwald,et al.  Comparison of early invasive and conservative strategies in patients with unstable coronary syndromes treated with the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofiban. , 2001, The New England journal of medicine.

[20]  B. McNeil,et al.  Appropriateness of coronary angiography after myocardial infarction among Medicare beneficiaries. Managed care versus fee for service. , 2000, The New England journal of medicine.

[21]  H. White,et al.  Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK Investigators. Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock. , 1999, The New England journal of medicine.

[22]  R. Califf,et al.  1999 update: ACC/AHA guidelines for the management of patients with acute myocardial infarction. A report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Acute Myocardial Infarction). , 1996, Journal of the American College of Cardiology.

[23]  J. Zhang,et al.  What's the relative risk? A method of correcting the odds ratio in cohort studies of common outcomes. , 1998, JAMA.

[24]  B. McNeil,et al.  Use of cardiac procedures and outcomes in elderly patients with myocardial infarction in the United States and Canada. , 1997, The New England journal of medicine.

[25]  B. McNeil,et al.  Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery in Ontario and New York State: Which Rate Is Right? , 1997, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[26]  Richard P. Lewis,et al.  ACC/AHA Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction , 1996 .

[27]  David P Miller,et al.  Determinants of the use of coronary angiography and revascularization after thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction. , 1996, The New England journal of medicine.

[28]  B. McNeil,et al.  Variation in the use of cardiac procedures after acute myocardial infarction. , 1995, The New England journal of medicine.

[29]  L. Leape,et al.  Comparison of the appropriateness of coronary angiography and coronary artery bypass graft surgery between Canada and New York State. , 1994, JAMA.