Sixty seconds on . . . stents
BMJ 2019; 367 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6666 (Published 22 November 2019) Cite this as: BMJ 2019;367:l6666
All rapid responses
Rapid responses are electronic comments to the editor. They enable our users to debate issues raised in articles published on bmj.com. A rapid response is first posted online. If you need the URL (web address) of an individual response, simply click on the response headline and copy the URL from the browser window. A proportion of responses will, after editing, be published online and in the print journal as letters, which are indexed in PubMed. Rapid responses are not indexed in PubMed and they are not journal articles. The BMJ reserves the right to remove responses which are being wilfully misrepresented as published articles or when it is brought to our attention that a response spreads misinformation.
From March 2022, the word limit for rapid responses will be 600 words not including references and author details. We will no longer post responses that exceed this limit.
The word limit for letters selected from posted responses remains 300 words.
ISCHEMIA has been a 'transformational ' trial stating fairly with clarity who can continue with drug therapy and the ones who may be require to be rushed to the cardiac catheterization laboratory. Too much of apprehension, fear and anxiety does continue to exist when chest pain occurs first and impulsive decisions tend to be taken. Agreeably much will depend on the profile of the patient,presenting symptoms and decision of cardiologist 's assessment in the given situation. Involvement of LAD may be decisive. Yet post trial results , the number of interventions are likely to be reduced and may be delayed considering the progressive nature of atherosclerotic coronary artery disease. Dr Murar E Yeolekar, Mumbai.
Competing interests: No competing interests
Re: Sixty seconds on . . . stents
Dear Editor
I would like to register my concern about this brief piece by Nigel Hawkes.
The tone of this article is derogatory about interventional cardiologists in a blanket fashion. The comments are trite and intellectually lazy... they play on the author’s personal discriminatory bias against this sub specialty without providing any evidence to support it.
Most interventional cardiologists are caring and conscientious doctors. Our track record of producing original research and engaging in the results of quality trials should be very clear to anyone prepared to take the trouble to find it out. The debate generated by the ISCHEMIA trial is actually an ideal example of this.
The worst thing about the flippancy of Hawkes’ contribution is that it takes away our right to be seen as thoughtful and caring doctors just because we are interventional cardiologists. In the days when a quick summary like this will be read and absorbed by colleagues and patients, the lack of objectivity is both disappointing and unacceptable.
Nick Curzen BM (Hons) PhD FRCP
Professor of Interventional Cardiology/Consultant Cardiologist,
University Hospital Southampton NHS Trust
President Elect,
British Cardiovascular Intervention Society
Competing interests: No competing interests