FREE NEJM E-TOC    HOME   |   SUBSCRIBE   |   CURRENT ISSUE   |   PAST ISSUES   |   COLLECTIONS   |   Search Term  Advanced Search

Sign in | Get NEJM's E-Mail Table of Contents — Free | Subscribe

Previous Volume 361:925-927 August 27, 2009 Number 9 Next

	Since this article has no abstract, we have provided an extract of the first 100 words of the full text and any section headings.

	Full Text PDF PDA Full Text Purchase this article Add to Personal Archive Add to Citation Manager Notify a Friend E-mail When Cited E-mail When Letters Appear Related Article by Hillis, L. D. Related Article by Mehta, S. R. PubMed Citation

To the Editor: The Timing of Intervention in Acute Coronary Syndrome (TIMACS) trial reported on by Mehta et al. (May 21 issue)¹ showed that a routine early-intervention strategy was not superior to a delayed-intervention strategy for the prevention of the composite primary outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. There was no evidence of an early hazard associated with early intervention. The authors consider a potentially important finding that in a prespecified subgroup of high-risk patients, early intervention appeared to provide a significant benefit, mainly due to an increased accumulation of events in the delayed-intervention group from 30 days to . . . [Full Text of this Article]

HOME  |  SUBSCRIBE  |  SEARCH  |  CURRENT ISSUE  |  PAST ISSUES  |  COLLECTIONS  |  PRIVACY  |  TERMS OF USE  |  HELP  |  beta.nejm.org Comments and questions? Please contact us. The New England Journal of Medicine is owned, published, and copyrighted © 2009 Massachusetts Medical Society. All rights reserved.