David1949 wrote:Dougl you're looking at the same numbers I'm looking at. Do you have a different conclusion than I reached? You suggest that maybe people were undertreated the first time. Maybe so, but the individual still needed to be retreated. And there is no guarantee that anyone getting the procedure today will not be undertreated the first time too.
i was only commenting on your post where you said "restenosis rate of 67%". my partner is one of the treated more than once but it was not because of restenosis.
if she was treated by Dr. S the first time, she would be under the column "treated once" and your restenosis rate would no longer be 67%.
later you say any kind of retreatment and that is correct. she was treated twice but she did not have restenosis - in fact Dr. S verrified that the first procedure results were still there. stuff was missed.
so my confusion is in the word restenosis. what i should have read is 67% need retreatment for some reason including but not limited to restenosis. yes 67% is not acceptable.
also, in my opinion, there is a way to ensure you will not be undertreated - use IVUS.
i apologize for sounding like i was attacking you. that is not my intent and I am sorry.