{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.017316017316017316, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004329004329004329, 'mean_word_length': 5.166666666666667, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 1, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Care of elderly patients with chronic symptomatic coronary artery disease: is it TIME to be more offensive?

Young patients with coronary artery disease usually benefit from revascularization in terms of symptom relief and outcome. There are no prospective data available, however, for patients older than age 75 years, for whom quality of life might be more of an issue than quantity of life and for whom risk profiles and comorbidities make treating physicians more reluctant to prescribe an invasive procedure. The recently published Trial of Invasive vs. Medical therapy in Elderly patients (TIME) was the first to address patients > or =75 years of age with chronic angina despite standard medical therapy. The authors discuss the benefits and risks of interventional vs. medical management of chronic, symptomatic coronary artery disease in elderly patients in view of the TIME results and their clinical implications.