Comparison of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI)
No Results
No Results
processing….
The two primary modalities for revascularization are coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). This article briefly discusses the history, indications, applications, and current status of these revascularization procedures. Rapid advances are being made in both PCI and surgical revascularization, and such advances are likely to continue in the years to come.
Completely bioabsorbable stent struts are being developed. [1] Bioabsorbable magnesium stents are being evaluated. [2, 3] The advantages of biodegradable polymers include high drug-loading capacity, controlled long-term drug release, and full degradation of the polymer over a defined period, resulting in full release of the drug during a well-controlled time interval. [3]
Thromboresistant polymer coatings based on biologic substances such as fibrin, collagen, hyaluronic acid, and biologic oils are being tested. These polymers serve as drug delivery reservoirs for drugs that inhibit neointimal hyperplasia through suppression of platelet activation and the inflammatory response and through inhibition of smooth muscle cell migration and proliferation.
The effect of variable dose and release kinetics of drugs on neointimal hyperplasia is also being studied. [4] Multiple drugs may be delivered at timed intervals through newly designed stents.
Gene-eluting stents [5] are undergoing experimental and clinical trials; these will be usable either alone or in conjunction with other drug-eluting stents (DESs) and may further reduce in-stent restenosis (ISR). The ABSORB trial studied the safety of the bioabsorbable everolimus-eluting stent. [6] At 2 years, the stent was bioabsorbed, with vasomotion restored and restenosis prevented, and was clinically safe, suggesting freedom from late thrombosis.
The TRITON-TIMI 38 trial [7] showed that in patients with acute coronary syndromes with scheduled PCI, prasugrel therapy was associated with significantly reduced rates of ischemic events, including stent thrombosis, but with an increased risk of major bleeding, including fatal bleeding. Overall mortality did not differ significantly between treatment groups. Prasugrel has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA). Other antithrombotics are in the pipeline.
Most acute coronary syndromes are caused by rupture of unstable plaques of mild-to-moderate stenosis (< 50%). [8] Stenting of such vulnerable lesions might result in stabilization and prevention of plaque rupture. Likewise, rapid advances have been made in surgical techniques. In the future, PCI and CABG may come to be seen as complementary techniques for myocardial revascularization.
The video below discusses CABG versus PCI in the setting of multivessel coronary artery disease with chronic total occlusion.
In 1953, William Mustard performed the first direct surgical approach to the coronary circulation: a carotid-to-coronary bypass in a patient in Toronto. In 1962, the first surgical myocardial revascularization procedure, the patch graft technique, was performed to repair an obstruction of the left main trunk coronary artery. [9] Subsequently, saphenous vein graft (SVG) interposition became the dominant approach.
Shortly thereafter, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) became the most commonly performed surgical procedure in the United States. Subsequently, advantages of using the left internal mammary artery (LIMA) were demonstrated. [10] Better long-term patency rates and improved late survival were achieved by using the LIMA than by using SVGs.
Since 1986, the LIMA has been used in more than 90% of CABG procedures. Less frequently, the right internal mammary artery (RIMA) is used. However, a large study found that the RIMA is as good as the LIMA for CABG and better than either radial arteries or veins. Radial artery grafts have about the same 1-year patency rates as SVGs. [11]
Use of both the RIMA and the LIMA raises concerns about possible impaired sternotomy healing and infection, but it may be considered if the risk of not using both vessels outweighs the 2.5% risk of infection (eg, if the patient does not have good vein conduits and the LIMA is not sufficient for the number of bypass touchdown sites needed). [12] Most CABG operations involve placement of one or more SVG grafts in addition to use of the LIMA.
In 2004, the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA) published guidelines for CABG, which divide indications into three classes. [13]
Class I indications are as follows:
Class II indications are as follows:
Class III indications are as follows:
The expected benefit from surgery must be weighed against its morbidity and mortality. Improvements in operative techniques and technologies have allowed surgical treatment of more difficult cases.
Early studies comparing CABG with coronary intervention for multivessel disease demonstrated that the two strategies had similar mortalities but that there was an increased need for repeat procedures in the angioplasty and bare-metal stent (BMS) arms. [14, 15] Some studies have demonstrated improved mortality in diabetic subgroups that undergo surgical revascularization, though those findings have not been universal.
Before the widespread use of drug-eluting stents, the main advantages of CABG over percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) included a lower rate of repeat procedures, greater success with chronically occluded coronary arteries, and protection of the entire vessel proximal to the distal anastomosis of a mammary graft. The primary disadvantage of CABG is the higher rate of upfront risks and complications.
Drug-eluting stents have improved PCI results, particularly with regard to repeat revascularization, and there is hope that a decrease in restenosis with drug-eluting stents (DESs) will reduce the need for repeat procedures in patients with multivessel disease that was treated with PCI. Large clinical trials comparing surgery and PCI with DESs (eg, SYNTAX, CARDIA, FREEDOM, and VA CARDS) [16, 17, 18] should provide more data on this critical issue.
Results from the SYNTAX trial showed that the rates of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events at 12 months were significantly higher in the PCI group (17.8% vs 12.4% for CABG), in large part because of an increased rate of repeat revascularization (13.5% vs 5.9%). [16] At 12 months, the rates of death and myocardial infarction (MI) were comparable in the two groups; stroke was significantly more likely to occur with CABG (2.2% vs 0.6% with PCI).
Advances in CABG have enabled surgeons to avoid having to perform a median sternotomy, thereby reducing pain and respiratory complications and preventing the large scar associated with this incision. Minimally invasive CABG includes surgical techniques that allow access to the heart through small thoracotomy incisions with endoscopic robotic surgery using a computer-enhanced telemanipulation system. [19, 20, 21]
Off-pump CABG (OPCABG) usually involves a medial sternotomy but avoids cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), thus perhaps reducing bleeding and the frequency of renal failure. Minimally invasive direct CABG (MIDCABG) can be performed with or without CPB.
Robotic CABG
In robotic CABG, the surgeon, seated at a computer console, introduces instruments through small incisions in the chest and manipulates them with robotic arms. Early results of robotic coronary endoscopic surgery were successful on anterior vessels, and this success led to the development of complete multivessel endoscopic CABG. [19, 20, 21]
Minimally invasive direct CABG
In MIDCABG without CPB, the LIMA is harvested under direct visualization through a small left anterior thoracotomy incision or via an endoscopic approach through a small porthole incision. One end of a free segment of the inferior epigastric artery, the radial artery, or the saphenous vein is attached in an end-to-side fashion to the LIMA (which is anastomosed to the left anterior descending [LAD] artery), and the other end extends the bypass to other accessible coronary arteries (eg, diagonal or circumflex branches), in the form of a T or Y graft. [22]
Small thoracic incisions substantially reduce the morbidity related to median sternotomy and offer a quicker recovery, though wound complications occur in as many as 9% of patients. [23] Although other arteries can be accessed, the anterior MIDCABG approach is best suited for the anterior coronary vessels.
MIDCABG without CPB is primarily performed in the following circumstances:
MIDCABG to the LAD in conjunction with PCI of the right coronary artery or left circumflex artery is also performed. [27, 28] This procedure is done off the pump through a small anterior thoracotomy. Typically, MIDCABG offers access only to the LAD and diagonal coronary arteries. Hybrid MIDCABG is not widely used, because of limited exposure and the increased difficulty of harvesting the mammary artery. Furthermore, thoracotomy may cause more pain than sternotomy.
When MIDCABG is done through a limited anterior thoracotomy with CPB, antegrade and retrograde cardioplegia is delivered to produce optimal myocardial protection. The empty decompressed heart is still and bloodless. This approach offers enhanced myocardial protection, better access, and greater freedom to manipulate and expose the entire heart, which is necessary for multivessel CABG.
Off-pump CABG
OPCABG is performed via a conventional median sternotomy, which facilitates harvest of the internal mammary artery and access to all coronary arteries. Specialized cardiac retraction and myocardial stabilization platforms improve the accuracy and ease of distal anastomosis on the beating heart, [29, 30] facilitating the achievement of complete standard anastomoses. Temporary endovascular shunts are used to limit myocardial ischemia.
In the Surgical Management of Arterial Revascularization Therapies (SMART) trial, 197 patients were randomly assigned to either OPCABG or conventional CABG performed by a single surgeon; a mean of 3.2 grafts per patient were placed. [31] Rates of death, stroke, MI, recurrent angina, and revascularization at 30 days and 1 year were similar. The quality of life was comparable in the two groups, and the cost of care was modestly reduced with OPCABG.
The main advantage of OPCABG is that it prevents complications of artificial perfusion and CPB, including reductions in inflammatory response, postoperative infection, and atrial fibrillation. [32, 33]
The Society of Thoracic Surgeons database revealed that CABG without CPB (ie, beating-heart surgery) represented 10% of all CABG procedures in the United States from 1998 to 1999. [34] This number increased to approximately 25% of isolated CABG procedures in 2001. [35]
In a single-center randomized trial, 308 patients undergoing CABG were randomly assigned to OPCABG and CPB; no difference was found between groups with respect to the combined endpoint of death, MI, further revascularization (surgery or angioplasty), or stroke at 5-year follow-up. [36]
Port-access CABG
In port-access CABG, the grafting is performed through small incisions, but with conventional CPB. The connections to the bypass machine are made through the femoral vessels rather than through the open chest. This approach is time-consuming, technically difficult, and potentially risky for patients with lower-extremity arterial or venous insufficiency. Consequently, it has not been widely applied.
In 1977, Andreas Grüntzig performed the first coronary angioplasty as a nonsurgical method for coronary artery revascularization. [37] In 2005, more than 600,000 percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) procedures were performed in the United States. Originally, angioplasty was performed only in stable patients with a single discrete, noncalcified, proximal, concentric lesion in a single vessel; currently, such patients constitute a minority of those undergoing PCI.
Balloon angioplasty and coronary stenting are the mainstays of PCI. Other technologies include devices that ablate plaque (atherectomy), devices that remove clots from vessels (thrombectomy), and devices that capture and remove embolic debris (embolic protection).
Class I indications for PCI are as follows [38] :
Class II indications for PCI are as follows:
Class III indications for PCI are as follows:
A large multicenter cohort study evaluating data from patients 65 years or older who underwent elective PCI procedures suggests that same-day discharge can be considered for select patients who have low-risk clinical features, successful procedures without prolonged postprocedure use of parenteral antithrombotic agents, and adequate social support. [39]
The original technique of balloon angioplasty involved advancing a balloon-tipped catheter to an area of coronary narrowing, inflating the balloon, and then removing the catheter after deflation. Balloon angioplasty can reduce the severity of coronary stenosis, improve coronary flow, and diminish or eliminate objective and subjective manifestations of ischemia. To refine PCI techniques, medications and devices that replace or serve as adjuncts to the balloon catheter continue to be developed.
The mechanism of balloon angioplasty action involves three events: plaque fracture, compression of the plaque, and stretching of the vessel wall. [40] These lead to expansion of the external elastic lumina and axial plaque redistribution along the length of the vessel.
Coronary stents are metallic scaffolds that are deployed within a diseased coronary artery segment to maintain wide luminal patency (see the first image below). They were devised as permanent endoluminal prostheses that could seal dissections, create a predictably large initial lumen, and prevent early recoil and late vascular remodeling so as to improve on both the early and the late results of balloon angioplasty (see the second image below).
Stents have become the most important development in interventional cardiology since the development of the balloon and the steerable guide wire systems. The first human coronary stent implants occurred in 1986 in France. The stent was an interwoven, helical, self-expanding design (Wallstent). A wire coil stent was used in 1987 in the United States. Stents were first applied to treat arteries that become acutely occluded after angioplasty.
Drug-eluting stents (DESs) elute medication to reduce restenosis within the stents (see the image below). Local release of rapamycin and its derivatives or of paclitaxel from a polymer matrix on the stent during the 30 days after implantation reduces inflammation and smooth muscle cell proliferation within the stent, decreasing in-stent late loss of luminal diameter from the usual 1 mm to as little as 0.2 mm. This dramatically lowers the restenosis rate after initial stent implantation or after secondary implantation of a DES for an in-stent restenosis. [41]
A meta-analysis of 16 randomized trials suggested that sirolimus-eluting stents are superior to paclitaxel-eluting stents in terms of a significant reduction in the risk of reintervention and stent thrombosis. The risk of death was not significantly different between the two DESs, but there was a trend toward a higher risk of MI with paclitaxel-eluting stents, especially in the first year after the procedure. [42]
Everolimus is a derivative of sirolimus and has immunosuppressive and antiproliferative properties. The SPIRIT III trial randomly assigned 1002 patients with one or two de-novo coronary artery lesions to everolimus-eluting low-profile, thin-strut stents or to paclitaxel-eluting polymer-based stents. [43] The everolimus stents yielded significantly better event-free survival rates at 2-year follow-up, with evidence of continued divergence of hazard curves for target vessel failure and major adverse cardiac events between 1 and 2 years. [43]
The ENDEAVOR II trial randomly assigned almost 1200 patients to the zotarolimus-eluting stent or the same bare-metal stent (BMS) without the drug; at 9 months, target lesion revascularization was significantly lower with the zotarolimus stent (4.6 vs 11.8%). The above 4 stents are presently the approved DESs in the United States, although additional DESs are in the pipeline.
In the ZEST trial, Park et al observed that zotarolimus-eluting stents had similar rates of major adverse cardiac events (ie, death, myocardial infarction, ischemia-driven revascularization) at 12 months as compared with sirolimus-eluting stents and lower rates of such events as compared with paclitaxel-eluting stents. [44]
Clinical trials have found DESs to be superior to BMSs for preventing in-stent restenosis and target vessel revascularization. In most studies, DESs reduced the need for repeat revascularization by more than 50% (to less than 5%) as compared with BMSs. [45, 46, 47] This is the chief reason for the reduction in major adverse cardiac events in the first 2 years after PCI in patients receiving DESs as opposed to BMSs. [48] Clinical introduction of DESs correlates with a decline in referrals for CABG. [49]
Some reports have questioned the safety of DESs, suggesting that these devices are more frequently associated with stent thrombosis. [41, 50, 51] However, extended follow-up of patient cohorts to 4 years confirms the sustained benefit of DESs in decreasing the need for repeat revascularization without excess death or MI. [41, 52, 53]
A meta-analysis by Lee et al suggests that DESs have advantages over BMSs in SVG interventions. [54] In a comparison of the two stent types that involved 19 studies including 3420 patients, target-vessel revascularization was less frequently performed in patients who had undergone intervention with a DES, and the incidence of MI was lower. No differences were found in the risk of death or stent thrombosis.
Concern are still being raised that subsets of patients may be at increased risk for stent thrombosis if DESs are used in higher-risk off-label indications (eg, bifurcations, long lesions, small-diameter vessels, vein grafts, or restenotic disease). Hence, larger and longer follow-up studies of patients incorporating standard definitions of stent thrombosis and close monitoring of antiplatelet therapy compliance are needed. [55]
An analysis based on the database of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) Dynamic Registry concluded that even among patients with off-label indications, the use of DESs was not associated with a higher risk of death or MI than the use of BMSs but was associated with a lower rate of repeat revascularization at 1 year. [56] Various clinical trials have revealed that results of stent implantation depend on the patient’s risk profile, lesion characteristics, and other components of the coronary anatomy.
An important issue that remains to be resolved is the duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after DES implantation. Current guidelines recommend the administration of clopidogrel 75 mg/day to all post-PCI patients receiving a stent. Clopidogrel 75 mg/day should be given for at least 12 months if the patient is not at high risk for bleeding after receiving a DES.
For post-PCI patients receiving a BMS, clopidogrel should be given for a minimum of 1 month and ideally for as long as 12 months (unless the patient is at increased risk for bleeding, in which case the drug should be given for a minimum of 2 weeks). However, the optimal duration of clopidogrel therapy after 1 year has not been established and should depend on the risk–benefit ratio for the individual patient.
An open discussion about the need for and risks of dual antiplatelet therapy before placement of stents, especially DESs, should be undertaken by the physician. When patients are unwilling to or unable to comply with prolonged dual antiplatelet therapy, a BMS is preferred to a DES. See the images below.
In 1989, two randomized trials, the Stent Restenosis Study (STRESS) and the Belgium Netherlands Stent (BENESTENT) Study, compared stenting with balloon angioplasty, and their findings led to the approval of coronary stents. [57, 58] The superiority of stents in these trials was, at best, marginal. They reduced restenosis of the coronary artery without improving clinical outcome, at the cost of a higher rate of sudden coronary thrombosis and a marked increase in hemorrhagic complications resulting from drugs administered to prevent stent thrombosis.
Subsequent refinements in stent strategies improved clinical results dramatically. High-pressure poststent balloon inflations to provide complete expansion of stent devices [59] and replacement of warfarin by a thienopyridine (first ticlopidine, then clopidogrel) reduced stent thrombosis and hemorrhagic complications.
Compared with angioplasty, current BMSs reduce the frequency of restenosis and the need for a repeat revascularization procedure by approximately 50% (from 20-30% to 10-15%). Emergency coronary bypass rates have been brought down below 0.5%, coronary occlusion occurs less now with stents than it did with balloon angioplasty, and vascular complications arise less commonly than ever before. The improvement in outcomes with stents resulted in rapid transition from the traditional balloon angioplasty to PCI with stenting.
Currently, coronary stents are used in about 90% of interventional procedures. Stent-assisted coronary intervention has now replaced CABG as the most common revascularization modality in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and is used in patients with multivessel disease and complex coronary anatomy.
Atherectomy
The directional coronary atherectomy (DCA) catheter was first used in human peripheral vessels in 1985 and in coronary arteries in 1986. [60] In this procedure, a low-pressure positioning balloon presses a windowed steel housing up against the lesion; any plaque that protrudes into the window is shaved from the lesion by a spinning cup-shaped cutter and trapped in the device’s nose cone.
The Coronary Angioplasty Versus Excisional Atherectomy Trial (CAVEAT) demonstrated that atherectomy led to a higher rate of early complications, increased cost, and provided no apparent clinical benefit after 6 months of follow-up observation. [61] By 1994, stenting produced results similar to those of DCA, with fewer complications. Coronary DCA is rarely performed at present.
Rotational atherectomy uses a high-speed mechanical rotational stainless steel burr with a diamond chip–embedded surface. The burr is attached to a hollow flexible drive shaft that permits it to be advanced over a steerable guide wire with a platinum coil tip. The drive shaft is encased within a Teflon sheath through which flush solution is pumped to lubricate and cool the drive shaft and burr. A compressed air turbine rotates the drive shaft at 140,000-200,000 rpm during advancement across the lesion.
Rotational atherectomy is used in fewer than 5% of patients with PCI but is invaluable in patients with heavily calcified blockages, particularly those in which a balloon cannot be inflated.
Laser ablation
In laser ablation, an intense light beam travels via optical fibers within a catheter and enters the coronary lumen. After the target lesion is crossed with the guide wire, the laser catheter is advanced to the proximal end of the lesion. Blood and contrast medium are removed from the target vessel by flushing with saline before activating the laser. In view of their substantial cost and the lack of clinical benefit in comparison with other mechanical therapies, ablative laser techniques have not entered mainstream practice.
Mechanical thrombectomy
Intracoronary thrombi may be treated with mechanical thrombectomy devices (including rheolytic, suction, and ultrasonic thrombectomy devices). Although demonstrating the efficacy of such devices in randomized trials is difficult, dramatic results are often obtained in individual cases.
In rheolytic thrombectomy, high-speed water jets create suction via the Bernoulli-Venturi effect. The jets exit orifices near the catheter tip and spray back into the mouth of the catheter, creating a low-pressure region and intense suction. This suction pulls surrounding blood, thrombus, and saline into the tip opening and propels particles proximally through the catheter lumen and out of the body.
The catheters used for suction thrombectomy act via manual aspiration. They are advanced over a wire to the intracoronary thrombus, then passed through the thrombus while suction is applied to a hole in the catheter tip. Large intact thrombus fragments can be removed by means of this technique.
Ultrasonic thrombectomy involves the use of ultrasonic vibration to induce cavitation that can fragment thrombus into smaller components. The efficacy of this technique remains unproven and is under investigation. [62]
Embolization protection
Balloons and stents dislodge fragments of friable plaque or thrombus. Particle embolization appears to be one of the main causes of no-reflow and elevation of cardiac enzyme levels during SVG intervention. [63, 64] Several devices have been developed, undergone clinical trial evaluation, and gained regulatory approval for trapping such embolic material and removing it from the circulation (see the image below).
The Saphenous Vein Graft Angioplasty Free of Emboli Randomized (SAFER) trial was the first large trial that demonstrated the beneficial effect of protection devices on clinical outcomes. [65] Currently, use of these devices is a class I recommendation when PCI is being performed on SVGs. [38]
Aspirin should be administered before undergoing any coronary revascularization procedure. Pretreatment with 75-325 mg of aspirin is recommended in patients undergoing either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). For long-term treatment, aspirin 75-325 mg/day is recommended. For long-term treatment after PCI in patients who receive antithrombotic agents such as warfarin, lower dosages (eg, 75-100 mg/day) are advised. [66]
Patients who undergo pretreatment with clopidogrel before PCI have better 30-day outcomes than patients who are not treated; the rate of death and myocardial infarction (MI) is reduced by nearly 39%. [67]
Currently, 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy is recommended for all patients who receive a drug-eluting stent (DES) [68] unless there is a high risk of bleeding. The benefits and indications for treatment with dual antiplatelet therapy beyond 1 year in patients with a DES are the subject of ongoing studies. Low-dose aspirin should be continued indefinitely.
For patients with clinical features associated with stent thrombosis (eg, renal insufficiency, diabetes, or procedural characteristics such as multiple stents or treatment of a bifurcation lesion), extended dual antiplatelet therapy beyond 1 year may be reasonable. The risk of stent thrombosis must be balanced against the risk of other medical conditions and nonmedical factors that might affect the risk-benefit ratio of dual antiplatelet therapy as compared with other therapies.
Unfractionated heparin (UFH) administered to achieve a target activated clotting time (ACT) longer than 200 seconds is recommended when a glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitor is used. In patients who do not receive a GPIIb/IIIa inhibitor, the target ACT should be 250-350 seconds. Administration of additional anticoagulation to low-molecular-weight heparin depends on the timing of the last dose.
The STEEPLE study [69] randomly assigned 3528 patients who underwent PCI to receive enoxaparin or UFH adjusted for ACT. In the setting of elective PCI, a single intravenous (IV) bolus of enoxaparin 0.5 mg/kg is associated with reduced rates of bleeding, and a dose of 0.75 mg/kg yields rates similar to those for unfractionated heparin, with more predictable anticoagulation levels.
In patients with acute coronary syndrome who are undergoing PCI without clopidogrel, a GPIIb/IIIa inhibitor in addition to heparin is a class I indication. Administration of these inhibitors is reasonable in patients with acute coronary syndrome who have undergone clopidogrel pretreatment and in those who have undergone elective PCI with stent placement. The greatest advantage of GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors is their ability to reduce periprocedural MI.
The three GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors are the following:
Significant pharmacologic differences exist. For example, the platelet-bound half-life is long for abciximab and shorter for eptifibatide and tirofiban. The relative clinical efficacy of abciximab, tirofiban, and eptifibatide at the recommended doses is still uncertain.
Abciximab and tirofiban were compared in the TARGET trial, in which 4809 patients undergoing nonemergent stent-based PCI were randomly assigned to one agent or the other immediately before revascularization. [70] At 30 days after revascularization, tirofiban offered less protection from major ischemic events than abciximab did. However, by 6 months’ follow-up, there was no significant difference between the two drugs with respect to the combined endpoint or the individual endpoints. [71]
The only benefit from abciximab in TARGET appeared to be a reduction in procedure-related MI, primarily in patients with an acute coronary syndrome. [71] Although the exact reason for this is not known, a likely possibility is that more potent GPIIb/IIIa blockade occurred with abciximab at the doses used in the trial.
The Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy Timing (ACUITY) trial revealed that bivalirudin plus a GPIIb/IIIa inhibitor was not inferior to heparin plus a GPIIb/IIIa inhibitor at 30 days. The Randomized Evaluation in PCI Linking Angiomax to Reduced Clinical Events (REPLACE-2) trial revealed that bivalirudin with provisional GPIIb/IIIa blockade was not inferior to heparin plus planned GPIIb/IIIa blockade during PCI and was associated with less bleeding. [72]
Therefore, bivalirudin can be used as an alternative to heparin both in patients who are not treated with GPIIb/IIIa antagonists and as an adjunct to GPIIb/IIIa antagonists in patients at high risk for bleeding.
In subgroups of patients with high-risk acute coronary syndrome (eg, the troponin-positive group), an increase in ischemic events was seen in the bivalirudin arm if subjects were not pretreated with clopidogrel. Bivalirudin can be used as an alternative to heparin in patients with acute coronary syndromes.
Even in patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI) who are undergoing primary PCI, anticoagulation with bivalirudin alone, as compared with heparin plus GPIIb/IIIa inhibitors, was shown to result in significantly reduced 30-day rates of major bleeding and net adverse clinical events in the HORIZONS-AMI study. [73]
Parodi et al compared bivalirudin and UFH plus protamine in patients undergoing elective percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) who were pretreated with clopidogrel and aspirin; less major bleeding and fewer ischemic complications were observed in the patients who received bivalirudin than in those who received UFH plus protamine. [74]
Complications of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) have been categorized as major (eg, death, myocardial infarction [MI], stroke, and emergency repeat revascularization) [75, 76] or minor (eg, transient ischemic attack, access-site complications [77] , renal insufficiency [78] , and adverse reactions to radiographic contrast).
Additional specific complications include intracoronary thrombosis, coronary perforation, tamponade, and arrhythmias. Bleeding is an increasingly worrisome complication because of the more common use of potent antithrombin and antiplatelet agents. [79] Late subacute thrombosis was observed in some series, particularly in patients who received drug-eluting stents (DESs). [80]
Stroke and other neurologic complications are the most feared morbidity of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG); the incidence of clinically obvious stroke is 0.8-5.2%. [81] Although coronary bypass surgery without cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) may be associated with a lower risk of stroke, no randomized trial has demonstrated a lower incidence of stroke after off-pump surgery.
Deep sternal wound infection occurs in 1-4% of patients after CABG [82] and carries a mortality of nearly 25%. It is associated with obesity, diabetes, reoperation, use of both internal mammary arteries, and longer procedures.
Another common complication is postoperative renal dysfunction, defined as either a serum creatinine concentration of 2 mg/dL or higher or an increase of 0.7 mg/dL or more in comparison with preoperative values. MI can occur as a perioperative complication in 4-5% of patients. [83]
In-hospital mortality is approximately 1% for the lowest-risk elective patients and 2-5% for all patients. Risk varies in accordance with the presence or absence of comorbid conditions, the surgeon’s skill and experience, and the hospital’s volume of CABG procedures. Low albumin and age are strong predictors of adverse outcomes. Mortality may be as high as 20% if mitral valve surgery is needed in addition to CABG. [84]
Randomized clinical trials have assessed the outcomes of patients treated with medical therapy, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). However, relatively few have been performed since the advent of drug-eluting stents (DESs).
By the early 1980s, researchers had observed an improved quality of life, a decrease in the rate of myocardial ischemia, and an increase in the survival rate after CABG (compared with medical therapy) in selected subsets of patients (eg, those with left main coronary artery obstruction or 3-vessel disease, particularly those with a proximal left anterior descending (LAD) artery obstruction). [85]
In 1994, Yusuf et al [86] published a meta-analysis of 10-year results from randomized clinical trials in patients with stable angina, of whom 1324 were assigned to CABG and 1325 to medical treatment, and found that CABG conferred a survival benefit. The analysis demonstrated that a CABG improved survival compared with medical therapy (with crossover to surgery as needed) for patients with left main disease or three-vessel disease with reduced ventricular function, and, possibly, three-vessel disease with normal left ventricular function.
The meta-analysis showed that the CABG patients lived longer during a follow-up period of 10 years than those initially assigned to medical therapy. [86] A high crossover rate from medical therapy to surgery was observed (25% at 5 years and 41% at 10 years). Other data suggest that patients with two-vessel disease with proximal LAD involvement may also derive a survival advantage with CABG. [87]
However, the medical therapy administered to patients randomized to the medical therapy arms of these trials predated the routine use of aspirin, beta blockers, statins, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, angiotensin-receptor blockers, and calcium blockers, all of which improve survival, reduce angina, or both. Surgical therapy has also improved since these trials; the left internal mammary artery (LIMA) was used in only 14% of the patients enrolled in the trials.
With all of the improvements in medical and surgical therapy taken into account, CABG is still favored for patients with multivessel disease and reduced ventricular function. However, CABG has not been shown to be superior to complete revascularization with DESs.
Results of a randomized trial by Velazquez et al showed no significant difference in the death rate between patients with heart failure and coronary artery disease who underwent medical therapy alone and patients with the same conditions who underwent medical therapy plus CABG. [88]
In this study, 1212 patients with an ejection fraction of 35% or less and coronary artery disease (CAD) amenable to CABG were randomized to receive either medical therapy alone or medical therapy plus CABG. The primary outcome, death from any cause, occurred in 244 (41%) of the patients in the medical therapy group and 218 (36%) of those in the medical therapy plus CABG group. However, patients who underwent CABG, as opposed to those who received medical therapy only, had lower mortalities from cardiovascular causes. [88]
In a substudy of these patients, investigators assessed myocardial viability using single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), dobutamine echocardiography, or both; they were unable to identify a survival benefit from CABG as compared with medical therapy alone. [89]
The BARI 2D randomly assigned 2368 patients with both type 2 diabetes and heart disease to undergo either prompt revascularization with intensive medical therapy or intensive medical therapy alone and to undergo either insulin-sensitization or insulin-provision therapy. Primary endpoints were the rate of death and a composite of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (major cardiovascular events). [90]
In the CABG stratum of this study (n = 763), the rate of major cardiovascular events was significantly lower in the revascularization group (22.4%) than in the medical-therapy group (30.5%). The death rate did not differ significantly between the revascularization group and the medical therapy group in either the CABG arm or the PCI arm. [90]
Stable angina
The COURAGE trial [91] randomized 2287 patients with objective evidence of myocardial ischemia and stable CAD to an initial management strategy of either PCI plus optimal medical therapy or optimal medical therapy alone. PCI did not reduce the risk of death, myocardial infarction, or other major cardiovascular events when added to optimal medical therapy.
An initial strategy of PCI added to optimal medical therapy relieved angina and improved self-assessed health status to a greater extent than an initial strategy of optimal medical therapy alone for approximately 24 months. A greater benefit from PCI was observed in those patients with more severe and more frequent angina. [92]
Thus, patients with chronic CAD may expect relief from angina with either treatment strategy, and both strategies can have a profoundly positive effect on patients’ health status. The roles could be complementary, and some experts have suggested that optimal medical therapy might be considered first-line therapy, with PCI reserved for patients who do not have a response or who have severe baseline symptoms.
In COURAGE patients who underwent serial myocardial perfusion SPECT, adding PCI to optimal medical therapy resulted in greater reduction of ischemia than optimal medical therapy alone did. Rates of death or MI were directly proportional to the extent and severity of ischemia on the 6- to 18-month myocardial perfusion SPECT study. [93]
Acute coronary syndromes
A meta-analysis of 8 randomized controlled trials concluded that in acute coronary syndromes, an invasive strategy is beneficial in men and high-risk women for reducing the composite endpoint of death, MI, or rehospitalization with acute coronary syndrome. In contrast, the data supported a conservative strategy in low-risk women. [94]
In the guidelines published by the American College of Cardiology (ACC) and the American Heart Association (AHA), an early invasive strategy is indicated for those who have refractory angina or hemodynamic or electrical instability (without serious comorbidities or contraindications to such procedures) and in initially stabilized patients who have an elevated risk for clinical events. [95]
This recommendation is in accord with findings from other major contemporary trials (including FRISC-2, [96] TACTICS-TIMI18, [97] and RITA-3 [98] ), which indicated that the greatest benefit from an invasive strategy was achieved in high-risk patients, particularly those with refractory angina, elevated cardiac troponin levels, dynamic ST-segment changes, and diabetes mellitus.
ST-segment elevation MI
The two types of reperfusion therapy are PCI capability and pharmacologic reperfusion. The DANish trial in Acute Myocardial Infarction (DANAMI) found that patients treated at facilities without interventional cardiology capabilities had better outcomes with transfer for PCI within 2 hours of presentation than with pharmacologic reperfusion treatment at the local hospital. [99]
However, when PCI capability is available, the best outcomes are achieved by offering this strategy 24 hours per day, 7 days per week. [100] In hospitals without PCI capability, immediate transfer for primary PCI is a treatment option when the expected door-to-balloon time is within 90 minutes of first medical contact. [101]
Better outcomes with primary PCI should not undermine the importance of fibrinolytic therapy. This is particularly relevant in that many hospital systems cannot consistently meet the time goal for primary PCI. [102] The aim with fibrinolytic therapy is to deliver the drug within 30 minutes of the time that the patient presents to the hospital. In these settings, transfer protocols need to be in place for arranging rescue PCI when clinically indicated. [103]
The fundamental concept is that faster times to reperfusion and better systems of care are associated with important reductions in morbidity and mortality rates in patients with ST-segment elevation MI (STEMI).
Another strategy that once appeared promising but has fallen out of vogue is facilitated PCI, a strategy of planned immediate PCI after an initial pharmacologic regimen (eg, full-dose fibrinolysis, half-dose fibrinolysis, a glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitor, or a combination of reduced-dose fibrinolytic therapy and a platelet GPIIb/IIIa inhibitor). A planned reperfusion strategy using full-dose fibrinolytic therapy followed by immediate PCI is not recommended and is a class III recommendation according to the ACC/AHA guidelines. [104]
Facilitated PCI using regimens other than full-dose fibrinolytic therapy might be considered as a reperfusion strategy (class IIb recommendation) when the following are true:
The Occluded Artery Trial (OAT) tested the hypothesis that mechanical opening of a persistently occluded infarct-related artery at a time too late for myocardial salvage would improve long-term outcome. [105] It randomized patients to a strategy of medical therapy or routine PCI for total occlusion of the infarct-related artery 3-28 days after acute MI. The composite endpoint included death, reinfarction, or New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV heart failure.
Contrary to the hypothesized benefit, the study showed high rates of procedural success with PCI and sustained patency but no clinical benefit with respect to death, reinfarction, or heart failure during an average 3-year follow-up. [105]
Several clinical trials have compared CABG and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA), including the Coronary Angioplasty Versus Bypass Revascularization Investigation (CABRI), the Randomized Intervention Treatment of Angina (RITA) trial, the Emory Angioplasty versus Surgery Trial (EAST), the German Angioplasty Bypass Surgery Investigation (GABI), and the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI).
Analyzed separately and together, these studies demonstrated that in patients with multivessel disease, the rates of death and MI during 1 to 10 years’ follow-up was similar when initial PTCA was compared with initial CABG. However, results of the two treatment modalities differed in that patients who underwent angioplasty required additional revascularization procedures much more commonly than did patients who underwent CABG because of the recurrence of symptoms (most commonly restenosis).
Patients who underwent CABG had longer initial hospitalizations and a longer period of convalescence but typically enjoyed greater relief of angina. A meta-analysis that compared eight trials of CABG with angioplasty demonstrated no differences in hospital stay, mortality, or MI rate at 1 year [106] ; the main difference was in the number of repeat procedures.
Five randomized trials compared CABG with PCI in patients with multivessel disease in whom bare-metal stents (BMSs) were routinely placed during the PCI procedure. As in the CABG-versus-PTCA trials mentioned above, the frequencies of death and MI were similar in the two arms during the follow-up periods. Repeat revascularization was more common for those treated with stents than in those treated with CABG. The death and MI frequencies were half those observed in the older balloon angioplasty comparison trials.
In a meta-analysis of 23 randomized controlled trials, [107] 5019 patients randomly assigned to undergo PCI were compared with 4944 patients randomly assigned to undergo CABG. CABG was more effective than PCI in relieving angina and led to fewer repeated revascularizations but had a higher risk for procedural stroke. Survival to 10 years was similar for both procedures.
Although current ACC/AHA guidelines recommend CABG for the treatment of patients with unprotected left main CAD, that recommendation is based on clinical trials demonstrating a survival advantage for CABG as compared with medical therapy.
A meta-analysis by Lee et al suggests that PCI using a DES is safe in this patient population and could represent a good alternative to CABG in selected cases. [108] At 1-year follow-up in 2905 patients from eight clinical studies, no significant difference was noted in risk of death, MI, or stroke between the CABG and PCI groups, though the risk for target vessel revascularization was significantly lower in the CABG group.
Similarly, in 5-year results from the MAIN-COMPARE (Revascularization for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty Versus Surgical Revascularization) registry, stenting and CABG showed similar rates of death and of the composite endpoint of death, Q-wave MI, or stroke in patients with unprotected left main CAD. Rates of target vessel revascularization were higher with stenting, however. [109]
Comparisons of current medical therapy, catheter intervention, and bypass surgery show that patients whose disease is well controlled by medical therapy do not gain a survival benefit from PCI or CABG and that those whose disease is not adequately controlled by optimal medical therapy have similar outcomes regardless of whether they undergo PCI or CABG.
An early invasive strategy is recommended for those patients who have refractory angina or hemodynamic or electrical instability or acute presentation and elevated risk for clinical events, preferably via quick access to a 24/7 intervention service. [110]
Enrollment is under way for several large randomized trials comparing CABG and DESs.
Waksman R. Biodegradable stents: they do their job and disappear. J Invasive Cardiol. 2006 Feb. 18(2):70-4. [Medline].
Erne P, Schier M, Resink TJ. The road to bioabsorbable stents: reaching clinical reality?. Cardiovasc Intervent Radiol. 2006 Jan-Feb. 29(1):11-6. [Medline].
Heublein B, Rohde R, Kaese V, et al. Biocorrosion of magnesium alloys: a new principle in cardiovascular implant technology?. Heart. 2003 Jun. 89(6):651-6. [Medline].
Serruys PW, Sianos G, Abizaid A, et al. The effect of variable dose and release kinetics on neointimal hyperplasia using a novel paclitaxel-eluting stent platform: the Paclitaxel In-Stent Controlled Elution Study (PISCES). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005 Jul 19. 46(2):253-60. [Medline].
Sharif F, Hynes SO, McMahon J, et al. Gene-eluting stents: comparison of adenoviral and adeno- associated viral gene delivery to the blood vessel wall in vivo. Hum Gene Ther. 2006 Jul. 17(7):741-50. [Medline].
Serruys PW, Ormiston JA, Onuma Y, Regar E, Gonzalo N, Garcia-Garcia HM. A bioabsorbable everolimus-eluting coronary stent system (ABSORB): 2-year outcomes and results from multiple imaging methods. Lancet. 2009 Mar 14. 373(9667):897-910. [Medline].
Wiviott SD, Braunwald E, McCabe CH, Montalescot G, Ruzyllo W, Gottlieb S. Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2007 Nov 15. 357(20):2001-15. [Medline].
Yang YM, Moussa I. Percutaneous coronary intervention and drug-eluting stents. CMAJ. 2005 Feb 1. 172(3):323-5. [Medline].
Effler DB, Groves LK, Sones FM Jr, et al. Endarterectomy in the treatment of coronary artery disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1964 Jan. 47:98-108. [Medline].
Loop FD, Lytle BW, Cosgrove DM, et al. Influence of the internal-mammary-artery graft on 10-year survival and other cardiac events. N Engl J Med. 1986 Jan 2. 314(1):1-6. [Medline].
Goldman S, Sethi GK, Holman W, Thai H, McFalls E, Ward HB, et al. Radial artery grafts vs saphenous vein grafts in coronary artery bypass surgery: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2011 Jan 12. 305(2):167-74. [Medline].
Tatoulis J, Buxton BF, Fuller JA. The right internal thoracic artery: the forgotten conduit-5,766 patients and 991 angiograms. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011 Jul. 92(1):9-17. [Medline].
[Guideline] Eagle KA, Guyton RA, Davidoff R, Edwards FH, Ewy GA, Gardner TJ, et al. ACC/AHA 2004 guideline update for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1999 Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery). Circulation. 2004 Oct 5. 110 (14):e340-437. [Medline].
Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with angioplasty in patients with multivessel disease. The Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1996 Jul 25. 335(4):217-25. [Medline].
Serruys PW, Unger F, Sousa JE, et al. Comparison of coronary-artery bypass surgery and stenting for the treatment of multivessel disease. N Engl J Med. 2001 Apr 12. 344(15):1117-24. [Medline].
Ong AT, Serruys PW, Mohr FW, et al. The SYNergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with TAXus and cardiac surgery (SYNTAX) study: design, rationale, and run-in phase. Am Heart J. 2006 Jun. 151(6):1194-204. [Medline].
Kapur A, Malik IS, Bagger JP, et al. The Coronary Artery Revascularisation in Diabetes (CARDia) trial: background, aims, and design. Am Heart J. 2005 Jan. 149(1):13-9. [Medline].
Serruys PW, Kutryk MJ, Ong AT. Coronary-artery stents. N Engl J Med. 2006 Feb 2. 354(5):483-95. [Medline].
Boehm DH, Reichenspurner H, Gulbins H, et al. Early experience with robotic technology for coronary artery surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999 Oct. 68(4):1542-6. [Medline].
Dogan S, Aybek T, Andressen E, et al. Totally endoscopic coronary artery bypass grafting on cardiopulmonary bypass with robotically enhanced telemanipulation: report of forty-five cases. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002 Jun. 123(6):1125-31. [Medline].
Mohr FW, Falk V, Diegeler A, et al. Computer-enhanced “robotic” cardiac surgery: experience in 148 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2001 May. 121(5):842-53. [Medline].
Cohn WE, Suen HC, Weintraub RM, et al. The “H” graft: an alternative approach for performing minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1998 Jan. 115(1):148-51. [Medline].
Ng PC, Chua AN, Swanson MS, et al. Anterior thoracotomy wound complications in minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000 May. 69(5):1338-40; discussion 1340-1. [Medline].
Del Rizzo DF, Boyd WD, Novick RJ, et al. Safety and cost-effectiveness of MIDCABG in high-risk CABG patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 1998 Sep. 66(3):1002-7. [Medline].
Boonstra PW, Grandjean JG, Mariani MA. Reoperative coronary bypass grafting without cardiopulmonary bypass through a small thoracotomy. Ann Thorac Surg. 1997 Feb. 63(2):405-7. [Medline].
Azoury FM, Gillinov AM, Lytle BW, et al. Off-pump reoperative coronary artery bypass grafting by thoracotomy: patient selection and operative technique. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001 Jun. 71(6):1959-63. [Medline].
Cohen HA, Zenati M, Smith AJ, et al. Feasibility of combined percutaneous transluminal angioplasty and minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Circulation. 1998 Sep 15. 98(11):1048-50. [Medline].
Isomura T, Suma H, Horii T, et al. Minimally invasive coronary artery revascularization: off-pump bypass grafting and the hybrid procedure. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000 Dec. 70(6):2017-22. [Medline].
Subramanian VA. Less invasive arterial CABG on a beating heart. Ann Thorac Surg. 1997 Jun. 63(6 Suppl):S68-71. [Medline].
Calafiore AM, Giammarco GD, Teodori G, et al. Left anterior descending coronary artery grafting via left anterior small thoracotomy without cardiopulmonary bypass. Ann Thorac Surg. 1996 Jun. 61(6):1658-63; discussion 1664-5. [Medline].
Puskas JD, Williams WH, Mahoney EM, et al. Off-pump vs conventional coronary artery bypass grafting: early and 1-year graft patency, cost, and quality-of-life outcomes: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2004 Apr 21. 291(15):1841-9. [Medline].
Ascione R, Caputo M, Calori G, et al. Predictors of atrial fibrillation after conventional and beating heart coronary surgery: A prospective, randomized study. Circulation. 2000 Sep 26. 102(13):1530-5. [Medline].
Ascione R, Lloyd CT, Underwood MJ, et al. Inflammatory response after coronary revascularization with or without cardiopulmonary bypass. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000 Apr. 69(4):1198-204. [Medline].
Cleveland JC Jr, Shroyer AL, Chen AY, et al. Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting decreases risk-adjusted mortality and morbidity. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001 Oct. 72(4):1282-8; discussion 1288-9. [Medline].
Mack MJ, Duhaylongsod FG. Through the open door! Where has the ride taken us?. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2002 Oct. 124(4):655-9. [Medline].
Hueb W, Lopes NH, Pereira AC, Hueb AC, Soares PR, Favarato D, et al. Five-year follow-up of a randomized comparison between off-pump and on-pump stable multivessel coronary artery bypass grafting. The MASS III Trial. Circulation. 2010 Sep 14. 122(11 Suppl):S48-52. [Medline].
Grüntzig AR, Senning A, Siegenthaler WE. Nonoperative dilatation of coronary-artery stenosis: percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. N Engl J Med. 1979 Jul 12. 301(2):61-8. [Medline].
Smith SC Jr, Feldman TE, Hirshfeld JW Jr, et al. ACC/AHA/SCAI 2005 Guideline Update for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention–summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (ACC/AHA/SCAI Writing Committee to Update the 2001 Guidelines for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention). Circulation. 2006 Jan 3. 113(1):156-75. [Medline].
Rao SV, Kaltenbach LA, Weintraub WS, Roe MT, Brindis RG, Rumsfeld JS, et al. Prevalence and outcomes of same-day discharge after elective percutaneous coronary intervention among older patients. JAMA. 2011 Oct 5. 306(13):1461-7. [Medline].
Losordo DW, Rosenfield K, Pieczek A, et al. How does angioplasty work? Serial analysis of human iliac arteries using intravascular ultrasound. Circulation. 1992 Dec. 86(6):1845-58. [Medline].
Stone GW, Moses JW, Ellis SG, et al. Safety and efficacy of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents. N Engl J Med. 2007 Mar 8. 356(10):998-1008. [Medline].
Schömig A, Dibra A, Windecker S, Mehilli J, Suárez de Lezo J, Kaiser C. A meta-analysis of 16 randomized trials of sirolimus-eluting stents versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007 Oct 2. 50(14):1373-80. [Medline].
Stone GW, Midei M, Newman W, Sanz M, Hermiller JB, Williams J. Comparison of an everolimus-eluting stent and a paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2008 Apr 23. 299(16):1903-13. [Medline].
Park DW, Kim YH, Yun SC, et al. Comparison of zotarolimus-eluting stents with sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting stents for coronary revascularization: the ZEST (comparison of the efficacy and safety of zotarolimus-eluting stent with sirolimus-eluting and paclitaxel-eluting stent for coronary lesions) randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Oct 5. 56(15):1187-95. [Medline].
Holmes DR Jr, Leon MB, Moses JW, et al. Analysis of 1-year clinical outcomes in the SIRIUS trial: a randomized trial of a sirolimus-eluting stent versus a standard stent in patients at high risk for coronary restenosis. Circulation. 2004 Feb 10. 109(5):634-40. [Medline].
Moses JW, Leon MB, Popma JJ, et al. Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery. N Engl J Med. 2003 Oct 2. 349(14):1315-23. [Medline].
Stone GW, Ellis SG, Cox DA, et al. A polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting stent in patients with coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2004 Jan 15. 350(3):221-31. [Medline].
Katritsis DG, Karvouni E, Ioannidis JP. Meta-analysis comparing drug-eluting stents with bare metal stents. Am J Cardiol. 2005 Mar 1. 95(5):640-3. [Medline].
Liddicoat JR, De La Torre R, Ho KK, et al. Initial impact of drug-eluting stents on coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006 Apr. 81(4):1239-42; discussion 1242. [Medline].
Lagerqvist B, James SK, Stenestrand U, et al. Long-term outcomes with drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in Sweden. N Engl J Med. 2007 Mar 8. 356(10):1009-19. [Medline].
Mauri L, Hsieh WH, Massaro JM, et al. Stent thrombosis in randomized clinical trials of drug-eluting stents. N Engl J Med. 2007 Mar 8. 356(10):1020-9. [Medline].
Spaulding C, Daemen J, Boersma E, et al. A pooled analysis of data comparing sirolimus-eluting stents with bare-metal stents. N Engl J Med. 2007 Mar 8. 356(10):989-97. [Medline].
Kastrati A, Mehilli J, Pache J, et al. Analysis of 14 trials comparing sirolimus-eluting stents with bare-metal stents. N Engl J Med. 2007 Mar 8. 356(10):1030-9. [Medline].
Lee MS, Yang T, Kandzari DE, Tobis JM, Liao H, Mahmud E. Comparison by meta-analysis of drug-eluting stents and bare metal stents for saphenous vein graft intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2010 Apr 15. 105(8):1076-82. [Medline].
US Food and Drug Administration. Center for Devices and Radiological Health. Update to FDA Statement on Coronary Drug-Eluting Stents (accessed on July 7, 2007). [Full Text].
Marroquin OC, Selzer F, Mulukutla SR, et al. A comparison of bare-metal and drug-eluting stents for off-label indications. N Engl J Med. 2008 Jan 24. 358(4):342-52. [Medline].
Fischman DL, Leon MB, Baim DS, et al. A randomized comparison of coronary-stent placement and balloon angioplasty in the treatment of coronary artery disease. Stent Restenosis Study Investigators. N Engl J Med. 1994 Aug 25. 331(8):496-501. [Medline].
Serruys PW, de Jaegere P, Kiemeneij F, et al. A comparison of balloon-expandable-stent implantation with balloon angioplasty in patients with coronary artery disease. Benestent Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1994 Aug 25. 331(8):489-95. [Medline].
Colombo A, Hall P, Nakamura S, et al. Intracoronary stenting without anticoagulation accomplished with intravascular ultrasound guidance. Circulation. 1995 Mar 15. 91(6):1676-88. [Medline].
Hinohara T, Selmon MR, Robertson GC, et al. Directional atherectomy. New approaches for treatment of obstructive coronary and peripheral vascular disease. Circulation. 1990 Mar. 81(3 Suppl):IV79-91.
Topol EJ, Leya F, Pinkerton CA, et al. A comparison of directional atherectomy with coronary angioplasty in patients with coronary artery disease. The CAVEAT Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1993 Jul 22. 329(4):221-7. [Medline].
Choi SW, Saltzman AJ, Dabreo A, et al. Low power ultrasound delivered through a PTCA-like guidewire: preclinical feasibility and safety of a novel technology for intracoronary thrombolysis. J Interv Cardiol. 2006 Feb. 19(1):87-92. [Medline].
Piana RN, Paik GY, Moscucci M, et al. Incidence and treatment of ‘no-reflow’ after percutaneous coronary intervention. Circulation. 1994 Jun. 89(6):2514-8. [Medline].
Resnic FS, Wainstein M, Lee MK, et al. No-reflow is an independent predictor of death and myocardial infarction after percutaneous coronary intervention. Am Heart J. 2003 Jan. 145(1):42-6. [Medline].
Baim DS, Wahr D, George B, et al. Randomized trial of a distal embolic protection device during percutaneous intervention of saphenous vein aorto-coronary bypass grafts. Circulation. 2002 Mar 19. 105(11):1285-90. [Medline].
Popma JJ, Berger P, Ohman EM, et al. Antithrombotic therapy during percutaneous coronary intervention: the Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy. Chest. 2004 Sep. 126(3 Suppl):576S-599S. [Medline].
Mehta SR, Yusuf S, Peters RJ, et al. Effects of pretreatment with clopidogrel and aspirin followed by long-term therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the PCI-CURE study. Lancet. 2001 Aug 18. 358(9281):527-33. [Medline].
Stone GW, Ellis SG, Cox DA, et al. One-year clinical results with the slow-release, polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting TAXUS stent: the TAXUS-IV trial. Circulation. 2004 Apr 27. 109(16):1942-7. [Medline].
Montalescot G, White HD, Gallo R, Cohen M, Steg PG, Aylward PE. Enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin in elective percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2006 Sep 7. 355(10):1006-17. [Medline].
Topol EJ, Moliterno DJ, Herrmann HC, et al. Comparison of two platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors, tirofiban and abciximab, for the prevention of ischemic events with percutaneous coronary revascularization. N Engl J Med. 2001 Jun 21. 344(25):1888-94. [Medline].
Moliterno DJ, Yakubov SJ, DiBattiste PM, et al. Outcomes at 6 months for the direct comparison of tirofiban and abciximab during percutaneous coronary revascularisation with stent placement: the TARGET follow-up study. Lancet. 2002 Aug 3. 360(9330):355-60. [Medline].
Lincoff AM, Bittl JA, Harrington RA, et al. Bivalirudin and provisional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade compared with heparin and planned glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade during percutaneous coronary intervention: REPLACE-2 randomized trial. JAMA. 2003 Feb 19. 289(7):853-63. [Medline].
Stone GW, Witzenbichler B, Guagliumi G, Peruga JZ, Brodie BR, Dudek D. Bivalirudin during primary PCI in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2008 May 22. 358(21):2218-30. [Medline].
Parodi G, Migliorini A, Valenti R, Bellandi B, Signorini U, Moschi G, et al. Comparison of bivalirudin and unfractionated heparin plus protamine in patients with coronary heart disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (from the Antithrombotic Regimens aNd Outcome [ARNO] trial). Am J Cardiol. 2010 Apr 15. 105(8):1053-9. [Medline].
Weintraub WS, Mahoney EM, Ghazzal ZM, King SB 3rd, Culler SD, Morris DC. Trends in outcome and costs of coronary intervention in the 1990s. Am J Cardiol. 2001 Sep 1. 88(5):497-503. [Medline].
Dukkipati S, O’Neill WW, Harjai KJ, Sanders WP, Deo D, Boura JA. Characteristics of cerebrovascular accidents after percutaneous coronary interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004 Apr 7. 43(7):1161-7. [Medline].
Popma JJ, Satler LF, Pichard AD, Kent KM, Campbell A, Chuang YC. Vascular complications after balloon and new device angioplasty. Circulation. 1993 Oct. 88(4 Pt 1):1569-78. [Medline].
Tommaso CL. Contrast-induced nephrotoxicity in patients undergoing cardiac catheterization. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn. 1994 Apr. 31(4):316-21. [Medline].
Kinnaird TD, Stabile E, Mintz GS, Lee CW, Canos DA, Gevorkian N. Incidence, predictors, and prognostic implications of bleeding and blood transfusion following percutaneous coronary interventions. Am J Cardiol. 2003 Oct 15. 92(8):930-5. [Medline].
Holmes DR Jr. Incidence of late stent thrombosis with bare-metal, sirolimus, and paclitaxel stents. Rev Cardiovasc Med. 2007. 8 Suppl 1:S11-8. [Medline].
Stamou SC, Hill PC, Dangas G, Pfister AJ, Boyce SW, Dullum MK. Stroke after coronary artery bypass: incidence, predictors, and clinical outcome. Stroke. 2001 Jul. 32(7):1508-13. [Medline].
Steingrimsson S, Gottfredsson M, Kristinsson KG, Gudbjartsson T. Deep sternal wound infections following open heart surgery in Iceland: a population-based study. Scand Cardiovasc J. 2008 Jun. 42(3):208-13. [Medline].
Greaves SC, Rutherford JD, Aranki SF, Cohn LH, Couper GS, Adams DH. Current incidence and determinants of perioperative myocardial infarction in coronary artery surgery. Am Heart J. 1996 Sep. 132(3):572-8. [Medline].
Hannan EL, Wu C, Bennett EV, et al. Risk index for predicting in-hospital mortality for cardiac valve surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007 Mar. 83(3):921-9. [Medline].
Consensus development conference on coronary artery bypass surgery: medical and scientific aspects. National institutes of health, December 3-5, 1980 Bethesda, Maryland. Circulation. 1982 Jun. 65(7 Pt 2):1-129.
Yusuf S, Zucker D, Peduzzi P, et al. Effect of coronary artery bypass graft surgery on survival: overview of 10-year results from randomised trials by the Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Trialists Collaboration. Lancet. 1994 Aug 27. 344(8922):563-70. [Medline].
Mock MB, Fisher LD, Holmes DR Jr, et al. Comparison of effects of medical and surgical therapy on survival in severe angina pectoris and two-vessel coronary artery disease with and without left ventricular dysfunction: a Coronary Artery Surgery Study Registry Study. Am J Cardiol. 1988 Jun 1. 61(15):1198-203. [Medline].
Velazquez EJ, Lee KL, Deja MA, et al; STICH Investigators. Coronary-artery bypass surgery in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 2011 Apr 28. 364 (17):1607-16. [Medline].
Bonow RO, Maurer G, Lee KL, et al; STICH Trial Investigators. Myocardial viability and survival in ischemic left ventricular dysfunction. N Engl J Med. 2011 Apr 28. 364 (17):1617-25. [Medline].
Frye RL, August P, Brooks MM, Hardison RM, Kelsey SF, MacGregor JM, et al. A randomized trial of therapies for type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009 Jun 11. 360(24):2503-15. [Medline]. [Full Text].
Boden WE, O’Rourke RA, Teo KK, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2007 Apr 12. 356(15):1503-16. [Medline].
Weintraub WS, Spertus JA, Kolm P, et al. Effect of PCI on quality of life in patients with stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2008 Aug 14. 359(7):677-87. [Medline].
Shaw LJ, Berman DS, Maron DJ, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without percutaneous coronary intervention to reduce ischemic burden: results from the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial nuclear substudy. Circulation. 2008 Mar 11. 117(10):1283-91. [Medline].
O’Donoghue M, Boden WE, Braunwald E, et al. Early invasive vs conservative treatment strategies in women and men with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis. JAMA. 2008 Jul 2. 300(1):71-80. [Medline].
Anderson JL, Adams CD, Antman EM, et al; American College of Cardiology; American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines for the management of patients with unstable angina/non-ST-Elevation myocardial infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non-ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) developed in collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interve… J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007 Aug 14. 50 (7):e1-e157. [Medline].
Invasive compared with non-invasive treatment in unstable coronary-artery disease: FRISC II prospective randomised multicentre study. FRagmin and Fast Revascularisation during InStability in Coronary artery disease Investigators. Lancet. 1999 Aug 28. 354(9180):708-15. [Medline].
Cannon CP, Weintraub WS, Demopoulos LA, et al. Comparison of early invasive and conservative strategies in patients with unstable coronary syndromes treated with the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofiban. N Engl J Med. 2001 Jun 21. 344(25):1879-87. [Medline].
Fox KA, Poole-Wilson PA, Henderson RA, et al. Interventional versus conservative treatment for patients with unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation RITA 3 randomised trial. Randomized Intervention Trial of unstable Angina. Lancet. 2002 Sep 7. 360(9335):743-51. [Medline].
Andersen HR, Nielsen TT, Rasmussen K, et al. A comparison of coronary angioplasty with fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2003 Aug 21. 349(8):733-42. [Medline].
Nallamothu BK, Wang Y, Magid DJ, et al. Relation between hospital specialization with primary percutaneous coronary intervention and clinical outcomes in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: National Registry of Myocardial Infarction-4 analysis. Circulation. 2006 Jan 17. 113(2):222-9. [Medline].
Dalby M, Bouzamondo A, Lechat P, et al. Transfer for primary angioplasty versus immediate thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis. Circulation. 2003 Oct 14. 108(15):1809-14. [Medline].
Nallamothu BK, Bates ER, Herrin J, et al. Times to treatment in transfer patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention in the United States: National Registry of Myocardial Infarction (NRMI)-3/4 analysis. Circulation. 2005 Feb 15. 111(6):761-7. [Medline].
Pinto DS, Kirtane AJ, Nallamothu BK, et al. Hospital delays in reperfusion for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: implications when selecting a reperfusion strategy. Circulation. 2006 Nov 7. 114(19):2019-25. [Medline].
Antman EM, Hand M, Armstrong PW, et al. 2007 Focused Update of the ACC/AHA 2004 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines: developed in collaboration With the Canadian Cardiovascular Society endorsed by the American Academy of Family Physicians: 2007 Writing Group to Review New Evidence and Update the ACC/AHA 2004 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With ST-Elevation Myocardial I… Circulation. 2008 Jan 15. 117(2):296-329. [Medline].
Hochman JS, Lamas GA, Buller CE, et al. Coronary intervention for persistent occlusion after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2006 Dec 7. 355(23):2395-407. [Medline].
Pocock SJ, Henderson RA, Rickards AF, et al. Meta-analysis of randomised trials comparing coronary angioplasty with bypass surgery. Lancet. 1995 Nov 4. 346(8984):1184-9. [Medline].
Bravata DM, Gienger AL, McDonald KM, et al. Systematic review: the comparative effectiveness of percutaneous coronary interventions and coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Ann Intern Med. 2007 Nov 20. 147(10):703-16. [Medline].
Lee MS, Yang T, Dhoot J, Liao H. Meta-analysis of clinical studies comparing coronary artery bypass grafting with percutaneous coronary intervention and drug-eluting stents in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery narrowings. Am J Cardiol. 2010 Apr 15. 105(8):1070-5. [Medline].
Park DW, Seung KB, Kim YH, Lee JY, Kim WJ, Kang SJ, et al. Long-term safety and efficacy of stenting versus coronary artery bypass grafting for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: 5-year results from the MAIN-COMPARE (Revascularization for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty Versus Surgical Revascularization) registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010 Jul 6. 56(2):117-24. [Medline].
Epstein AJ, Polsky D, Yang F, Yang L, Groeneveld PW. Coronary revascularization trends in the United States, 2001-2008. JAMA. 2011 May 4. 305(17):1769-76. [Medline].
Simpson JB, Selmon MR, Robertson GC, et al. Transluminal atherectomy for occlusive peripheral vascular disease. Am J Cardiol. 1988 May 9. 61(14):96G-101G. [Medline].
Arun Kalyanasundaram, MD, MPH Interventional Cardiology Fellow, Department of Cardiology, Cleveland Clinic
Arun Kalyanasundaram, MD, MPH is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Cardiology, American College of Physicians, American Heart Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of General Internal Medicine, Southern Medical Association, Society of Hospital Medicine
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
James C Blankenship, MD Professor of Medicine, Jefferson Medical College of Thomas Jefferson University; Director, Cardiac Catheterization Laboratories and Cardiac Recovery Suite, Geisinger Medical Center
James C Blankenship, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Cardiology
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
Karlheinz Peter, MD, PhD Professor of Medicine, Monash University; Head of Centre of Thrombosis and Myocardial Infarction, Head of Division of Atherothrombosis and Vascular Biology, Associate Director, Baker Heart Research Institute; Interventional Cardiologist, The Alfred Hospital, Australia
Karlheinz Peter, MD, PhD is a member of the following medical societies: American Heart Association, German Cardiac Society, Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
Brian Olshansky, MD Professor of Medicine, Department of Internal Medicine, University of Iowa College of Medicine
Brian Olshansky, MD is a member of the following medical societies: American Autonomic Society, American College of Cardiology, American College of Chest Physicians, American College of Physicians, American College of Sports Medicine, American Federation for Clinical Research, American Heart Association, Cardiac Electrophysiology Society, Heart Rhythm Society, and New York Academy of Sciences
Disclosure: Guidant/Boston Scientific Honoraria Speaking and teaching; Medtronic Honoraria Speaking and teaching; Guidant/Boston Scientific Consulting fee Consulting; Novartis Honoraria Speaking and teaching; Novartis Consulting fee Consulting
Justin D Pearlman, MD, ME, PhD, FACC, MA Chief, Division of Cardiology, Director of Cardiology Consultative Service, Director of Cardiology Clinic Service, Director of Cardiology Non-Invasive Laboratory, Director of Cardiology Quality Program KMC, Dartmouth-Hitchcock Medical Center, Dartmouth Medical School
Justin D Pearlman, MD, ME, PhD, FACC, MA is a member of the following medical societies: American College of Cardiology, American College of Physicians, American Federation for Medical Research, International Society for Magnetic Resonance in Medicine, and Radiological Society of North America
Disclosure: Nothing to disclose.
Francisco Talavera, PharmD, PhD Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Nebraska Medical Center College of Pharmacy; Editor-in-Chief, Medscape Drug Reference
Disclosure: Medscape Salary Employment
Comparison of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI)
Research & References of Comparison of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (CABG) and Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (PCI)|A&C Accounting And Tax Services
Source
0 Comments