Literature DB >> 23962854

Coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous revascularization in acute myocardial infarction?

Stéphanie Perrier1, Michel Kindo, Sébastien Gerelli, Jean-Philippe Mazzucotelli.   

Abstract

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was as follows: is coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery superior to percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in terms of in-hospital mortality and morbidity and long-term outcomes in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI)? A total of 104 papers were returned using the selected search. Of these, six represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The selection criteria were comparative studies with only PCI and CABG groups in patients with acute MI. Case reports, reviews, recommendations and studies on a specific population or out of the context of acute MI were excluded. The authors, journal, date and country of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. Almost all PCI patients received stents. One study used drug-eluting stents (DES). Two randomized studies showed similar short- and mid-term morbidities and mortalities in patients with acute MI in the PCI and CABG groups but higher repeat revascularization rates after PCI. Three observational studies found comparable survival, but one of them found more periprocedural events with CABG and the other two found more recurrent ischaemia requiring repeat revascularization in the PCI group. In one cohort study, CABG appeared to be an independent risk factor for death in N-STEMI according to the European Society/American College of Cardiology 2000 definition. The results are strongly influenced by the definition of acute MI. In an institution offering the two techniques with an equivalent accessibility, the principal advantage of PCI is a lower incidence of periprocedural and short-term morbidities. CABG, on the other hand, offers a better durability with less mid-term repeat revascularization required, especially when compared with PCI with DES implantation. Choice had to weight up coronary artery anatomy, number and localization of coronary artery stenosis and accessibility of both PCI and CABG treatments. Medical and surgical discussion within the Heart Team is required to make the best medical decision for each patient.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Coronary artery bypass; Coronary disease; Myocardial infarction; Review

Mesh:

Year:  2013        PMID: 23962854      PMCID: PMC3829498          DOI: 10.1093/icvts/ivt381

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg        ISSN: 1569-9285


  12 in total

1.  Surgical versus percutaneous revascularization for multivessel disease in patients with acute coronary syndromes: analysis from the ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) trial.

Authors:  Yanai Ben-Gal; Jeffrey W Moses; Roxana Mehran; Alexandra J Lansky; Giora Weisz; Eugenia Nikolsky; Michael Argenziano; Matthew R Williams; Antonio Colombo; Philip E Aylward; Gregg W Stone
Journal:  JACC Cardiovasc Interv       Date:  2010-10       Impact factor: 11.195

2.  Towards evidence-based medicine in cardiothoracic surgery: best BETS.

Authors:  Joel Dunning; Brian Prendergast; Kevin Mackway-Jones
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2003-12

3.  Comparison of one-year outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease and acute coronary syndromes (from the CUSTOMIZE Registry).

Authors:  Anna Caggegi; Davide Capodanno; Piera Capranzano; Alberto Chisari; Margherita Ministeri; Andrea Mangiameli; Giuseppe Ronsivalle; Giovanni Ricca; Giombattista Barrano; Sergio Monaco; Maria Elena Di Salvo; Corrado Tamburino
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2011-05-03       Impact factor: 2.778

4.  Third universal definition of myocardial infarction.

Authors:  Kristian Thygesen; Joseph S Alpert; Allan S Jaffe; Maarten L Simoons; Bernard R Chaitman; Harvey D White; Hugo A Katus; Bertil Lindahl; David A Morrow; Peter M Clemmensen; Per Johanson; Hanoch Hod; Richard Underwood; Jeroen J Bax; Robert O Bonow; Fausto Pinto; Raymond J Gibbons; Keith A Fox; Dan Atar; L Kristin Newby; Marcello Galvani; Christian W Hamm; Barry F Uretsky; Ph Gabriel Steg; William Wijns; Jean-Pierre Bassand; Phillippe Menasché; Jan Ravkilde; E Magnus Ohman; Elliott M Antman; Lars C Wallentin; Paul W Armstrong; Maarten L Simoons; James L Januzzi; Markku S Nieminen; Mihai Gheorghiade; Gerasimos Filippatos; Russell V Luepker; Stephen P Fortmann; Wayne D Rosamond; Dan Levy; David Wood; Sidney C Smith; Dayi Hu; José-Luis Lopez-Sendon; Rose Marie Robertson; Douglas Weaver; Michal Tendera; Alfred A Bove; Alexander N Parkhomenko; Elena J Vasilieva; Shanti Mendis
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2012-08-24       Impact factor: 29.690

5.  The impact of acute coronary syndrome on clinical, economic, and cardiac-specific health status after coronary artery bypass surgery versus stent-assisted percutaneous coronary intervention: 1-year results from the stent or surgery (SoS) trial.

Authors:  Zefeng Zhang; John A Spertus; Elizabeth M Mahoney; Jean Booth; Fiona Nugara; Rodney H Stables; William S Weintraub
Journal:  Am Heart J       Date:  2005-07       Impact factor: 4.749

6.  Comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting after acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: results from the Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock (SHOCK) trial.

Authors:  Harvey D White; Susan F Assmann; Timothy A Sanborn; Alice K Jacobs; John G Webb; Lynn A Sleeper; Cheuk-Kit Wong; James T Stewart; Philip E G Aylward; Shing-Chiu Wong; Judith S Hochman
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  2005-09-27       Impact factor: 29.690

7.  Myocardial infarction redefined--a consensus document of The Joint European Society of Cardiology/American College of Cardiology Committee for the redefinition of myocardial infarction.

Authors:  J S Alpert; K Thygesen; E Antman; J P Bassand
Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol       Date:  2000-09       Impact factor: 24.094

8.  Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK Investigators. Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock.

Authors:  J S Hochman; L A Sleeper; J G Webb; T A Sanborn; H D White; J D Talley; C E Buller; A K Jacobs; J N Slater; J Col; S M McKinlay; T H LeJemtel
Journal:  N Engl J Med       Date:  1999-08-26       Impact factor: 91.245

9.  Myocardial infarction and coronary deaths in the World Health Organization MONICA Project. Registration procedures, event rates, and case-fatality rates in 38 populations from 21 countries in four continents.

Authors:  H Tunstall-Pedoe; K Kuulasmaa; P Amouyel; D Arveiler; A M Rajakangas; A Pajak
Journal:  Circulation       Date:  1994-07       Impact factor: 29.690

10.  Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting as primary revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndrome.

Authors:  Willibald Hochholzer; Heinz Joachim Buettner; Dietmar Trenk; Tobias Breidthardt; Markus Noveanu; Kirsten Laule; Michael Christ; Christian Schindler; Franz-Josef Neumann; Christian Mueller
Journal:  Am J Cardiol       Date:  2008-05-28       Impact factor: 2.778

View more
  1 in total

1.  Optimal Timing of Surgical Revascularization for Myocardial Infarction and Left Ventricular Dysfunction.

Authors:  Rong Wang; Nan Cheng; Cang-Song Xiao; Yang Wu; Xiao-Yong Sai; Zhi-Yun Gong; Yao Wang; Chang-Qing Gao
Journal:  Chin Med J (Engl)       Date:  2017-02-20       Impact factor: 2.628

  1 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.