Coronary heart disease surgery

Coronary heart disease Microchapters

Home

Patient Information

Overview

Historical Perspective

Classification

Pathophysiology

Differentiating Coronary heart disease from other Diseases

Epidemiology and Demographics

Risk Factors

Screening and Risk Stratification

Natural History, Complications and Prognosis

Diagnosis

Pretest Probability

History and Symptoms

Physical Examination

Laboratory Findings

Electrocardiogram

Chest X Ray

MRI

Echocardiography or Ultrasound

Other Imaging Findings

Other Diagnostic Studies

Treatment

Medical Therapy

Surgery

Primary Prevention

Secondary Prevention

Cost-Effectiveness of Therapy

Future or Investigational Therapies

Case Studies

Case #1

Coronary heart disease surgery On the Web

Most recent articles

Most cited articles

Review articles

CME Programs

Powerpoint slides

Images

American Roentgen Ray Society Images of Coronary heart disease surgery

All Images
X-rays
Echo & Ultrasound
CT Images
MRI

Ongoing Trials at Clinical Trials.gov

US National Guidelines Clearinghouse

NICE Guidance

FDA on Coronary heart disease surgery

CDC on Coronary heart disease surgery

Coronary heart disease surgery in the news

Blogs on Coronary heart disease surgery

Directions to Hospitals Treating Type page name here

Risk calculators and risk factors for Coronary heart disease surgery

Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1]; Associate Editor(s)-in-Chief:  Arzu Kalayci, M.D. [2] Anahita Deylamsalehi, M.D.[3]

## Surgery

[edit | edit source]

* Procedures and surgeries used to treat coronary heart disease (CHD) include:

* Angioplasty and stent placement, called percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs)
* Coronary artery bypass surgery
* Minimally invasive heart surgery

Angina that changes in intensity, character, or frequency is termed unstable. Unstable angina may precede myocardial infarction, and requires urgent medical attention. It is treated with morphine, oxygen, intravenous nitroglycerin, and aspirin. Interventional procedures such as angioplasty may be done.

### Indications for Revascularization in Chronic Coronary Artery Disease

[edit | edit source]

* Improve symptoms
* Improve long term survival

Decisions regarding revascularization procedure in patients with coronary artery disease should only consider clinical indications. There is no evidence that considering factors such as sex, race, or ethnicity is beneficial.[1]

An early revascularization (within 24 hours) in high-risk patients has been shown to decrease the incidence of myocardial infarction, congestive heart failure and arrhythmias.[1]

### Revascularization in Patients with Diabetes

[edit | edit source]

Patients with diabetes and advanced three-vessel coronary artery disease have shown lower mortality and myocardial infarction rates and higher risk of strokes when undergoing Coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) compared to Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug eluting stents.[2]

## ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/ STS 2017 Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease

[edit | edit source]

### Revascularization to Improve Survival Compared With Medical Therapy (DO NOT EDIT)

[edit | edit source]

Anatomic Setting |  COR | LOE

|
|

UPLM or complex CAD
CABG and PCI | I—Heart Team approach recommended | C
CABG and PCI | IIa—Calculation of STS and SYNTAX scores | B
UPLM
CABG | I | B
PCI | IIa - For SIHD when both of the following are present:

1) Anatomic conditions associated with a low risk of PCI procedural complications and a high likelihood of good long-term outcome (e.g., a low SYNTAX score of ≤ 22, ostial or trunk left main CAD) 2) Clinical characteristics that predict a significantly increased risk of adverse surgical outcomes (e.g., STS-predicted risk of operative mortality ≥ 5%)

| B
PCI | IIa—For UA/NSTEMI if not a CABG candidate | B
PCI | IIa—For STEMI when distal coronary flow is TIMI flow grade <3 and PCI can be performed more rapidly and safely than CABG | C
PCI | IIb—For SIHD when both of the following are present:1) Anatomic conditions associated with a low to intermediate risk of PCI procedural complications and an intermediate to high likelihood of good long-term outcome (e.g., low-intermediate SYNTAX score of <33, bifurcation left main CAD) 2) Clinical characteristics that predict an increased risk of adverse surgical outcomes (e.g., moderate—severe COPD, disability from prior stroke, or prior cardiac surgery; STS-predicted operative mortality >2%) | B
PCI | III: Harm—For SIHD in patients (versus performing CABG) with unfavorable anatomy for PCI and who are good candidates for CABG | B
3-vessel disease with or without proximal LAD artery disease
CABG | I | B
| IIa—It is reasonable to choose CABG over PCI in patients with complex 3-vessel CAD (e.g., SYNTAX score >22) who are good candidates for CABG. | B
PCI | IIb—Of uncertain benefit | B
2-vessel disease with proximal LAD artery disease
CABG | I | B
PCI | IIb—Of uncertain benefit | B
2-vessel disease without proximal LAD artery disease
CABG | IIa—With extensive ischemia | B
CABG | IIb—Of uncertain benefit without extensive ischemia | C
CABG | IIb—Of uncertain benefit | B
1-vessel proximal LAD artery disease
CABG | IIa—With LIMA for long-term benefit | B
PCI | IIb—With LIMA for long-term benefit | B
| 1-vessel proximal LAD artery disease |
CABG | III: Harm | B
PCI | III: Harm | B
LV dysfunction |
CABG | IIa—EF 35% to 50% | B
CABG | IIb—EF <35% without significant left main CAD | B
PCI | Insufficient data |
Survivors of sudden cardiac death with presumed ischemia-mediated VT
CABG | I | B
PCI | I | C
No anatomic or physiological criteria for revascularization
CABG | III: Harm | B
PCI | III: Harm | B
CABG indicates coronary artery bypass graft; CAD, coronary artery disease; COPD, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease; COR, class of recommendation; EF, ejection fraction; LAD, left anterior descending; LIMA, left internal mammary artery; LOE, level of evidence; LV, left ventricular; N/A, not available; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; SIHD, stable ischemic heart disease; STEMI, ST-elevation myocardial infarction; STS, Society of Thoracic Surgeons; SYNTAX, Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery; TIMI, Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction; UA/NSTEMI, unstable angina/non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction; UPLM, unprotected left main disease; and VT, ventricular tachycardia.
Noninvasive Risk Stratification

High risk (>3% annual death or MI)

1. Severe resting LV dysfunction (LVEF <35%) not readily explained by noncoronary causes

2. Resting perfusion abnormalities ≥10% of the myocardium in patients without prior history or evidence of MI

3. Stress ECG findings including ≥2 mm of ST-segment depression at low workload or persisting into recovery, exercise-induced ST-segment elevation, or exercise-induced VT/VF

4. Severe stress-induced LV dysfunction (peak exercise LVEF <45% or drop in LVEF with stress ≥10%)

5. Stress-induced perfusion abnormalities encumbering ≥10% myocardium or stress segmental scores indicating multiple vascular territories with abnormalities

6. Stress-induced LV dilation

7. Inducible wall motion abnormality (involving >2 segments or 2 coronary beds)

8. Wall motion abnormality developing at a low dose of dobutamine (≤ 10 mg/kg/min) or at a low heart rate (<120 beats/min)

9. CAC score >400 Agatston units

10. Multivessel obstructive CAD (≥70% stenosis) or left main stenosis (≥50% stenosis) on CCTA

Intermediate risk (1% to 3% annual death or MI)

1. Mild/moderate resting LV dysfunction (LVEF 35% to 49%) not readily explained by noncoronary causes

2. Resting perfusion abnormalities in 5% to 9.9% of the myocardium in patients without a history or prior evidence of MI

3. ≥1 mm of ST-segment depression occurring with exertional symptoms

4. Stress-induced perfusion abnormalities encumbering 5% to 9.9% of the myocardium or stress segmental scores (in multiple segments) indicating 1 vascular territory with abnormalities but without LV dilation

5. Small wall motion abnormality involving 1 to 2 segments and only 1 coronary bed

6. CAC score 100 to 399 Agatston units

7. One vessel CAD with ≥70% stenosis or moderate CAD stenosis (50% to 69% stenosis) in ≥2 arteries on CCTA

Low risk (<1% annual death or MI)

1. Low-risk treadmill score (score ≥5) or no new ST-segment changes or exercise-induced chest pain symptoms; when achieving maximal levels of exercise

2. Normal or small myocardial perfusion defect at rest or with stress encumbering <5% of the myocardium*

3. Normal stress or no change of limited resting wall motion abnormalities during stress

4. CAC score <100 Agaston units 5\. No coronary stenosis >50% on CCTA

CAC indicates coronary artery calcium; CAD, coronary artery disease; CCTA, coronary computed tomography angiography; LV, left ventricular; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; and MI, myocardial infarction.

### One Vessel Disease

[edit | edit source]

Appropriate Use Score (1-9)

One-Vessel Disease | Asymptomatic | Ischemic Symptoms
One-Vessel Disease | Not on AA Therapy or With AA Therapy | Not on AA Therapy | On 1 AA Drug (BB Preferred) | On ≥2 AA Drugs
Indication | PCI | CABG | PCI | CABG | PCI | CABG | PCI | CABG
No Proximal LAD or Proximal Left Dominant LCX Involvement
Low-risk findings on noninvasive testing | R (2) | R (1) | R (3) | R (2) | M (4) | R (3) | A (7) | M (5)
Intermediate- or high-risk findings on noninvasive testing | M (4) | R (3) | M (5) | M (4) | M (6) | M (4) | A (8) | M (6)
No stress test performed or, if performed, results are indeterminate - FFR ≤0.80 | M (4) | R (2) | M (5) | R (3) | M (6) | M (4) | A (8) | M (6)
Proximal LAD or Proximal Left Dominant LCX Involvement Present
Low-risk findings on noninvasive testing | M (4) | R (3) | M (4) | M (4) | M (5) | M (5) | A (7) | A (7)
Intermediate- or high-risk findings on noninvasive testing | M (5) | M (5) | M (6) | M (6) | A (7) | A (7) | A (8) | A (8)
No stress test performed or, if performed, results are indeterminate - FFR ≤0.80 | M (5) | M (5) | M (6) | M (6) | M (6) | M (6) | A (8) | A (7)
A indicates appropriate; AA, antianginal; BB, beta blockers; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft; FFR, fractional flow reserve; iFR, instant wave-free ratio; LAD, left anterior descending coronary artery; LCX, left circumflex artery; M, may be appropriate; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; and R, rarely appropriate. A separate, independent rating panel scored the clinical scenarios on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization is considered appropriate for the clinical scenario presented. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate that revascularization is considered rarely appropriate for the clinical scenario, whereas scores in the mid-range of 4 to 6 indicate that coronary revascularization may be appropriate for the clinical scenario.

### Two-Vessel Disease

[edit | edit source]

Appropriate Use Score (1-9)

Two-Vessel Disease | Asymptomatic | Ischemic Symptoms
Two-Vessel Disease | Not on AA Therapy or With AA Therapy | Not on AA Therapy | On 1 AA Drug (BB Preferred) | On ≥2 AA Drugs
Indication | PCI | CABG | PCI | CABG | PCI | CABG | PCI | CABG
No Proximal LAD Involvement
Low-risk findings on noninvasive testing | R (3) | R (2) | M (4) | R (3) | M (5) | M (4) | A (7) | M (6)
Intermediate- or high-risk findings on noninvasive testing | M (5) | M (4) | M (6) | M (5) | M (6) | M (4) | A (7) | M (6)
No stress test performed or, if performed, results are indeterminate - FFR ≤0.80 in both vessels | M (5) | M (4) | M (6) | M (4) | A (7) | M (5) | A (8) | A (8)
Proximal LAD Involvement and No Diabetes Present
Low-risk findings on noninvasive testing | M (4) | M (4) | M (5) | M (5) | M (6) | M (6) | A (7) | A (7)
Intermediate- or high-risk findings on noninvasive testing | M (6) | M (6) | A (7) | A (7) | A (7) | A (7) | A (8) | A (8)
No stress test performed or, if performed, results are indeterminate - FFR ≤0.80 in both vessels | M (6) | M (6) | M (6) | M (6) | A (7) | A (7) | A (8) | A (8)
Proximal LAD Involvement With Diabetes Present
Low-risk findings on noninvasive testing | M (4) | M (5) | M (4) | M (6) | M (6) | A (7) | A (7) | A (8)
Intermediate- or high-risk findings on noninvasive testing | M (5) | A (7) | M (6) | A (7) | A (7) | A (8) | A (8) | A (9)
No stress test performed or, if performed, results are indeterminate - FFR ≤0.80 in both vessels | M (5) | M (6) | M (6) | A (7) | A (7) | A (8) | A (7) | A (8)
A indicates appropriate; AA, antianginal; BB, beta blockers; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft; FFR, fractional flow reserve; iFR, instant wave-free ratio; LAD, left anterior descending coronary artery; M, may be appropriate; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; and R, rarely appropriate. A separate, independent rating panel scored the clinical scenarios on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization is considered appropriate for the clinical scenario presented. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate that revascularization is considered rarely appropriate for the clinical scenario, whereas scores in the mid-range of 4 to 6 indicate that coronary revascularization may be appropriate for the clinical scenario.

### Three-Vessel Disease

[edit | edit source]

Appropriate Use Score (1-9)

Three-Vessel Disease | Asymptomatic | Ischemic Symptoms
Three-Vessel Disease | Not on AA Therapy or With AA Therapy | Not on AA Therapy | On 1 AA Drug (BB Preferred) | On ≥2 AA Drugs
Indication | PCI | CABG | PCI | CABG | PCI | CABG | PCI | CABG
Low Disease Complexity (e.g., Focal Stenoses, SYNTAX ≤22)
Low-risk findings on noninvasive testing | M (4) | M (5) | M (5) | M (6) | M (6) | M (6) | A (7) | A (7)
Intermediate- or high-risk findings on noninvasive testing - No diabetes | M (6) | A (7) | A (7) | A (7) | A (7) | A (8) | A (8) | A (8)
Low-risk findings on non-invasive testing - Diabetes present | M (4) | M (6) | M (5) | M (6) | A (6) | A (7) | A (7) | A (8)
Intermediate- or high-risk findings on noninvasive testing - Diabetes present | M (6) | A (7) | M (6) | A (8) | A (7) | A (8) | A (7) | A (9)
Intermediate or High Disease Complexity (e.g. Multiple Features of Complexity as Noted Previously, SYNTAX >22)
Low-risk findings on noninvasive testing - No diabetes | M (4) | M (6) | M (4) | A (7) | M (5) | A (7) | M (6) | A (8)
Intermediate- or high-risk findings on noninvasive testing - No diabetes | M (5) | A (7) | M (6) | A (7) | M (6) | A (8) | M (6) | A (9)
Low-risk findings on noninvasive testing - Diabetes present | M (4) | A (7) | M (4) | A (7) | M (5) | A (8) | M (6) | A (9)
Intermediate- or high-risk findings on noninvasive testing - Diabetes present | M (4) | A (8) | M (5) | A (8) | M (5) | A (8) | M (6) | A (9)
A indicates appropriate; AA, antianginal; BB, beta-blockers; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft; M, may be appropriate; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; and SYNTAX, Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery trial. A separate, independent rating panel scored the clinical scenarios on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization is considered appropriate for the clinical scenario presented. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate that revascularization is considered rarely appropriate for the clinical scenario, whereas scores in the mid-range of 4 to 6 indicate that coronary revascularization may be appropriate for the clinical scenario.

### Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis

[edit | edit source]

Appropriate Use Score (1-9)

Left Main Disease | Asymptomatic | Ischemic Symptoms
Left Main Disease | Not on AA Therapy or With AA Therapy | Not on AA Therapy | On 1 AA Drug (BB Preferred) | On ≥2 AA Drugs
Indication | PCI | CABG | PCI | CABG | PCI | CABG | PCI | CABG
Isolated LMCA disease - Ostial or midshaft stenosis | M (6) | A (8) | A (7) | A (8) | A (7) | A (9) | A (7) | A (9)
Isolated LMCA disease - Bifurcation involvement | M (5) | A (8) | M (5) | A (8) | M (5) | A (9) | M (6) | A (9)
LMCA disease - Ostial or mid shaft stenosis - Concurrent multi vessel disease - Low disease burden (e.g., 1–2 additional focal stenoses, SYNTAX score ≤22) | M (6) | A (8) | M (6) | A (9) | A (7) | A (9) | A (7) | A (9)
Ostial or mid shaft stenosis - Concurrent multi vessel disease - Intermediate or high disease burden (e.g., 1–2 additional bifurcation stenosis, long stenoses, SYNTAX score >22) | M (4) | A (9) | M (4) | A (9) | M (4) | A (9) | M (4) | A (9)
Ostial or mid shaft stenosis - Concurrent multi vessel disease - Intermediate or high disease burden (e.g., 1–2 additional bifurcation stenosis, long stenoses, SYNTAX score >22) | M (4) | A (9) | M (4) | A (9) | M (4) | A (9) | M (4) | A (9)
LMCA disease - Bifurcation involvement - Low disease burden in other vessels (e.g., 1–2 additional focal stenosis, SYNTAX score ≤22) | M (4) | A (8) | M (5) | A (8) | M (5) | A (9) | M (6) | A (9)
LMCA disease - Bifurcation involvement - Intermediate or high disease burden in other vessels (e.g., 1–2 additional bifurcation stenosis, long stenoses, SYNTAX score >22) | R (3) | A (8) | R (3) | A (9) | R (3) | A (9) | R (3) | A (9)
A indicates appropriate; AA, antianginal; BB, beta-blockers; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft; LMCA, left main coronary artery; M, may be appropriate; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; R, rarely appropriate; and SYNTAX, Synergy between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery trial. A separate, independent rating panel scored the clinical scenarios on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization is considered appropriate for the clinical scenario presented. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate that revascularization is considered rarely appropriate for the clinical scenario, whereas scores in the mid-range of 4 to 6 indicate that coronary revascularization may be appropriate for the clinical scenario.

### IMA to LAD Patent and Without Significant Stenoses

[edit | edit source]

Appropriate Use Score (1-9)

IMA to LAD Patent and Without Significant Stenoses | Asymptomatic | Ischemic Symptoms
| Not on AA Therapy or With AA Therapy | Not on AA Therapy | On 1 AA Drug (BB Preferred) | On ≥2 AA Drugs
Indication | PCI | CABG | PCI | CABG | PCI | CABG | PCI | CABG
Stenosis Supplying 1 Territory Disease (Bypass Graft or Native Artery) to Territory Other Than Anterior
Low-risk findings on noninvasive testing | R (3) | R (1) | R (3) | R (2) | M (6) | R (3) | A (7) | M (4)
Intermediate- or high-risk findings on noninvasive testing | M (5) | R (3) | M (5) | R (3)  | A (7) | M (4) | A (8) | M (5)
No stress test performed or, if performed, the results are indeterminate - FFR of stenosis ≤0.80 | M (4) | R (3) | M (4) | R (3) | M (6) | M (4) | A (8) | M (5)
Stenoses Supplying 2 Territories (Bypass Graft or Native Artery, Either 2 Separate Vessels or Sequential Graft Supplying 2 Territories) Not Including Anterior Territory
Low-risk findings on noninvasive testing | R (3) | R (2) | M (4) | R (3) | M (6) | R (3) | A (7) | M (5)
Intermediate- or high-risk findings on noninvasive testing | M (5) | R (3) | M (5) | M (4) | A (7) | M (5) | A (8) | M (6)
A indicates appropriate; AA, Antianginal; BB, beta-blockers; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft; FFR, fractional flow reserve; iFR, instant wave-free ratio; IMA, internal mammary artery; LAD, left anterior descending coronary artery; M, may be appropriate; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; and R, rarely appropriate. A separate, independent rating panel scored the clinical scenarios on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization is considered appropriate for the clinical scenario presented. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate that revascularization is considered rarely appropriate for the clinical scenario, whereas scores in the mid-range of 4 to 6 indicate that coronary revascularization may be appropriate for the clinical scenario.

### IMA to LAD Not Patent

[edit | edit source]

Appropriate Use Score (1-9)

IMA to LAD Not Patent | Asymptomatic | Ischemic Symptoms
| Not on AA Therapy or With AA Therapy | Not on AA Therapy | On 1 AA Drug (BB Preferred) | On ≥2 AA Drugs
Indication | PCI | CABG | PCI | CABG | PCI | CABG | PCI | CABG
Stenosis Supplying 1-Territory Disease (Bypass Graft or Native Artery)–Anterior (LAD) Territory
Low-risk findings on noninvasive testing | M (4) | R (3) | M (5) | R (3) | M (6) | M (4) | A (7) | M (5)
Intermediate- or high-risk findings on noninvasive testing | M (6) | M (4) | M (6) | M (4) | A (7) | M (5) | A (8) | M (6)
No stress test performed or, if performed, the results are indeterminate - FFR of stenosis ≤0.80 | M (5) | M (4) | M (6) | M (4) | A (7) | M (5) | A (7) | M (6)
Stenoses Supplying 2 Territories (Bypass Graft or Native Artery, Either 2 Separate Vessels or Sequential Graft Supplying 2 Territories) LAD Plus Other Territory
Low-risk findings on noninvasive testing | M (5) | M (4) | M (6) | M (4) | A (7) | M (5) | A (7) | M (6)
Intermediate- or high-risk findings on noninvasive testing | M (6) | M (5) | A (7) | M (6) | A (7) | A (7) | A (8) | A (8)
Stenoses Supplying 3 Territories (Bypass Graft or Native Arteries, Separate Vessels, Sequential Grafts, or Combination Thereof) LAD Plus 2 Other Territories
Low-risk findings on noninvasive testing | M (5) | M (5) | M (6) | M (5) | M (6) | M (6) | A (7) | A (7)
Intermediate- or high-risk findings on noninvasive testing | A (7) | A (7) | A (7) | A (7) | A (7) | A (7) | A (8) | A (8)
A indicates appropriate; AA, Antianginal; BB, beta-blockers; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft; FFR, fractional flow reserve; iFR, instant wave-free ratio; IMA, internal mammary artery; LAD, left anterior descending coronary artery; M, may be appropriate; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; and R, rarely appropriate. A separate, independent rating panel scored the clinical scenarios on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization is considered appropriate for the clinical scenario presented. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate that revascularization is considered rarely appropriate for the clinical scenario, whereas scores in the mid-range of 4 to 6 indicate that coronary revascularization may be appropriate for the clinical scenario.

## 2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease [3]

[edit | edit source]

### Management of Coronary Artery Disease (CAD) in patients with Valvular Heart Disease (VHD)

[edit | edit source]

Recommendations |  Class | Level

|
|

Diagnosis of Coronary Artery Disease
Coronary angiography is recommended before valve surgery in patients with severe VHD and any of the following:

• history of cardiovascular disease

• suspected myocardial ischemia

• LV systolic dysfunction • in men >40 years of age and postmenopausal women

• one or more cardiovascular risk factors.

| I | C
Coronary angiography is recommended in the evaluation of moderate to severe secondary mitral regurgitation. | I | C
CT angiography should be considered as an alternative to coronary angiography before valve surgery in patients with severe VHD and low probability of CAD or in whom conventional coronary angiography is technically not feasible or associated with a high risk. | II | A
CT angiography should be considered as an alternative to coronary angiography before valve surgery in patients with severe VHD and low probability of CAD or in whom conventional coronary angiography is technically not feasible or associated with a high risk. | IIa | C
Indications for Myocardial Revascularization
CABG is recommended in patients with a primary indication for aortic/mitral valve surgery and coronary artery diameter stenosis ≥70% | I | C
CABG should be considered in patients with a primary indication for aortic/mitral valve surgery and coronary artery diameter stenosis ≥50–70%. | IIa | C
PCI should be considered in patients with a primary indication to undergo TAVI and coronary artery diameter stenosis >70% in proximal segments. | IIa | C
PCI should be considered in patients with a primary indication to undergo transcatheter mitral valve interventions and coronary artery diameter stenosis >70% in proximal segments. | IIa | C
CABG = coronary artery bypass grafting; CAD = coronary artery disease; CT = computed tomography; LV = left ventricular; MSCT = multislice computed tomography; PCI = percutaneous coronary intervention; TAVI = transcatheter aortic valve implantation; VHD = valvular heart disease.

## Source evidence

[edit | edit source]

### Systematic reviews

[edit | edit source]

Systematic reviews have contractory conclusions:

* Vij et all concluded, "Our analysis did not show any survival advantage of an initial invasive strategy over conservative medical therapy in patients with stable coronary artery disease (CAD)," in 2021[4]. Vij excluded patients with low left ventricular ejection fraction or left main disease or published before 2000. Although survival was not improved, cardiac secondary outcomes were improved; however, a reduction in cardiac mortality found when pooling 7 trials since 2000 just missed statistical significance.
* Navarese et al concluded, " elective coronary revascularisation plus medical therapy led to reduced cardiac mortality," in 2021[5]. This included finding a reduction in cardiac mortality when pooling 20 trials.

### Original studies

[edit | edit source]

The largest trials are:

* COURAGE[6]

* ISCHEMIA[7]
* BARI 2D[8]

## References

[edit | edit source]

1. ↑ 1.0 1.1 Writing Committee Members. Lawton JS, Tamis-Holland JE, Bangalore S, Bates ER, Beckie TM; et al. (2022). "2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines". J Am Coll Cardiol. 79 (2): e21–e129. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2021.09.006. PMID 34895950 Check `|pmid=` value (help).CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
2. ↑ Farkouh ME, Domanski M, Sleeper LA, Siami FS, Dangas G, Mack M; et al. (2012). "Strategies for Multivessel Revascularization in Patients with Diabetes". N Engl J Med. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1211585. PMID 23121323.CS1 maint: Explicit use of et al. (link) CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
3. ↑ Baumgartner H, Falk V, Bax JJ, De Bonis M, Hamm C, Holm PJ, Iung B, Lancellotti P, Lansac E, Muñoz DR, Rosenhek R, Sjögren J, Tornos Mas P, Vahanian A, Walther T, Wendler O, Windecker S, Zamorano JL (2017). "2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease". Eur. Heart J. 38 (36): 2739–2791. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehx391. PMID 28886619.
4. ↑ Vij A, Kassab K, Chawla H, Kaur A, Kodumuri V, Jolly N; et al. (2021). "Invasive therapy versus conservative therapy for patients with stable cin 2021oronary artery disease: An updated meta-analysis". Clin Cardiol. 44 (5): 675–682. doi:10.1002/clc.23592. PMC 8119834 Check `|pmc=` value (help). PMID 33742721 Check `|pmid=` value (help).CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
5. ↑ Navarese EP, Lansky AJ, Kereiakes DJ, Kubica J, Gurbel PA, Gorog DA; et al. (2021). "Cardiac mortality in patients randomised to elective coronary revascularisation plus medical therapy or medical therapy alone: a systematic review and meta-analysis". Eur Heart J. 42 (45): 4638–4651. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehab246. PMC 8669551 Check `|pmc=` value (help). PMID 34002203 Check `|pmid=` value (help).CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)
6. ↑ Boden WE, O'Rourke RA, Teo KK, Hartigan PM, Maron DJ, Kostuk WJ; et al. (2007). "Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease". N Engl J Med. 356 (15): 1503–16. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa070829. PMID 17387127.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)  Review in: ACP J Club. 2007 Jul-Aug;147(1):12 Review in: J Fam Pract. 2007 Jul;56(7):529 Review in: Evid Based Med. 2007 Aug;12(4):107
7. ↑ Maron DJ, Hochman JS, Reynolds HR, Bangalore S, O'Brien SM, Boden WE; et al. (2020). "Initial Invasive or Conservative Strategy for Stable Coronary Disease". N Engl J Med. 382 (15): 1395–1407. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1915922. PMC 7263833 Check `|pmc=` value (help). PMID 32227755 Check `|pmid=` value (help).CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)  Review in: Ann Intern Med. 2020 Aug 18;173(4):JC14
8. ↑ BARI 2D Study Group. Frye RL, August P, Brooks MM, Hardison RM, Kelsey SF; et al. (2009). "A randomized trial of therapies for type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease". N Engl J Med. 360 (24): 2503–15. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa0805796. PMC 2863990. PMID 19502645.CS1 maint: Multiple names: authors list (link)  Review in: Ann Intern Med. 2009 Oct 20;151(8):JC4-5