CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Health Status After Transcatheter Versus Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Low-Risk Patients With Aortic Stenosis Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement During Pregnancy Comparison of newer generation self-expandable vs. balloon-expandable valves in transcatheter aortic valve implantation: the randomized SOLVE-TAVI trial Mechanisms of in-stent restenosis after drug-eluting stent implantation: intravascular ultrasound analysis Association of Effective Regurgitation Orifice Area to Left Ventricular End-Diastolic Volume Ratio With Transcatheter Mitral Valve Repair OutcomesA Secondary Analysis of the COAPT Trial Feasibility of Coronary Access and Aortic Valve Reintervention in Low-Risk TAVR Patients The Year in Cardiovascular Medicine 2020: Valvular Heart Disease: Discussing the Year in Cardiovascular Medicine for 2020 in the field of valvular heart disease is Professor Helmut Baumgartner and Dr Javier Bermejo. Mark Nicholls reports Baseline Characteristics and Risk Profiles of Participants in the ISCHEMIA Randomized Clinical Trial Risk of Coronary Obstruction and Feasibility of Coronary Access After Repeat Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement With the Self-Expanding Evolut Valve: A Computed Tomography Simulation Study Criteria for Iron Deficiency in Patients With Heart Failure
|<<... 109 110 111 112 113 114 115 ...>>|

Review ArticleVolume 73, Issue 8, March 2019

JOURNAL：J Am Coll Cardiol. Article Link

PCI and CABG for Treating Stable Coronary Artery Disease

T Doenst, A Haverich, P Serruys et al. Keywords: heart team; prognosis; survival benefit

ABSTRACT

Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are considered revascularization procedures, but only CABG can prolong life in stable coronary artery disease. Thus, PCI and CABG mechanisms may differ. Viability and/or ischemia detection to guide revascularization have been unable to accurately predict treatment effects of CABG or PCI, questioning a revascularization mechanism for improving survival. By contrast, preventing myocardial infarction may save lives. However, the majority of infarcts are generated by non–flow-limiting stenoses, but PCI is solely focused on treating flow-limiting lesions. Thus, PCI cannot be expected to significantly limit new infarcts, but CABG may do so through providing flow distal to vessel occlusions. All comparisons of CABG to PCI or medical therapy that demonstrate survival effects with CABG also demonstrate infarct reduction. Thus, CABG may differ from PCI by providing “surgical collateralization,” prolonging life by preventing myocardial infarctions. The evidence is reviewed here.

>CBS CBS 2019

> CBS 2019

> CBS 2019 注册

> CBS 2019 会议日程

> CBS 2019 学术征集

> CBS 2019 热点

 CBSMD

> CBSMD 网站注册

> 教育中心

> 荐读文献

> Top 10 阅读文献

> 文献导读
CBS 2019 CBS 2019 主席团 教育中心 科研动态
Copyright ⓒ CBS MD Nanjing China. All rights reserved. 京ICP备16025898号-11
联系我们| Top