CBS 2019
CBSMD教育中心
English

科学研究

科研文章

荐读文献

Radial versus femoral access and bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin in invasively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome (MATRIX): final 1-year results of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial 中国肺高血压诊断和治疗指南2018 Circulating MicroRNAs and Monocyte-Platelet Aggregate Formation in Acute Coronary Syndrome Fractional flow reserve vs. angiography in guiding management to optimize outcomes in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation FAMOUS-NSTEMI randomized trial Effect of Pre-Hospital Crushed Prasugrel Tablets in Patients with STEMI Planned for Primary Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: The Randomized COMPARE CRUSH Trial Prognostic and Practical Validation of Current Definitions of Myocardial Infarction Associated With Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Deficiency of GATA3-Positive Macrophages Improves Cardiac Function Following Myocardial Infarction or Pressure Overload Hypertrophy Association between Coronary Collaterals and Myocardial Viability in Patients with a Chronic Total Occlusion Incidence and Outcomes of Acute Coronary Syndrome After Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Galectin-3 Levels and Outcomes After Myocardial Infarction: A Population-Based Study
|<<... 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 ...>>|

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