open access

Vol 76, No 12 (2018)
ESC/PCS New Guidelines
Published online: 2018-12-17
Submitted: 2018-10-05
Accepted: 2018-10-05
Get Citation

2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization

Franz Josef Neumann, Miguel Sousa-Uva, Anders Ahlsson, Fernando Alfonso, Adrian P. Banning, Umberto Benedetto, Robert A. Byrne, Jean-Philippe Collet, Volkmar Falk, Stuart J. Head, Peter Juni, Adnan Kastrati, Akos Koller, Steen D. Kristensen, Josef Niebauer, Dimitrios J. Richter, Petar M. Seferović, Dirk Sibbing, Giulio G. Stefanini, Stephan Windecker, Rashmi Yadav, Michael O. Zembala
DOI: 10.5603/KP.2018.0228
·
Pubmed: 30566213
·
Kardiol Pol 2018;76(12):1585-1664.

open access

Vol 76, No 12 (2018)
ESC/PCS New Guidelines
Published online: 2018-12-17
Submitted: 2018-10-05
Accepted: 2018-10-05

Abstract

Not available

Abstract

Not available
Get Citation

Keywords

ostry zespół wieńcowy, leczenie przeciwkrzepliwe, niepowlekany stent metalowy, pomostowanie tętnic wieńcowych, choroba wieńcowa, stent uwalniający lek, wytyczne, kardiogrupa (wielodyscyplinarny zespół specjalistów zajmujących się chorobami serca, heart te

Supplementary Files (3)
ARTYKUŁ TOWARZYSZĄCY
Download
362KB
PIŚMIENNICTWO
Download
1MB
UZUPEŁNIAJĄCE DANE
Download
457KB
About this article
Title

2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization

Journal

Kardiologia Polska (Polish Heart Journal)

Issue

Vol 76, No 12 (2018)

Pages

1585-1664

Published online

2018-12-17

DOI

10.5603/KP.2018.0228

Pubmed

30566213

Bibliographic record

Kardiol Pol 2018;76(12):1585-1664.

Keywords

ostry zespół wieńcowy
leczenie przeciwkrzepliwe
niepowlekany stent metalowy
pomostowanie tętnic wieńcowych
choroba wieńcowa
stent uwalniający lek
wytyczne
kardiogrupa (wielodyscyplinarny zespół specjalistów zajmujących się chorobami serca
heart te

Authors

Franz Josef Neumann
Miguel Sousa-Uva
Anders Ahlsson
Fernando Alfonso
Adrian P. Banning
Umberto Benedetto
Robert A. Byrne
Jean-Philippe Collet
Volkmar Falk
Stuart J. Head
Peter Juni
Adnan Kastrati
Akos Koller
Steen D. Kristensen
Josef Niebauer
Dimitrios J. Richter
Petar M. Seferović
Dirk Sibbing
Giulio G. Stefanini
Stephan Windecker
Rashmi Yadav
Michael O. Zembala

References (786)
  1. Montalescot G, Sechtem U, Achenbach S, et al. Task Force Members, ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines, Document Reviewers. 2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease: the Task Force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J. 2013; 34(38): 2949–3003.
  2. Leipsic J, Yang TH, Thompson A, et al. Diagnostic accuracy of fractional flow reserve from anatomic CT angiography. JAMA. 2012; 308(12): 1237–1245.
  3. Nørgaard BL, Leipsic J, Gaur S, et al. NXT Trial Study Group. Diagnostic performance of noninvasive fractional flow reserve derived from coronary computed tomography angiography in suspected coronary artery disease: the NXT trial (Analysis of Coronary Blood Flow Using CT Angiography: Next Steps). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 63(12): 1145–1155.
  4. Douglas PS, Pontone G, Hlatky MA, et al. PLATFORM Investigators. Clinical outcomes of fractional flow reserve by computed tomographic angiography-guided diagnostic strategies vs. usual care in patients with suspected coronary artery disease: the prospective longitudinal trial of FFR(CT): outcome and resource impacts study. Eur Heart J. 2015; 36(47): 3359–3367.
  5. Ponikowski P, Voors AA, Anker SD, et al. ESC Scientific Document Group. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure: The Task Force for the diagnosis and treatment of acute and chronic heart failure of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)Developed with the special contribution of the Heart Failure Association (HFA) of the ESC. Eur Heart J. 2016; 37(27): 2129–2200.
  6. Mc Ardle B, Shukla T, Nichol G, et al. PARR-2 Investigators, PARR-2 Investigators. F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging-assisted management of patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction and suspected coronary disease: a randomized, controlled trial (PARR-2). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 50(20): 2002–2012.
  7. Mehra MR, Canter CE, Hannan MM, et al. International Society for Heart Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) Infectious Diseases Council, International Society for Heart Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) Pediatric Transplantation Council, International Society for Heart Lung Transplantation (ISHLT) Heart Failure and Transplantation Council. The 2016 International Society for Heart Lung Transplantation listing criteria for heart transplantation: A 10-year update. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2016; 35(1): 1–23.
  8. Feldman D, Pamboukian SV, Teuteberg JJ, et al. International Society for Heart Lung Transplantation (ISHLT). The 2013 International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation Guidelines for mechanical circulatory support: executive summary. J Heart Lung Transplant. 2013; 32(2): 157–187.
  9. 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; 364(17): 1617–1625.
  10. Allman KC, Shaw LJ, Hachamovitch R, et al. Myocardial viability testing and impact of revascularization on prognosis in patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction: a meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002; 39(7): 1151–1158.
  11. Ling LF, Marwick TH, Flores DR, et al. Identification of therapeutic benefit from revascularization in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction: inducible ischemia versus hibernating myocardium. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013; 6(3): 363–372.
  12. Ahn JM, Park DW, Shin ES, et al. IRIS-FFR Investigators. Fractional Flow Reserve and Cardiac Events in Coronary Artery Disease: Data From a Prospective IRIS-FFR Registry (Interventional Cardiology Research Incooperation Society Fractional Flow Reserve). Circulation. 2017; 135(23): 2241–2251.
  13. Bech GJ, De Br, Bonnier HJ, et al. Long-term follow-up after deferral of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty of intermediate stenosis on the basis of coronary pressure measuremenet. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1998; 31: 841–847.
  14. Bech GJ, De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, et al. Fractional flow reserve to determine the appropriateness of angioplasty in moderate coronary stenosis: a randomized trial. Circulation. 2001; 103(24): 2928–2934.
  15. Pijls NHJ, van Schaardenburgh P, Manoharan G, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally nonsignificant stenosis: 5-year follow-up of the DEFER Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 49(21): 2105–2111.
  16. Adjedj J, De Bruyne B, Floré V, et al. Significance of Intermediate Values of Fractional Flow Reserve in Patients With Coronary Artery Disease. Circulation. 2016; 133(5): 502–508.
  17. Davies J, Sen S, Dehbi HM, et al. Use of the instantaneous wave-free ratio or fractional flow reserve in PCI. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376(19): 1824–1834.
  18. Götberg M, Christiansen EH, Gudmundsdottir IJ, et al. iFR-SWEDEHEART Investigators. Instantaneous Wave-free Ratio versus Fractional Flow Reserve to Guide PCI. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376(19): 1813–1823.
  19. Van Belle E, Rioufol G, Pouillot C, et al. Investigators of the Registre Français de la FFR–R3F. Outcome impact of coronary revascularization strategy reclassification with fractional flow reserve at time of diagnostic angiography: insights from a large French multicenter fractional flow reserve registry. Circulation. 2014; 129(2): 173–185.
  20. Curzen N, Rana O, Nicholas Z, et al. Does routine pressure wire assessment influence management strategy at coronary angiography for diagnosis of chest pain?: the RIPCORD study. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2014; 7(2): 248–255.
  21. Raposo L, Santos L, Ramos R, et al. Impact of routine fractional flow reserve evaluation during coronary angiography on management strategy and clinical outcome: one-year results of the POST-IT. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9(7).
  22. Van Belle E, Baptista SB, Raposo L, et al. PRIME-FFR Study Group. Impact of routine fractional flow reserve on management decision and 1-year clinical outcome of patients with acute coronary syndromes: PRIME-FFR (insights from the POST-IT [portuguese study on the evaluation of ffr-guided treatment of coronary disease] and R3F [french FFR registry] integrated multicenter registries — implementation of FFR [fractional flow reserve] in routine practice). Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 10(6).
  23. Van Belle E, Dupouy P, Rioufol G. Routine fractional flow reserve combined to diagnostic coronary angiography as a one-stop procedure: episode 3. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9(7).
  24. Johnson NP, Tóth GG, Lai D, et al. Prognostic value of fractional flow reserve: linking physiologic severity to clinical outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 64(16): 1641–1654.
  25. Mallidi J, Atreya AR, Cook J, et al. Long-term outcomes following fractional flow reserve-guided treatment of angiographically ambiguous left main coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis of prospective cohort studies. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 86(1): 12–18.
  26. Hamilos M, Muller O, Cuisset T, et al. Long-term clinical outcome after fractional flow reserve-guided treatment in patients with angiographically equivocal left main coronary artery stenosis. Circulation. 2009; 120(15): 1505–1512.
  27. Yong AS, Daniels D, De Bruyne B, et al. Fractional flow reserve assessment of left main stenosis in the presence of downstream coronary stenoses. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2013; 6(2): 161–165.
  28. Toth G, Bruyne BDe, Casselman F, et al. Fractional flow reserve–guided versus angiography-guided coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Circulation. 2013; 128(13): 1405–1411.
  29. Tonino P, Bruyne BDe, Pijls N, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. New England Journal of Medicine. 2009; 360(3): 213–224.
  30. Pijls NHJ, Fearon WF, Tonino PAL, et al. FAME Study Investigators. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: 2-year follow-up of the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 56(3): 177–184.
  31. van Nunen LX, Zimmermann FM, Tonino PAL, et al. FAME Study Investigators. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guidance of PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (FAME): 5-year follow-up of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015; 386(10006): 1853–1860.
  32. De Bruyne B, Pijls NHJ, Kalesan B, et al. FAME 2 Trial Investigators. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367(11): 991–1001.
  33. Fearon WF, Nishi T, De Bruyne B, et al. FAME 2 Trial Investigators. Clinical outcomes and cost-effectiveness of fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with stable coronary artery disease: three-year follow-up of the FAME 2 trial (fractional flow reserve versus angiography for multivessel evaluation). Circulation. 2018; 137(5): 480–487.
  34. Escaned J, Collet C, Ryan N, et al. Clinical outcomes of state-of-the-art percutaneous coronary revascularization in patients with de novo three vessel disease: 1-year results of the SYNTAX II study. Eur Heart J. 2017; 38(42): 3124–3134.
  35. Park SJ, Kim YH, Park DW, et al. MAIN-COMPARE Investigators. Impact of intravascular ultrasound guidance on long-term mortality in stenting for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2009; 2(3): 167–177.
  36. Fassa AA, Wagatsuma K, Higano ST, et al. Intravascular ultrasound-guided treatment for angiographically indeterminate left main coronary artery disease: a long-term follow-up study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005; 45(2): 204–211.
  37. de la Torre Hernandez JM, Hernández Hernandez F, Alfonso F, et al. LITRO Study Group (Spanish Working Group on Interventional Cardiology). Prospective application of pre-defined intravascular ultrasound criteria for assessment of intermediate left main coronary artery lesions results from the multicenter LITRO study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 58(4): 351–358.
  38. Park SJ, Ahn JM, Kang SJ, et al. Intravascular ultrasound-derived minimal lumen area criteria for functionally significant left main coronary artery stenosis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014; 7(8): 868–874.
  39. Pijls NH, De Bruyne B, Peels K, et al. Measurement of fractional flow reserve to assess the functional severity of coronary-artery stenoses. N Engl J Med. 1996; 334(26): 1703–1708.
  40. Ayton DR, Barker AL, Peeters GM, et al. Exploring patient-reported outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention: A qualitative study. Health Expect. 2018; 21(2): 457–465.
  41. Myles PS. Meaningful outcome measures in cardiac surgery. J Extra Corpor Technol. 2014; 46(1): 23–27.
  42. Piepoli MF, Hoes AW, Agewall S, et al. ESC Scientific Document Group. 2016 European Guidelines on cardiovascular disease prevention in clinical practice: The Sixth Joint Task Force of the European Society of Cardiology and Other Societies on Cardiovascular Disease Prevention in Clinical Practice (constituted by representatives of 10 societies and by invited experts)Developed with the special contribution of the European Association for Cardiovascular Prevention & Rehabilitation (EACPR). Eur Heart J. 2016; 37(29): 2315–2381.
  43. Head SJ, Kaul S, Mack MJ, et al. The rationale for Heart Team decision-making for patients with stable, complex coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J. 2013; 34(32): 2510–2518.
  44. Filardo G, Maggioni AP, Mura G, et al. The consequences of under-use of coronary revascularization; results of a cohort study in Northern Italy. Eur Heart J. 2001; 22(8): 654–662.
  45. Yates MT, Soppa GKR, Valencia O, et al. Impact of European Society of Cardiology and European Association for Cardiothoracic Surgery Guidelines on Myocardial Revascularization on the activity of percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery for stable coronary artery disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014; 147(2): 606–610.
  46. Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Health at a glance. http://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/health-at-a-glance-19991312.htm (July 21, 2018).
  47. Bradley SM, Bohn CM, Malenka DJ, et al. Temporal Trends in Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Appropriateness: Insights From the Clinical Outcomes Assessment Program. Circulation. 2015; 132(1): 20–26.
  48. Hannan EL, Samadashvili Z, Cozzens K, et al. Changes in percutaneous coronary interventions deemed. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017; 69(10): 1234–1242.
  49. Denvir MA, Pell JP, Lee AJ, et al. Variations in clinical decision-making between cardiologists and cardiac surgeons; a case for management by multidisciplinary teams? J Cardiothorac Surg. 2006; 1: 2.
  50. Pavlidis AN, Perera D, Karamasis GV, et al. Implementation and consistency of Heart Team decision-making in complex coronary revascularisation. Int J Cardiol. 2016; 206: 37–41.
  51. Sanchez CE, Dota A, Badhwar V, et al. Revascularization heart team recommendations as an adjunct to appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization in patients with complex coronary artery disease. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 88(4): E103–E112.
  52. Sobolev BG, Fradet G, Kuramoto L, et al. The occurrence of adverse events in relation to time after registration for coronary artery bypass surgery: a population-based observational study. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013; 8: 74.
  53. Head SJ, da Costa BR, Beumer B, et al. Adverse events while awaiting myocardial revascularization: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017; 52(2): 206–217.
  54. Graham MM, Knudtson ML, O'Neill BJ, et al. Canadian Cardiovascular Society Access to Care Working Group. Treating the right patient at the right time: Access to cardiac catheterization, percutaneous coronary intervention and cardiac surgery. Can J Cardiol. 2006; 22(8): 679–683.
  55. Truffa MAM, Alves GMP, Bernardi F, et al. Does ad hoc coronary intervention reduce radiation exposure? — analysis of 568 patients. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2015; 105(5): 487–492.
  56. Hannan EL, Samadashvili Z, Walford G, et al. Predictors and outcomes of ad hoc versus non-ad hoc percutaneous coronary interventions. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2009; 2(4): 350–356.
  57. RITA-2 trial participants. Coronary angioplasty versus medical therapy for angina: the second Randomised Intervention Treatment of Angina (RITA-2) trial. Lancet. 1997; 350(9076): 461–468.
  58. TIME Investigators. Trial of invasive versus medical therapy in elderly patients with chronic symptomatic coronary-artery disease (TIME): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2001; 358(9286): 951–957.
  59. Boden W, O'Rourke R, Teo K, et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. New England Journal of Medicine. 2007; 356(15): 1503–1516.
  60. Erne P, Schoenenberger A, Burckhardt D, et al. Effects of percutaneous coronary interventions in silent ischemia after myocardial infarction: the SWISSI II randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2007; 297(18): 1985.
  61. Frye RL, August P, Brooks MM, et al. BARI 2D Study Group. A randomized trial of therapies for type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360(24): 2503–2515.
  62. Hueb W, Lopes N, Gersh B, et al. Ten-Year follow-up survival of the medicine, angioplasty, or surgery study (MASS II). Circulation. 2010; 122(10): 949–957.
  63. Al-Lamee R, Thompson D, Dehbi HM, et al. ORBITA investigators. Percutaneous coronary intervention in stable angina (ORBITA): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2018; 391(10115): 31–40.
  64. Chaitman BR, Mori Brooks M, Fox K, et al. ORBITA revisited: what it really means and what it does not? Eur Heart J. 2018; 39(11): 963–965.
  65. Baron SJ, Chinnakondepalli K, Magnuson EA, et al. EXCEL Investigators. Quality-of-Life after everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for left-main disease: results from the EXCEL trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017; 70(25): 3113–3122.
  66. Abdallah M, Wang K, Magnuson E, et al. Quality of life after surgery or DES in patients with 3-vessel or left main disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017; 69(16): 2039–2050.
  67. Abdallah MS, Wang K, Magnuson EA, et al. FREEDOM Trial Investigators. Quality of life after PCI vs CABG among patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2013; 310(15): 1581–1590.
  68. 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; 344(8922): 563–570.
  69. Bittl JA, He Y, Jacobs AK, et al. American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Bayesian methods affirm the use of percutaneous coronary intervention to improve survival in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2013; 127(22): 2177–2185.
  70. Dzavik V, Ghali WA, Norris C, et al. Alberta Provincial Project for Outcome Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease (APPROACH) Investigators. Long-term survival in 11,661 patients with multivessel coronary artery disease in the era of stenting: a report from the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcome Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease (APPROACH) Investigators. Am Heart J. 2001; 142(1): 119–126.
  71. Lee PH, Ahn JM, Chang M, et al. Left main coronary artery disease: secular trends in patient characteristics, treatments, and outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016; 68(11): 1233–1246.
  72. Smith PK, Califf RM, Tuttle RH, et al. Selection of surgical or percutaneous coronary intervention provides differential longevity benefit. Ann Thorac Surg. 2006; 82(4): 1420–8; discussion 1428.
  73. Hannan EL, Wu C, Walford G, et al. Drug-eluting stents vs. coronary-artery bypass grafting in multivessel coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358(4): 331–341.
  74. Hannan EL, Samadashvili Z, Cozzens K, et al. Comparative outcomes for patients who do and do not undergo percutaneous coronary intervention for stable coronary artery disease in New York. Circulation. 2012; 125(15): 1870–1879.
  75. Caracciolo EA, Davis KB, Sopko G, et al. Comparison of surgical and medical group survival in patients with left main equivalent coronary artery disease. Long-term CASS experience. Circulation. 1995; 91(9): 2335–2344.
  76. Chaitman BR, Hardison RM, Adler D, et al. Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) Study Group. The bypass angioplasty revascularization investigation 2 diabetes randomized trial of different treatment strategies in type 2 diabetes mellitus with stable ischemic heart disease: impact of treatment strategy on cardiac mortality and myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2009; 120(25): 2529–2540.
  77. Passamani E, Davis KB, Gillespie MJ, et al. A randomized trial of coronary artery bypass surgery. Survival of patients with a low ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 1985; 312(26): 1665–1671.
  78. 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; 364(17): 1607–1616.
  79. Jones RH, Kesler K, Phillips HR, et al. Long-term survival benefits of coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous transluminal angioplasty in patients with coronary artery disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1996; 111(5): 1013–1025.
  80. Baker DW, Jones R, Hodges J, et al. Management of heart failure. III. The role of revascularization in the treatment of patients with moderate or severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction. JAMA. 1994; 272(19): 1528–1534.
  81. Velazquez EJ, Lee KL, Jones RH, et al. STICHES Investigators. Coronary-Artery bypass surgery in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. N Engl J Med. 2016; 374(16): 1511–1520.
  82. Panza JA, Velazquez EJ, She L, et al. Extent of coronary and myocardial disease and benefit from surgical revascularization in ischemic LV dysfunction [Corrected]. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 64(6): 553–561.
  83. Petrie MC, Jhund PS, She L, et al. STICH Trial Investigators. Ten-Year outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting according to age in patients with heart failure and left ventricular systolic dysfunction: an analysis of the extended follow-up of the STICH trial (surgical treatment for ischemic heart failure). Circulation. 2016; 134(18): 1314–1324.
  84. Hachamovitch R, Rozanski A, Shaw LJ, et al. Impact of ischaemia and scar on the therapeutic benefit derived from myocardial revascularization vs. medical therapy among patients undergoing stress-rest myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. Eur Heart J. 2011; 32(8): 1012–1024.
  85. Davies RF, Goldberg AD, Forman S, et al. Asymptomatic cardiac ischemia pilot (ACIP) study two-year follow-up: outcomes of patients randomized to initial strategies of medical therapy versus revascularization. Circulation. 1997; 95(8): 2037–2043.
  86. Shaw LJ, Berman DS, Maron DJ, et al. COURAGE Investigators. 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; 117(10): 1283–1291.
  87. Hachamovitch R, Hayes SW, Friedman JD, et al. Comparison of the short-term survival benefit associated with revascularization compared with medical therapy in patients with no prior coronary artery disease undergoing stress myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography. Circulation. 2003; 107(23): 2900–2907.
  88. Gada H, Kirtane AJ, Kereiakes DJ, et al. Meta-analysis of trials on mortality after percutaneous coronary intervention compared with medical therapy in patients with stable coronary heart disease and objective evidence of myocardial ischemia. Am J Cardiol. 2015; 115(9): 1194–1199.
  89. Stergiopoulos K, Boden WE, Hartigan P, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention outcomes in patients with stable obstructive coronary artery disease and myocardial ischemia: a collaborative meta-analysis of contemporary randomized clinical trials. JAMA Intern Med. 2014; 174(2): 232–240.
  90. Nishigaki K, Yamazaki T, Kitabatake A, et al. Japanese Stable Angina Pectoris Study Investigators. Percutaneous coronary intervention plus medical therapy reduces the incidence of acute coronary syndrome more effectively than initial medical therapy only among patients with low-risk coronary artery disease a randomized, comparative, multicenter study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2008; 1(5): 469–479.
  91. Katritsis DG, Ioannidis JPA. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus conservative therapy in nonacute coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. Circulation. 2005; 111(22): 2906–2912.
  92. Schömig A, Mehilli J, de Waha A, et al. A meta-analysis of 17 randomized trials of a percutaneous coronary intervention-based strategy in patients with stable coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008; 52(11): 894–904.
  93. Trikalinos TA, Alsheikh-Ali AA, Tatsioni A, et al. Percutaneous coronary interventions for non-acute coronary artery disease: a quantitative 20-year synopsis and a network meta-analysis. Lancet. 2009; 373(9667): 911–918.
  94. Bangalore S, Pursnani S, Kumar S, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus optimal medical therapy for prevention of spontaneous myocardial infarction in subjects with stable ischemic heart disease. Circulation. 2013; 127(7): 769–781.
  95. Pursnani S, Korley F, Gopaul R, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus optimal medical therapy in stable coronary artery disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2012; 5(4): 476–490.
  96. Thomas S, Gokhale R, Boden WE, et al. A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention with medical therapy in stable angina pectoris. Can J Cardiol. 2013; 29(4): 472–482.
  97. Bruyne BDe, Fearon W, Pijls N, et al. Fractional flow reserve — guided PCI for stable coronary artery disease. New England Journal of Medicine. 2014; 371(13): 1208–1217.
  98. Bucher HC, Hengstler P, Schindler C, et al. Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty versus medical treatment for non-acute coronary heart disease: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2000; 321(7253): 73–77.
  99. Stergiopoulos K, Brown DL. Initial coronary stent implantation with medical therapy vs medical therapy alone for stable coronary artery disease: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch Intern Med. 2012; 172(4): 312–319.
  100. Windecker S, Stortecky S, Stefanini GG, et al. Revascularisation versus medical treatment in patients with stable coronary artery disease: network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2014; 348: g3859.
  101. Jeremias A, Kaul S, Rosengart TK, et al. The impact of revascularization on mortality in patients with nonacute coronary artery disease. Am J Med. 2009; 122(2): 152–161.
  102. Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, et al. SYNTAX Investigators. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360(10): 961–972.
  103. Boudriot E, Thiele H, Walther T, et al. Randomized comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention with sirolimus-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in unprotected left main stem stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 57(5): 538–545.
  104. Park SJ, Kim YH, Park DW, et al. Randomized trial of stents versus bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364(18): 1718–1727.
  105. Park SJ, Ahn JM, Kim YH, et al. BEST Trial Investigators. Trial of everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372(13): 1204–1212.
  106. Mäkikallio T, Holm NR, Lindsay M, et al. NOBLE study investigators. Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in treatment of unprotected left main stenosis (NOBLE): a prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2016; 388(10061): 2743–2752.
  107. Stone G, Sabik J, Serruys P, et al. EXCEL Trial Investigators. Everolimus-Eluting stents or bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375(23): 2223–2235.
  108. Nashef SAM, Roques F, Sharples LD, et al. EuroSCORE II. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012; 41(4): 734–44; discussion 744.
  109. Shahian DM, O'Brien SM, Filardo G, et al. Society of Thoracic Surgeons Quality Measurement Task Force. The society of thoracic surgeons 2008 cardiac surgery risk models: part 1 — coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009; 88(Suppl 1): 2–22.
  110. Shahian DM, O'Brien SM, Filardo G, et al. Society of Thoracic Surgeons Quality Measurement Task Force. The society of thoracic surgeons 2008 cardiac surgery risk models: part 3 — valve plus coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009; 88(Suppl 1): S43–S62.
  111. Biancari F, Vasques F, Mikkola R, et al. Validation of EuroSCORE II in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012; 93(6): 1930–1935.
  112. Osnabrugge RL, Speir AM, Head SJ, et al. Performance of EuroSCORE II in a large US database: implications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014; 46(3): 400–408.
  113. Sullivan PG, Wallach JD, Ioannidis JPA. Meta-analysis comparing established risk prediction models (EuroSCORE II, STS Score, and ACEF Score) for perioperative mortality during cardiac surgery. Am J Cardiol. 2016; 118(10): 1574–1582.
  114. Kirmani BH, Mazhar K, Fabri BM, et al. Comparison of the EuroSCORE II and Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2008 risk tools. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013; 44(6): 999–1005.
  115. Velicki L, Cemerlic-Adjic N, Pavlovic K, et al. Clinical performance of the EuroSCORE II compared with the previous EuroSCORE iterations. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014; 62(4): 288–297.
  116. Sianos G, Morel MA, Kappetein AP, et al. The SYNTAX Score: an angiographic tool grading the complexity of coronary artery disease. EuroIntervention. 2005; 1(2): 219–227.
  117. Wykrzykowska JJ, Garg S, Girasis C, et al. Value of the SYNTAX score for risk assessment in the all-comers population of the randomized multicenter LEADERS (Limus Eluted from A Durable versus ERodable Stent coating) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 56(4): 272–277.
  118. Garg S, Serruys PW, Silber S, et al. The prognostic utility of the SYNTAX score on 1-year outcomes after revascularization with zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting stents: a substudy of the RESOLUTE All Comers Trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011; 4(4): 432–441.
  119. Zhao M, Stampf S, Valina C, et al. Role of euroSCORE II in predicting long-term outcome after percutaneous catheter intervention for coronary triple vessel disease or left main stenosis. Int J Cardiol. 2013; 168(4): 3273–3279.
  120. Cavalcante R, Sotomi Y, Mancone M, et al. Impact of the SYNTAX scores I and II in patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary disease: a pooled analysis of patient level data from the SYNTAX, PRECOMBAT, and BEST trials. Eur Heart J. 2017; 38(25): 1969–1977.
  121. Mohr F, Morice MC, Kappetein A, et al. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial. The Lancet. 2013; 381(9867): 629–638.
  122. Morice MC, Serruys P, Kappetein A, et al. Five-year outcomes in patients with left main disease treated with either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting in the synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with taxus and cardiac surgery trial. Circulation. 2014; 129(23): 2388–2394.
  123. Head SJ, Davierwala PM, Serruys PW, et al. Coronary artery bypass grafting vs. percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with three-vessel disease: final five-year follow-up of the SYNTAX trial. Eur Heart J. 2014; 35(40): 2821–2830.
  124. Head SJ, Milojevic M, Daemen J, et al. Mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting for coronary artery disease: a pooled analysis of individual patient data. Lancet. 2018; 391(10124): 939–948.
  125. Zhang YJ, Iqbal J, Campos CM, et al. Prognostic value of site SYNTAX score and rationale for combining anatomic and clinical factors in decision making: insights from the SYNTAX trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 64(5): 423–432.
  126. Medina A, Lezo JS, Pan M. A new classification of coronary bifurcation lesions. Rev Esp Cardiol. 2006; 59(2): 183.
  127. Farooq V, van Klaveren D, Steyerberg EW, et al. Anatomical and clinical characteristics to guide decision making between coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention for individual patients: development and validation of SYNTAX score II. Lancet. 2013; 381(9867): 639–650.
  128. Campos CM, Garcia-Garcia HM, van Klaveren D, et al. Validity of SYNTAX score II for risk stratification of percutaneous coronary interventions: A patient-level pooled analysis of 5,433 patients enrolled in contemporary coronary stent trials. Int J Cardiol. 2015; 187: 111–115.
  129. Sotomi Y, Cavalcante R, van Klaveren D, et al. Individual long-term mortality prediction following either coronary stenting or bypass surgery in patients with multivessel and/or unprotected left main disease: An external validation of the SYNTAX Score II model in the 1,480 patients of the BEST and PRECOMBAT randomized controlled trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9: 1564–1572.
  130. Campos CM, van Klaveren D, Farooq V, et al. EXCEL Trial Investigators. Long-term forecasting and comparison of mortality in the Evaluation of the Xience Everolimus Eluting Stent vs. Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization (EXCEL) trial: prospective validation of the SYNTAX Score II. Eur Heart J. 2015; 36(20): 1231–1241.
  131. Farooq V, Serruys PW, Garcia-Garcia HM, et al. The negative impact of incomplete angiographic revascularization on clinical outcomes and its association with total occlusions: the SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 61(3): 282–294.
  132. Garcia S, Sandoval Y, Roukoz H, et al. Outcomes after complete versus incomplete revascularization of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of 89,883 patients enrolled in randomized clinical trials and observational studies. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 62(16): 1421–1431.
  133. Zimarino M, Ricci F, Romanello M, et al. Complete myocardial revascularization confers a larger clinical benefit when performed with state-of-the-art techniques in high-risk patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 87(1): 3–12.
  134. Farooq V, Serruys PW, Bourantas CV, et al. Quantification of incomplete revascularization and its association with five-year mortality in the synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with taxus and cardiac surgery (SYNTAX) trial validation of the residual SYNTAX score. Circulation. 2013; 128(2): 141–151.
  135. Bangalore S, Guo Yu, Samadashvili Z, et al. Everolimus-Eluting stents or bypass surgery for multivessel coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372(13): 1213–1222.
  136. Ahn JM, Park DW, Lee CW, et al. Comparison of stenting versus bypass surgery according to the completeness of revascularization in severe coronary artery disease: patient-level pooled analysis of the SYNTAX, PRECOMBAT, and BEST Trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 10(14): 1415–1424.
  137. Layland J, Oldroyd KG, Curzen N, et al. FAMOUS–NSTEMI investigators. 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. Eur Heart J. 2015; 36(2): 100–111.
  138. Ad N, Holmes SD, Patel J, et al. Comparison of EuroSCORE II, Original EuroSCORE, and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Risk Score in Cardiac Surgery Patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016; 102(2): 573–579.
  139. Aziz O, Rao C, Panesar SS, et al. Meta-analysis of minimally invasive internal thoracic artery bypass versus percutaneous revascularisation for isolated lesions of the left anterior descending artery. BMJ. 2007; 334(7594): 617.
  140. Kapoor JR, Gienger AL, Ardehali R, et al. Isolated disease of the proximal left anterior descending artery comparing the effectiveness of percutaneous coronary interventions and coronary artery bypass surgery. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2008; 1(5): 483–491.
  141. Blazek S, Holzhey D, Jungert C, et al. Comparison of bare-metal stenting with minimally invasive bypass surgery for stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery: 10-year follow-up of a randomized trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013; 6(1): 20–26.
  142. Hannan EL, Zhong Ye, Walford G, et al. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus drug-eluting stents for patients with isolated proximal left anterior descending disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 64(25): 2717–2726.
  143. Blazek S, Rossbach C, Borger MA, et al. Comparison of sirolimus-eluting stenting with minimally invasive bypass surgery for stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery: 7-year follow-up of a randomized trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 8(1, pt A): 30–38.
  144. Thiele H, Neumann-Schniedewind P, Jacobs S, et al. Randomized comparison of minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass surgery versus sirolimus-eluting stenting in isolated proximal left anterior descending coronary artery stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009; 53(25): 2324–2331.
  145. Capodanno D, Stone GW, Morice MC, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery in left main coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical data. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 58(14): 1426–1432.
  146. Ahn JM, Roh JH, Kim YH, et al. Randomized trial of stents versus bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease: 5-year outcomes of the PRECOMBAT study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 65(20): 2198–2206.
  147. Cavalcante R, Sotomi Y, Lee C, et al. Outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention or bypass surgery in patients with unprotected left main disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016; 68(10): 999–1009.
  148. Giacoppo D, Colleran R, Cassese S, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention vs coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with left main coronary artery stenosis: A systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Cardiol. 2017; 2(10): 1079–1088.
  149. Chang M, Ahn JM, Lee CW, et al. Long-term mortality after coronary revascularization in nondiabetic patients with multivessel disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016; 68(1): 29–36.
  150. Farkouh ME, Domanski M, Sleeper LA, et al. FREEDOM Trial Investigators. Strategies for multivessel revascularization in patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367(25): 2375–2384.
  151. Bangalore S, Guo Yu, Samadashvili Z, et al. Everolimus eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery for patients with diabetes mellitus and multivessel disease. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 8(7): e002626.
  152. Hakeem A, Garg N, Bhatti S, et al. Effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents compared with bypass surgery in diabetics with multivessel coronary disease: comprehensive systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical data. J Am Heart Assoc. 2013; 2(4): e000354.
  153. Herbison P, Wong CK. Has the difference in mortality between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting in people with heart disease and diabetes changed over the years? A systematic review and meta-regression. BMJ Open. 2015; 5(12): e010055.
  154. Kamalesh M, Sharp TG, Tang XC, et al. CARDS Investigators VA. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary bypass surgery in United States veterans with diabetes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 61(8): 808–816.
  155. Kappetein AP, Head SJ, Morice MC, et al. SYNTAX Investigators. Treatment of complex coronary artery disease in patients with diabetes: 5-year results comparing outcomes of bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention in the SYNTAX trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013; 43(5): 1006–1013.
  156. Kapur A, Hall RJ, Malik IS, et al. Randomized comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention with coronary artery bypass grafting in diabetic patients. 1-year results of the CARDia (Coronary Artery Revascularization in Diabetes) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 55(5): 432–440.
  157. Koskinas KC, Siontis GCM, Piccolo R, et al. Impact of diabetic status on outcomes after revascularization with drug-eluting stents in relation to coronary artery disease complexity: Patient-level pooled analysis of 6081 patients. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9(2): e003255.
  158. Roffi M, Patrono C, Collet JP, et al. ESC Scientific Document Group. 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: Task Force for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Patients Presenting without Persistent ST-Segment Elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2016; 37(3): 267–315.
  159. Goldstein JA, Demetriou D, Grines CL, et al. Multiple complex coronary plaques in patients with acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2000; 343(13): 915–922.
  160. Shishehbor MH, Venkatachalam S, Sun Z, et al. A direct comparison of early and late outcomes with three approaches to carotid revascularization and open heart surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 62(21): 1948–1956.
  161. Cheruvu PK, Finn AV, Gardner C, et al. Frequency and distribution of thin-cap fibroatheroma and ruptured plaques in human coronary arteries: a pathologic study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 50(10): 940–949.
  162. Kerensky RA, Wade M, Deedwania P, et al. Veterans Affairs Non-Q-Wave Infarction Stategies in-Hospital (VANQWISH) Trial Investigators. Revisiting the culprit lesion in non-Q-wave myocardial infarction. Results from the VANQWISH trial angiographic core laboratory. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002; 39(9): 1456–1463.
  163. Kastrati A, Neumann FJ, Schulz S, et al. ISAR-REACT 4 Trial Investigators. Abciximab and heparin versus bivalirudin for non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2011; 365(21): 1980–1989.
  164. Mehta SR, Granger CB, Boden WE, et al. TIMACS Investigators. Early versus delayed invasive intervention in acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360(21): 2165–2175.
  165. Montalescot G, Bolognese L, Dudek D, et al. ACCOAST Investigators. Pretreatment with prasugrel in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2013; 369(11): 999–1010.
  166. Thiele H, Rach J, Klein N, et al. LIPSIA-NSTEMI Trial Group. Optimal timing of invasive angiography in stable non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the Leipzig Immediate versus early and late PercutaneouS coronary Intervention triAl in NSTEMI (LIPSIA-NSTEMI Trial). Eur Heart J. 2012; 33(16): 2035–2043.
  167. Tanaka A, Shimada K, Tearney GJ, et al. Conformational change in coronary artery structure assessed by optical coherence tomography in patients with vasospastic angina. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 58(15): 1608–1613.
  168. Kato M, Dote K, Sasaki S, et al. Presentations of acute coronary syndrome related to coronary lesion morphologies as assessed by intravascular ultrasound and optical coherence tomography. Int J Cardiol. 2013; 165(3): 506–511.
  169. Motreff P, Malcles G, Combaret N, et al. How and when to suspect spontaneous coronary artery dissection: novel insights from a single-centre series on prevalence and angiographic appearance. EuroIntervention. 2017; 12(18): e2236–e2243.
  170. Bavry AA, Kumbhani DJ, Rassi AN, et al. Benefit of early invasive therapy in acute coronary syndromes: a meta-analysis of contemporary randomized clinical trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 48(7): 1319–1325.
  171. Fox KA, Clayton TC, Damman P, et al. FIR Collaboration. Long-term outcome of a routine versus selective invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome a meta-analysis of individual patient data. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 55(22): 2435–2445.
  172. Valgimigli M, Gagnor A, Calabró P, et al. MATRIX Investigators. Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet. 2015; 385(9986): 2465–2476.
  173. Garot P, Morice MC, Tresukosol D, et al. LEADERS FREE Investigators, LEADERS FREE Investigators. Polymer-free drug-coated coronary stents in patients at high bleeding risk. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373(21): 2038–2047.
  174. Katritsis DG, Siontis GCM, Kastrati A, et al. Optimal timing of coronary angiography and potential intervention in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J. 2011; 32(1): 32–40.
  175. Navarese EP, Gurbel PA, Andreotti F, et al. Optimal timing of coronary invasive strategy in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2013; 158(4): 261–270.
  176. Jobs A, Mehta SR, Montalescot G, et al. Optimal timing of an invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet. 2017; 390(10096): 737–746.
  177. Räber L, Kelbæk H, Ostojic M, et al. COMFORTABLE AMI Trial Investigators. Effect of biolimus-eluting stents with biodegradable polymer vs bare-metal stents on cardiovascular events among patients with acute myocardial infarction: the COMFORTABLE AMI randomized trial. JAMA. 2012; 308(8): 777–787.
  178. Sabaté M, Räber L, Heg D, et al. Comparison of newer-generation drug-eluting with bare-metal stents in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a pooled analysis of the EXAMINATION (clinical Evaluation of the Xience-V stent in Acute Myocardial INfArcTION) and COMFORTABLE-AMI (Comparison of Biolimus Eluted From an Erodible Stent Coating With Bare Metal Stents in Acute ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014; 7(1): 55–63.
  179. Valgimigli M, Tebaldi M, Borghesi M, et al. PRODIGY Investigators. Two-year outcomes after first- or second-generation drug-eluting or bare-metal stent implantation in all-comer patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a pre-specified analysis from the PRODIGY study (PROlonging Dual Antiplatelet Treatment After Grading stent-induced Intimal hyperplasia studY). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014; 7(1): 20–28.
  180. Thiele H, de Waha S, Zeymer U, et al. Effect of aspiration thrombectomy on microvascular obstruction in NSTEMI patients: the TATORT-NSTEMI trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 64(11): 1117–1124.
  181. Hakeem A, Edupuganti MM, Almomani A, et al. Long-term prognosis of deferred acute coronary syndrome lesions based on nonischemic fractional flow reserve. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016; 68(11): 1181–1191.
  182. Wallentin L, Lagerqvist B, Husted S, et al. Outcome at 1 year after an invasive compared with a non-invasive strategy in unstable coronary-artery disease: the FRISC II invasive randomised trial. FRISC II Investigators. Fast Revascularisation during Instability in Coronary artery disease. Lancet. 2000; 356(9223): 9–16.
  183. Cannon C, Weintraub W, Demopoulos L, et al. TACTICS (Treat Angina with Aggrastat and Determine Cost of Therapy with an Invasive or Conservative Strategy). 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; 344(25): 1879–1887.
  184. Généreux P, Palmerini T, Caixeta A, et al. SYNTAX score reproducibility and variability between interventional cardiologists, core laboratory technicians, and quantitative coronary measurements. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2011; 4(6): 553–561.
  185. Sardella G, Lucisano L, Garbo R, et al. Single-staged compared with multi-staged PCI in multivessel NSTEMI patients: the SMILE trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016; 67(3): 264–272.
  186. Tricoci P, Huang Z, Held C, et al. TRACER Investigators. Thrombin-receptor antagonist vorapaxar in acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366(1): 20–33.
  187. Lindholm D, Varenhorst C, Cannon CP, et al. Ticagrelor vs. clopidogrel in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome with or without revascularization: results from the PLATO trial. Eur Heart J. 2014; 35(31): 2083–2093.
  188. Curtis JP, Schreiner G, Wang Y, et al. All-cause readmission and repeat revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention in a cohort of medicare patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009; 54(10): 903–907.
  189. Meadows ES, Bae JP, Zagar A, et al. Rehospitalization following percutaneous coronary intervention for commercially insured patients with acute coronary syndrome: a retrospective analysis. BMC Res Notes. 2012; 5: 342.
  190. Thiele H, Akin I, Sandri M, et al. CULPRIT-SHOCK Investigators. PCI strategies in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 2017; 377(25): 2419–2432.
  191. Ranasinghe I, Alprandi-Costa B, Chow V, et al. Risk stratification in the setting of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes 1999–2007. Am J Cardiol. 2011; 108(5): 617–624.
  192. Fukui T, Tabata M, Morita S, et al. Early and long-term outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with acute coronary syndrome versus stable angina pectoris. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013; 145(6): 1577–83, 1583.e1.
  193. Malm CJ, Hansson EC, Åkesson J, et al. Preoperative platelet function predicts perioperative bleeding complications in ticagrelor-treated cardiac surgery patients: a prospective observational study. Br J Anaesth. 2016; 117(3): 309–315.
  194. Chang M, Lee CW, Ahn JM, et al. Comparison of outcome of coronary artery bypass grafting versus drug-eluting stent implantation for non-st-elevation acute coronary syndrome. Am J Cardiol. 2017; 120(3): 380–386.
  195. Palmerini T, Genereux P, Caixeta A, et al. Prognostic value of the SYNTAX score in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: analysis from the ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage StrategY) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 57(24): 2389–2397.
  196. Ramanathan K, Abel JG, Park JE, et al. Surgical versus percutaneous coronary revascularization in patients with diabetes and acute coronary syndromes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017; 70(24): 2995–3006.
  197. Kolte D, Khera S, Dabhadkar KC, et al. rends in coronary angiography, revascularization, and outcomes of cardiogenic shock complicating non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 2016; 117(1): 1–9.
  198. Ibanez B, James S, Agewall S, et al. ESC Scientific Document Group. 2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with STsegment elevation: The Task Force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J. 2018; 39: 119–177.
  199. Scholz KH, Maier SKG, Maier LS, et al. Impact of treatment delay on mortality in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients presenting with and without haemodynamic instability: results from the German prospective, multicentre FITT-STEMI trial. Eur Heart J. 2018; 39(13): 1065–1074.
  200. Keeley EC, Boura JA, Grines CL. Comparison of primary and facilitated percutaneous coronary interventions for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: quantitative review of randomised trials. Lancet. 2006; 367(9510): 579–588.
  201. Boersma E. Primary Coronary Angioplasty vs. Thrombolysis Group. Does time matter? A pooled analysis of randomized clinical trials comparing primary percutaneous coronary intervention and in-hospital fibrinolysis in acute myocardial infarction patients. Eur Heart J. 2006; 27(7): 779–788.
  202. Morrison LJ, Verbeek PR, McDonald AC, et al. Mortality and prehospital thrombolysis for acute myocardial infarction: A meta-analysis. JAMA. 2000; 283(20): 2686–2692.
  203. Bonnefoy E, Lapostolle F, Leizorovicz A, et al. Comparison of Angioplasty and Prehospital Thromboysis in Acute Myocardial Infarction study group. Primary angioplasty versus prehospital fibrinolysis in acute myocardial infarction: a randomised study. Lancet. 2002; 360(9336): 825–829.
  204. Bonnefoy E, Steg PG, Boutitie F, et al. CAPTIM Investigators. Comparison of primary angioplasty and pre-hospital fibrinolysis in acute myocardial infarction (CAPTIM) trial: a 5-year follow-up. Eur Heart J. 2009; 30(13): 1598–1606.
  205. Pinto DS, Frederick PD, Chakrabarti AK, et al. National Registry of Myocardial Infarction Investigators. Benefit of transferring ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction patients for percutaneous coronary intervention compared with administration of onsite fibrinolytic declines as delays increase. Circulation. 2011; 124(23): 2512–2521.
  206. Armstrong PW, Gershlick AH, Goldstein P, et al. STREAM Investigative Team. Fibrinolysis or primary PCI in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2013; 368(15): 1379–1387.
  207. Park DW, Clare RM, Schulte PJ, et al. Extent, location, and clinical significance of non-infarct-related coronary artery disease among patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2014; 312(19): 2019–2027.
  208. Kornowski R, Mehran R, Dangas G, et al. HORIZONS-AMI Trial Investigators. Prognostic impact of staged versus. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 58(7): 704–711.
  209. Politi L, Sgura F, Rossi R, et al. A randomised trial of target-vessel versus multi-vessel revascularisation in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: major adverse cardiac events during long-term follow-up. Heart. 2010; 96(9): 662–667.
  210. Di Mario C, Mara S, Flavio A, et al. Single vs multivessel treatment during primary angioplasty: results of the multicentre randomised HEpacoat for cuLPrit or multivessel stenting for Acute Myocardial Infarction (HELP AMI) Study. Int J Cardiovasc Intervent. 2004; 6(3-4): 128–133.
  211. Wald DS, Morris JK, Wald NJ, et al. PRAMI Investigators. Randomized trial of preventive angioplasty in myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2013; 369(12): 1115–1123.
  212. Gershlick AH, Khan JN, Kelly DJ, et al. Randomized trial of complete versus lesion-only revascularization in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI and multivessel disease: the CvLPRIT trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 65(10): 963–972.
  213. Engstrøm T, Kelbæk H, Helqvist S, et al. DANAMIPRIMULTI Investigators. Complete revascularisation versus treatment of the culprit lesion only in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (DANAMI-3-PRIMULTI): An open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015; 386: 665–671.
  214. Smits PC, Abdel-Wahab M, Neumann FJ, et al. Compare-Acute Investigators. Fractional flow reserve — guided multivessel angioplasty in myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376(13): 1234–1244.
  215. Elgendy I, Mahmoud A, Kumbhani D, et al. Complete or culprit-only revascularization for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A pairwise and network meta-analysis of randomized trials. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions. 2017; 10(4): 315–324.
  216. Kastrati A, Dibra A, Spaulding C, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized trials on drug-eluting stents vs. bare-metal stents in patients with acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 2007; 28(22): 2706–2713.
  217. Sabate M, Cequier A, Iñiguez A, et al. Everolimus-eluting stent versus bare-metal stent in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (EXAMINATION): 1 year results of a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2012; 380(9852): 1482–1490.
  218. Sabaté M, Brugaletta S, Cequier A, et al. Clinical outcomes in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with everolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents (EXAMINATION): 5-year results of a randomised trial. The Lancet. 2016; 387: 357–366.
  219. Belle L, Motreff P, Mangin L, et al. MIMI Investigators*. Comparison of immediate with delayed stenting using the minimalist immediate mechanical intervention approach in acute st-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: the MIMI study. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9(3): e003388.
  220. Carrick D, Oldroyd KG, McEntegart M, et al. A randomized trial of deferred stenting versus immediate stenting to prevent no- or slow-reflow in acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (DEFER-STEMI). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 63(20): 2088–2098.
  221. Kelbæk H, Høfsten DE, Køber L, et al. Deferred versus conventional stent implantation in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (DANAMI 3-DEFER): an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016; 387(10034): 2199–2206.
  222. De Luca G, Navarese EP, Suryapranata H. A meta-analytic overview of thrombectomy during primary angioplasty. Int J Cardiol. 2013; 166(3): 606–612.
  223. Fröbert O, Lagerqvist Bo, Olivecrona GK, et al. TASTE Trial. Thrombus aspiration during ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2013; 369(17): 1587–1597.
  224. Lagerqvist Bo, Fröbert O, Olivecrona G, et al. Outcomes 1 year after thrombus aspiration for myocardial infarction. N Engl J MedN Engl J Med. 2014; 371(12): 1111–1120.
  225. Jolly SS, Cairns JA, Lavi S, et al. TOTAL Investigators, TOTAL Investigators, TOTAL Investigators. Randomized trial of primary PCI with or without routine manual thrombectomy. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372(15): 1389–1398.
  226. Jolly SS, Cairns JA, Yusuf S, et al. TOTAL Investigators. Outcomes after thrombus aspiration for ST elevation myocardial infarction: 1-year follow-up of the prospective randomised TOTAL trial. Lancet. 2016; 387(10014): 127–135.
  227. Jolly SS, Cairns JA, Yusuf S, et al. TOTAL Investigators. Stroke in the TOTAL trial: a randomized trial of routine thrombectomy vs. percutaneous coronary intervention alone in ST elevation myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 2015; 36(35): 2364–2372.
  228. Jolly SS, James S, Džavík V, et al. Thrombus aspiration in ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: An individual patient meta-analysis: Thrombectomy Trialists Collaboration. Circulation. 2017; 135(2): 143–152.
  229. Bøhmer E, Hoffmann P, Abdelnoor M, et al. Efficacy and safety of immediate angioplasty versus ischemia-guided management after thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction in areas with very long transfer distances results of the NORDISTEMI (NORwegian study on DIstrict treatment of ST-elevation myocardial infarction). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 55(2): 102–110.
  230. Cantor WJ, Fitchett D, Borgundvaag B, et al. TRANSFER-AMI Trial Investigators. Routine early angioplasty after fibrinolysis for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360(26): 2705–2718.
  231. Di Mario C, Dudek D, Piscione F, et al. CARESS-in-AMI (Combined Abciximab RE-teplase Stent Study in Acute Myocardial Infarction) Investigators. Immediate angioplasty versus standard therapy with rescue angioplasty after thrombolysis in the Combined Abciximab REteplase Stent Study in Acute Myocardial Infarction (CARESS-in-AMI): an open, prospective, randomised, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2008; 371(9612): 559–568.
  232. Gershlick AH, Stephens-Lloyd A, Hughes S, et al. REACT Trial Investigators. Rescue angioplasty after failed thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2005; 353(26): 2758–2768.
  233. Schömig A, Mehilli J, Antoniucci D, et al. Beyond 12 hours Reperfusion AlternatiVe Evaluation (BRAVE-2) Trial Investigators. Mechanical reperfusion in patients with acute myocardial infarction presenting more than 12 hours from symptom onset: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2005; 293(23): 2865–2872.
  234. Busk M, Kaltoft A, Nielsen SS, et al. Infarct size and myocardial salvage after primary angioplasty in patients presenting with symptoms for < 12 h vs. 12–72 h. Eur Heart J. 2009; 30(11): 1322–1330.
  235. Hochman JS, Lamas GA, Buller CE, et al. Occluded Artery Trial Investigators. Coronary intervention for persistent occlusion after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2006; 355(23): 2395–2407.
  236. Boersma E, Maas AC, Deckers JW, et al. Early thrombolytic treatment in acute myocardial infarction: reappraisal of the golden hour. Lancet. 1996; 348(9030): 771–775.
  237. Andersen HR, Nielsen TT, Rasmussen K, et al. DANAMI-2 Investigators. A comparison of coronary angioplasty with fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2003; 349(8): 733–742.
  238. Dalby M, Bouzamondo A, Lechat P, et al. Transfer for primary angioplasty versus immediate thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis. Circulation. 2003; 108(15): 1809–1814.
  239. Mehilli J, Kastrati A, Schulz S, et al. Bavarian Reperfusion Alternatives Evaluation-3 (BRAVE-3) Study Investigators. Abciximab in patients with acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention after clopidogrel loading: a randomized double-blind trial. Circulation. 2009; 119(14): 1933–1940.
  240. Kalla K, Christ G, Karnik R, et al. Vienna STEMI Registry Group. Implementation of guidelines improves the standard of care: the Viennese registry on reperfusion strategies in ST-elevation myocardial infarction (Vienna STEMI registry). Circulation. 2006; 113(20): 2398–2405.
  241. Henry TD, Sharkey SW, Burke MN, et al. A regional system to provide timely access to percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2007; 116(7): 721–728.
  242. Nallamothu BK, Krumholz HM, Ko DT, et al. Development of systems of care for ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients: gaps, barriers, and implications. Circulation. 2007; 116(2): e68–e72.
  243. Widimsky P, Wijns W, Fajadet J, et al. European Association for Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions. Reperfusion therapy for ST elevation acute myocardial infarction in Europe: description of the current situation in 30 countries. Eur Heart J. 2010; 31(8): 943–957.
  244. Knot J, Widimsky P, Wijns W, et al. How to set up an effective national primary angioplasty network: lessons learned from five European countries. EuroIntervention. 2009; 5(3): 299, 301–309.
  245. Bradley EH, Herrin J, Wang Y, et al. Strategies for reducing the door-to-balloon time in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2006; 355(22): 2308–2320.
  246. 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; 114(19): 2019–2025.
  247. Steg PG, Cambou JP, Goldstein P, et al. USIC 2000 Investigators. Bypassing the emergency room reduces delays and mortality in ST elevation myocardial infarction: the USIC 2000 registry. Heart. 2006; 92(10): 1378–1383.
  248. Wolff G, Dimitroulis D, Andreotti F, et al. Survival benefits of invasive versus conservative strategies in heart failure in patients with reduced ejection fraction and coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis. Circ Heart Fail. 2017; 10(1).
  249. Wrobel K, Stevens SR, Jones RH, et al. Influence of baseline characteristics, operative conduct, and postoperative course on 30-day outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting among patients with left ventricular dysfunction: results from the surgical treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) Trial. Circulation. 2015; 132(8): 720–730.
  250. Bangalore S, Guo Yu, Samadashvili Z, et al. Revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction: Everolimus-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Circulation. 2016; 133(22): 2132–2140.
  251. Nagendran J, Bozso SJ, Norris CM, et al. Coronary artery bypass surgery improves outcomes in patients with diabetes and left ventricular dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018; 71(8): 819–827.
  252. Jones RH, Velazquez EJ, Michler RE, et al. STICH Hypothesis 2 Investigators. Coronary bypass surgery with or without surgical ventricular reconstruction. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360(17): 1705–1717.
  253. Oh JK, Velazquez EJ, Menicanti L, et al. STICH Investigators. Influence of baseline left ventricular function on the clinical outcome of surgical ventricular reconstruction in patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy. Eur Heart J. 2013; 34(1): 39–47.
  254. Dor V, Civaia F, Alexandrescu C, et al. Favorable effects of left ventricular reconstruction in patients excluded from the Surgical Treatments for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011; 141(4): 905–916 e1–e4.
  255. Killip T, Passamani E, Davis K. Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS): a randomized trial of coronary bypass surgery. Eight years follow-up and survival in patients with reduced ejection fraction. Circulation. 1985; 72(6, pt 2): V102–V109.
  256. Di Donato M, Castelvecchio S, Menicanti L. End-systolic volume following surgical ventricular reconstruction impacts survival in patients with ischaemic dilated cardiomyopathy. Eur J Heart Fail. 2010; 12(4): 375–381.
  257. Michler RE, Rouleau JL, Al-Khalidi HR, et al. STICH Trial Investigators. Insights from the STICH trial: change in left ventricular size after coronary artery bypass grafting with and without surgical ventricular reconstruction. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013; 146(5): 1139–1145.e6.
  258. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, et al. SHOCK (Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock) Investigators. Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. SHOCK Investigators. Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock. N Engl J Med. 1999; 341(9): 625–634.
  259. White HD, Assmann SF, Sanborn TA, et al. 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. Circulation. 2005; 112(13): 1992–2001.
  260. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, et al. Intraaortic Balloon Pump in cardiogenic shock II (IABP-SHOCK II) trial investigators. Intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (IABP-SHOCK II): final 12 month results of a randomised, open-label trial. Lancet. 2013; 382(9905): 1638–1645.
  261. Thiele H, Zeymer U, Neumann FJ, et al. IABP-SHOCK II Trial Investigators. Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 2012; 367(14): 1287–1296.
  262. Unverzagt S, Buerke M, Waha Ade, et al. Intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation (IABP) for myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015; 3(CD007398).
  263. Ouweneel DM, Schotborgh JV, Limpens J, et al. Extracorporeal life support during cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Intensive Care Med. 2016; 42(12): 1922–1934.
  264. Burkhoff D, Cohen H, Brunckhorst C, et al. TandemHeart Investigators Group. A randomized multicenter clinical study to evaluate the safety and efficacy of the TandemHeart percutaneous ventricular assist device versus conventional therapy with intraaortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock. Am Heart J. 2006; 152(3): 469.e1–469.e8.
  265. Seyfarth M, Sibbing D, Bauer I, et al. A randomized clinical trial to evaluate the safety and efficacy of a percutaneous left ventricular assist device versus intra-aortic balloon pumping for treatment of cardiogenic shock caused by myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008; 52(19): 1584–1588.
  266. Thiele H, Jobs A, Ouweneel DM, et al. Percutaneous short-term active mechanical support devices in cardiogenic shock: a systematic review and collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials. Eur Heart J. 2017; 38(47): 3523–3531.
  267. O'Neill WW, Kleiman NS, Moses J, et al. A prospective, randomized clinical trial of hemodynamic support with Impella 2.5 versus intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing high-risk percutaneous coronary intervention: the PROTECT II study. Circulation. 2012; 126(14): 1717–1727.
  268. Acharya D, Loyaga-Rendon RY, Pamboukian SV, et al. Ventricular assist device in acute myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016; 67(16): 1871–1880.
  269. Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, et al. SHOCK Investigators. Early revascularization and long-term survival in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. JAMA. 2006; 295(21): 2511–2515.
  270. Hammoud T, Tanguay JF, Bourassa MG. Management of coronary artery disease: therapeutic options in patients with diabetes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2000; 36(2): 355–365.
  271. Haffner SM, Lehto S, Rönnemaa T, et al. Mortality from coronary heart disease in subjects with type 2 diabetes and in nondiabetic subjects with and without prior myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1998; 339(4): 229–234.
  272. Lüscher TF, Creager MA, Beckman JA, et al. Diabetes and vascular disease: pathophysiology, clinical consequences, and medical therapy: Part II. Circulation. 2003; 108(13): 1655–1661.
  273. Ledru F, Ducimetière P, Battaglia S, et al. New diagnostic criteria for diabetes and coronary artery disease: insights from an angiographic study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 37(6): 1543–1550.
  274. Moreno PR, Murcia AM, Palacios IF, et al. Coronary composition and macrophage infiltration in atherectomy specimens from patients with diabetes mellitus. Circulation. 2000; 102(18): 2180–2184.
  275. Marso SP, Mercado N, Maehara A, et al. Plaque composition and clinical outcomes in acute coronary syndrome patients with metabolic syndrome or diabetes. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2012; 5(Suppl 3): S42–S52.
  276. Silva JA, Escobar A, Collins TJ, et al. Unstable angina. A comparison of angioscopic findings between diabetic and nondiabetic patients. Circulation. 1995; 92(7): 1731–1736.
  277. O'Donoghue ML, Vaidya A, Afsal R, et al. An invasive or conservative strategy in patients with diabetes mellitus and non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: a collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 60(2): 106–111.
  278. Schwartz L, Bertolet M, Feit F, et al. Impact of completeness of revascularization on long-term cardiovascular outcomes in patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: results from the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D). Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2012; 5(2): 166–173.
  279. Dangas GD, Farkouh ME, Sleeper LA, et al. FREEDOM Investigators. Long-term outcome of PCI versus CABG in insulin and non-insulin-treated diabetic patients: results from the FREEDOM trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 64(12): 1189–1197.
  280. Goergen SK, Rumbold G, Compton G, et al. Systematic review of current guidelines, and their evidence base, on risk of lactic acidosis after administration of contrast medium for patients receiving metformin. Radiology. 2010; 254(1): 261–269.
  281. Milojevic M, Head SJ, Mack MJ, et al. The impact of chronic kidney disease on outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with complex coronary artery disease: five-year follow-up of the SYNTAX trial. EuroIntervention. 2018; 14(1): 102–111.
  282. Mehran R, Aymong ED, Nikolsky E, et al. A simple risk score for prediction of contrast-induced nephropathy after percutaneous coronary intervention: development and initial validation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004; 44(7): 1393–1399.
  283. Ohno Y, Maekawa Y, Miyata H, et al. Impact of periprocedural bleeding on incidence of contrast-induced acute kidney injury in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 62(14): 1260–1266.
  284. Aspelin P, Aubry P, Fransson SG, et al. Nephrotoxicity in High-Risk Patients Study of Iso-Osmolar and Low-Osmolar Non-Ionic Contrast Media Study Investigators. Nephrotoxic effects in high-risk patients undergoing angiography. N Engl J Med. 2003; 348(6): 491–499.
  285. Jo SH, Youn TJ, Koo BK, et al. Renal toxicity evaluation and comparison between visipaque (iodixanol) and hexabrix (ioxaglate) in patients with renal insufficiency undergoing coronary angiography: the RECOVER study: a randomized controlled trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 48(5): 924–930.
  286. Solomon RJ, Natarajan MK, Doucet S, et al. Investigators of the CARE Study. Cardiac angiography in renally impaired patients (CARE) study: a randomized double-blind trial of contrast-induced nephropathy in patients with chronic kidney disease. Circulation. 2007; 115(25): 3189–3196.
  287. Marenzi G, Assanelli E, Campodonico J, et al. Contrast volume during primary percutaneous coronary intervention and subsequent contrast-induced nephropathy and mortality. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 150(3): 170–177.
  288. Laskey WK, Jenkins C, Selzer F, et al. NHLBI Dynamic Registry Investigators. Volume-to-creatinine clearance ratio: a pharmacokinetically based risk factor for prediction of early creatinine increase after percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 50(7): 584–590.
  289. Mueller C, Buerkle G, Buettner HJ, et al. Prevention of contrast media-associated nephropathy: randomized comparison of 2 hydration regimens in 1620 patients undergoing coronary angioplasty. Arch Intern Med. 2002; 162(3): 329–336.
  290. Merten GJ, Burgess WP, Gray LV, et al. Prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy with sodium bicarbonate: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2004; 291(19): 2328–2334.
  291. Brar SS, Shen AYJ, Jorgensen MB, et al. Sodium bicarbonate vs sodium chloride for the prevention of contrast medium-induced nephropathy in patients undergoing coronary angiography: a randomized trial. JAMA. 2008; 300(9): 1038–1046.
  292. Nijssen EC, Rennenberg RJ, Nelemans PJ, et al. Prophylactic hydration to protect renal function from intravascular iodinated contrast material in patients at high risk of contrast-induced nephropathy (AMACING): a prospective, randomised, phase 3, controlled, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2017; 389(10076): 1312–1322.
  293. Giacoppo D, Gargiulo G, Buccheri S, et al. Preventive Strategies for Contrast-Induced Acute Kidney Injury in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Procedures: Evidence From a Hierarchical Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of 124 Trials and 28 240 Patients. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 10(5).
  294. Weisbord SD, Gallagher M, Jneid H, et al. PRESERVE Trial Group. Outcomes after angiography with sodium bicarbonate and acetylcysteine. N Engl J Med. 2018; 378(7): 603–614.
  295. Qian G, Fu Z, Guo J, et al. revention of contrast-induced nephropathy by central venous pressure-guided fluid administration in chronic kidney disease and congestive heart failure patients. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9(1): 89–96.
  296. Briguori C, Visconti G, Focaccio A, et al. REMEDIAL II Investigators. Renal Insufficiency After Contrast Media Administration Trial II (REMEDIAL II): RenalGuard System in high-risk patients for contrast-induced acute kdney injury. Circulation. 2011; 124(11): 1260–1269.
  297. Putzu A, Boscolo Berto M, Belletti A, et al. Prevention of contrast-induced acute kidney injury by furosemide with matched hydration in patients undergoing interventional procedures: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 10(4): 355–363.
  298. Marenzi G, Lauri G, Campodonico J, et al. The prevention of radiocontrast-agent-induced nephropathy by hemofiltration. N Engl J Med. 2003; 349(14): 1333–1340.
  299. Marenzi G, Lauri G, Campodonico J, et al. Comparison of two hemofiltration protocols for prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy in high-risk patients. Am J Med. 2006; 119(2): 155–162.
  300. Cruz DN, Goh CY, Marenzi G, et al. Renal replacement therapies for prevention of radiocontrast-induced nephropathy: a systematic review. Am J Med. 2012; 125(1): 66–78.e3.
  301. Vogt B, Ferrari P, Schönholzer C, et al. Prophylactic hemodialysis after radiocontrast media in patients with renal insufficiency is potentially harmful. Am J Med. 2001; 111(9): 692–698.
  302. Scarsini R, Pesarini G, Zivelonghi C, et al. Coronary physiology in patients with severe aortic stenosis: Comparison between fractional flow reserve and instantaneous wave-free ratio. Int J Cardiol. 2017; 243: 40–46.
  303. Scarsini R, Pesarini G, Zivelonghi C, et al. Physiologic evaluation of coronary lesions using instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) in patients with severe aortic stenosis undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation. EuroIntervention. 2018; 13(13): 1512–1519.
  304. Di Gioia G, Scarsini R, Strisciuglio T, et al. Correlation between angiographic and physiologic evaluation of coronary artery narrowings in patients with aortic valve stenosis. Am J Cardiol. 2017; 120(1): 106–110.
  305. Falk V, Baumgartner H, Bax JJ, et al. ESC Scientific Document Group. 2017 ESC/EACTS Guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease. Eur Heart J. 2017; 38(36): 2739–2791.
  306. Yamashita K, Fujita T, Hata H, et al. Long-term outcome of isolated off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with coronary artery disease and mild to moderate aortic stenosis. J Cardiol. 2017; 70(1): 48–54.
  307. Goldstein D, Moskowitz AJ, Gelijns AC, et al. CTSN. Two-year outcomes of surgical treatment of severe ischemic mitral regurgitation. N Engl J Med. 2016; 374(4): 344–353.
  308. Smith PK, Puskas JD, Ascheim DD, et al. Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network Investigators. Surgical treatment of moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation. N Engl J Med. 2014; 371(23): 2178–2188.
  309. Michler RE, Smith PK, Parides MK, et al. CTSN. Two-year outcomes of surgical treatment of moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation. N Engl J Med. 2016; 374(20): 1932–1941.
  310. Chan KM, Punjabi PP, Flather M, et al. RIME Investigators. Coronary artery bypass surgery with or without mitral valve annuloplasty in moderate functional ischemic mitral regurgitation: final results of the Randomized Ischemic Mitral Evaluation (RIME) trial. Circulation. 2012; 126(21): 2502–2510.
  311. Lancellotti P, Tribouilloy C, Hagendorff A, et al. Scientific Document Committee of the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. Recommendations for the echocardiographic assessment of native valvular regurgitation: an executive summary from the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013; 14(7): 611–644.
  312. Zoghbi WA, Adams D, Bonow RO, et al. Recommendations for noninvasive evaluation of native valvular regurgitation: a report from the american society of echocardiography developed in collaboration with the society for cardiovascular magnetic resonance. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2017; 30(4): 303–371.
  313. Head SJ, Milojevic M, Daemen J, et al. Stroke rates following surgical versus percutaneous coronary revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018; 72(4): 386–398.
  314. Naylor AR, Bown MJ. Stroke after cardiac surgery and its association with asymptomatic carotid disease: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2011; 41(5): 607–624.
  315. Masabni K, Raza S, Blackstone EH, et al. Does preoperative carotid stenosis screening reduce perioperative stroke in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting? J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015; 149(5): 1253–1260.
  316. Naylor AR. Does the risk of post-CABG stroke merit staged or synchronous reconstruction in patients with symptomatic or asymptomatic carotid disease? J Cardiovasc Surg (Torino. 2009; 50: 71–81.
  317. Aboyans V, Ricco JB, Bartelink MLEL, et al. 2017 ESC guidelines on the diagnosis and treatment of peripheral arterial diseases, in collaboration with the European Society for Vascular Surgery (ESVS): document covering atherosclerotic disease of extracranial carotid and vertebral, mesenteric, renal, upper and lower extremity arteriesEndorsed by: the european stroke organization (eso)the task force for the diagnosis and treatment of peripheral arterial diseases of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the ESVS. Eur Heart J. 2018; 39: 763–816.
  318. Lee R, Matsutani N, Polimenakos AC, et al. Preoperative noncontrast chest computed tomography identifies potential aortic emboli. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007; 84(1): 38–41; discussion 42.
  319. Naylor AR, Cuffe RL, Rothwell PM, et al. A systematic review of outcomes following staged and synchronous carotid endarterectomy and coronary artery bypass. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2003; 25(5): 380–389.
  320. Paraskevas KI, Nduwayo S, Saratzis AN, et al. Carotid stenting prior to coronary bypass surgery: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg. 2017; 53(3): 309–319.
  321. Lin JC, Kabbani LS, Peterson EL, et al. Clinical utility of carotid duplex ultrasound prior to cardiac surgery. J Vasc Surg. 2016; 63(3): 710–714.
  322. Aboyans V, Lacroix P. Indications for carotid screening in patients with coronary artery disease. Presse Med. 2009; 38(6): 977–986.
  323. Zhao DX, Leacche M, Balaguer JM, et al. Writing Group of the Cardiac Surgery, Cardiac Anesthesiology, and Interventional Cardiology Groups at the Vanderbilt Heart and Vascular Institute. Routine intraoperative completion angiography after coronary artery bypass grafting and 1-stop hybrid revascularization results from a fully integrated hybrid catheterization laboratory/operating room. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009; 53(3): 232–241.
  324. Thielmann M, Massoudy P, Jaeger BR, et al. Emergency re-revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention, reoperation, or conservative treatment in patients with acute perioperative graft failure following coronary artery bypass surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2006; 30(1): 117–125.
  325. Thygesen K, Alpert JS, Jaffe AS, et al. Joint ESC/ACCF/AHA/WHF Task Force for Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction, Authors/Task Force Members Chairpersons, Biomarker Subcommittee, ECG Subcommittee, Imaging Subcommittee, Classification Subcommittee, Intervention Subcommittee, Trials & Registries Subcommittee, Document Reviewers, Writing Group on the Joint ESC/ACCF/AHA/WHF Task Force for the Universal Definition of Myocardial Infarction, ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG). Third universal definition of myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J. 2012; 33(20): 2551–2567.
  326. Davierwala PM, Verevkin A, Leontyev S, et al. Impact of expeditious management of perioperative myocardial ischemia in patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass surgery. Circulation. 2013; 128(11 Suppl 1): S226–S234.
  327. Laflamme M, DeMey N, Bouchard D, et al. Management of early postoperative coronary artery bypass graft failure. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2012; 14(4): 452–456.
  328. Gaudino M, Nesta M, Burzotta F, et al. Results of emergency postoperative re-angiography after cardiac surgery procedures. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015; 99(5): 1576–1582.
  329. Thielmann M, Sharma V, Al-Attar N, et al. ESC Joint Working Groups on Cardiovascular Surgery and the Cellular Biology of the Heart Position Paper: Perioperative myocardial injury and infarction in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Eur Heart J. 2017; 38(31): 2392–2407.
  330. Seshadri N, Whitlow PL, Acharya N, et al. Emergency coronary artery bypass surgery in the contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention era. Circulation. 2002; 106(18): 2346–2350.
  331. Mattichak SJ, Dixon SR, Shannon F, et al. Failed percutaneous coronary intervention: a decade of experience in 21,000 patients. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2008; 71(2): 131–137.
  332. Davierwala PM, Leontyev S, Verevkin A, et al. Temporal trends in predictors of early and late mortality after emergency coronary artery bypass grafting for cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2016; 134(17): 1224–1237.
  333. Axelsson TA, Mennander A, Malmberg M, et al. Is emergency and salvage coronary artery bypass grafting justified? The Nordic Emergency/Salvage coronary artery bypass grafting study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016; 49(5): 1451–1456.
  334. Parasca CA, Head SJ, Milojevic M, et al. SYNTAX Investigators. Incidence, characteristics, predictors, and outcomes of repeat revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting: The SYNTAX trial at 5 years. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9(24): 2493–2507.
  335. Cassese S, Byrne RA, Tada T, et al. Incidence and predictors of restenosis after coronary stenting in 10 004 patients with surveillance angiography. Heart. 2014; 100(2): 153–159.
  336. Tada T, Byrne RA, Simunovic I, et al. Risk of stent thrombosis among bare-metal stents, first-generation drug-eluting stents, and second-generation drug-eluting stents: results from a registry of 18,334 patients. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013; 6(12): 1267–1274.
  337. Sabik JF, Blackstone EH, Houghtaling PL, et al. Is reoperation still a risk factor in coronary artery bypass surgery? Ann Thorac Surg. 2005; 80(5): 1719–1727.
  338. Yap CH, Sposato L, Akowuah E, et al. Contemporary results show repeat coronary artery bypass grafting remains a risk factor for operative mortality. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009; 87(5): 1386–1391.
  339. Fosbøl EL, Zhao Y, Shahian DM, et al. Repeat coronary revascularization after coronary artery bypass surgery in older adults: the Society of Thoracic Surgeons' national experience, 1991–2007. Circulation. 2013; 127(16): 1656–1663.
  340. Brener S, Lytle B, Casserly I, et al. Predictors of revascularization method and long-term outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention or repeat coronary bypass surgery in patients with multivessel coronary disease and previous coronary bypass surgery. Eur Heart J. 2006; 27(4): 413–418.
  341. Morrison DA, Sethi G, Sacks J, et al. Investigators of the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study #385, Angina With Extremely Serious Operative Mortality Evaluation. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus repeat bypass surgery for patients with medically refractory myocardial ischemia: AWESOME randomized trial and registry experience with post-CABG patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002; 40(11): 1951–1954.
  342. Morrison D, Sethi G, Sacks J, et al. Angina With Extremely Serious Operative Mortality Evaluation (AWESOME). Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery for patients with medically refractory myocardial ischemia and risk factors for adverse outcomes with bypass: a multicenter, randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2001; 38(1): 143–149.
  343. Harskamp R, Beijk M, Damman P, et al. Clinical outcome after surgical or percutaneous revascularization in coronary bypass graft failure. J Cardiovasc Med. 2013; 14(6): 438–445.
  344. Sabik JF, Raza S, Blackstone EH, et al. Value of internal thoracic artery grafting to the left anterior descending coronary artery at coronary reoperation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 61(3): 302–310.
  345. Nwaejike N, Tennyson C, Mosca R, et al. Reusing the patent internal mammary artery as a conduit in redo coronary artery bypass surgery. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2016; 22(3): 346–350.
  346. Coolong A, Baim DS, Kuntz RE, et al. Saphenous vein graft stenting and major adverse cardiac events: a predictive model derived from a pooled analysis of 3958 patients. Circulation. 2008; 117(6): 790–797.
  347. Baim DS, Wahr D, George B, et al. Saphenous vein graft Angioplasty Free of Emboli Randomized (SAFER) Trial Investigators. Randomized trial of a distal embolic protection device during percutaneous intervention of saphenous vein aorto-coronary bypass grafts. Circulation. 2002; 105(11): 1285–1290.
  348. Paul TK, Bhatheja S, Panchal HB, et al. Outcomes of saphenous vein graft intervention with and without embolic protection device: A comprehensive review and meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 10(12): 1–9.
  349. Brennan JM, Al-Hejily W, Dai D, et al. Three-year outcomes associated with embolic protection in saphenous vein graft intervention: results in 49 325 senior patients in the Medicare-linked National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 8(3): e001403.
  350. Stone GW, Rogers C, Hermiller J, et al. FilterWire EX Randomized Evaluation Investigators. Randomized comparison of distal protection with a filter-based catheter and a balloon occlusion and aspiration system during percutaneous intervention of diseased saphenous vein aorto-coronary bypass grafts. Circulation. 2003; 108(5): 548–553.
  351. Mauri L, Cox D, Hermiller J, et al. The PROXIMAL trial: proximal protection during saphenous vein graft intervention using the Proxis Embolic Protection System: a randomized, prospective, multicenter clinical trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 50(15): 1442–1449.
  352. Schächinger V, Hamm CW, Münzel T, et al. STENTS (STents IN Grafts) Investigators. A randomized trial of polytetrafluoroethylene-membrane-covered stents compared with conventional stents in aortocoronary saphenous vein grafts. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003; 42(8): 1360–1369.
  353. Stankovic G, Colombo A, Presbitero P, et al. Randomized Evaluation of polytetrafluoroethylene COVERed stent in Saphenous vein grafts investigators. Randomized evaluation of polytetrafluoroethylene-covered stent in saphenous vein grafts: the Randomized Evaluation of polytetrafluoroethylene COVERed stent in Saphenous vein grafts (RECOVERS) Trial. Circulation. 2003; 108(1): 37–42.
  354. Mehilli J, Pache J, Abdel-Wahab M, et al. Is Drug-Eluting-Stenting Associated with Improved Results in Coronary Artery Bypass Grafts? (ISAR-CABG) Investigators. Drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents in saphenous vein graft lesions (ISAR-CABG): a randomised controlled superiority trial. Lancet. 2011; 378(9796): 1071–1078.
  355. Lichtenwalter C, de Lemos JA, Roesle M, et al. A randomized controlled trial of a paclitaxel-eluting stent versus a similar bare-metal stent in saphenous vein graft lesions the SOS (Stenting of Saphenous Vein Grafts) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2009; 53(11): 919–928.
  356. Vermeersch P, Agostoni P, Verheye S, et al. Randomized double-blind comparison of sirolimus-eluting stent versus bare-metal stent implantation in diseased saphenous vein grafts: six-month angiographic, intravascular ultrasound, and clinical follow-up of the RRISC Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 48(12): 2423–2431.
  357. Colleran R, Kufner S, Mehilli J, et al. ISAR-CABG Investigators. Efficacy over time with drug-eluting stents in saphenous vein graft lesions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018; 71(18): 1973–1982.
  358. Brilakis ES, Lichtenwalter C, Abdel-karim ArR, et al. Continued benefit from paclitaxel-eluting compared with bare-metal stent implantation in saphenous vein graft lesions during long-term follow-up of the SOS (Stenting of Saphenous Vein Grafts) trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011; 4(2): 176–182.
  359. Vermeersch P, Agostoni P, Verheye S, et al. Increased late mortality after sirolimus-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in diseased saphenous vein grafts: Results from the randomized DELAYED RRISC Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 50(3): 261–267.
  360. Mehilli J, Byrne RA, Tiroch K, et al. ISAR-DESIRE 2 Investigators. Randomized trial of paclitaxel- versus sirolimus-eluting stents for treatment of coronary restenosis in sirolimus-eluting stents: the ISAR-DESIRE 2 (Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Drug Eluting Stents for In-Stent Restenosis 2) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 55(24): 2710–2716.
  361. Kastrati A, Mehilli J, von Beckerath N, et al. ISAR-DESIRE Study Investigators. Sirolimus-eluting stent or paclitaxel-eluting stent vs balloon angioplasty for prevention of recurrences in patients with coronary in-stent restenosis: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA. 2005; 293(2): 165–171.
  362. Alfonso F, Pérez-Vizcayno MJ, Hernandez R, et al. RIBS-II Investigators. A randomized comparison of sirolimus-eluting stent with balloon angioplasty in patients with in-stent restenosis: results of the Restenosis Intrastent: Balloon Angioplasty Versus Elective Sirolimus-Eluting Stenting (RIBS-II) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 47(11): 2152–2160.
  363. Alfonso F, Zueco J, Cequier A, et al. Restenosis Intra-stent: Balloon Angioplasty Versus Elective Stenting (RIBS) Investigators. A randomized comparison of repeat stenting with balloon angioplasty in patients with in-stent restenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003; 42(5): 796–805.
  364. Dibra A, Kastrati A, Alfonso F, et al. Effectiveness of drug-eluting stents in patients with bare-metal in-stent restenosis: meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007; 49(5): 616–623.
  365. Scheller B, Clever YP, Kelsch B, et al. Long-term follow-up after treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis with a paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012; 5(3): 323–330.
  366. Scheller B, Clever YP, Kelsch B, et al. Treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis with a paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter. N Engl J Med. 2006; 355(20): 2113–2124.
  367. Habara S, Iwabuchi M, Inoue N, et al. A multicenter randomized comparison of paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter with conventional balloon angioplasty in patients with bare-metal stent restenosis and drug-eluting stent restenosis. Am Heart J. 2013; 166(3): 527–533.
  368. Unverdorben M, Vallbracht C, Cremers B, et al. Paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter versus paclitaxel-coated stent for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis. Circulation. 2009; 119(23): 2986–2994.
  369. Rittger H, Brachmann J, Sinha AM, et al. A randomized, multicenter, single-blinded trial comparing paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty with plain balloon angioplasty in drug-eluting stent restenosis: the PEPCAD-DES study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 59(15): 1377–1382.
  370. Habara S, Mitsudo K, Kadota K, et al. Effectiveness of paclitaxel-eluting balloon catheter in patients with sirolimus-eluting stent restenosis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011; 4(2): 149–154.
  371. Byrne RA, Neumann FJ, Mehilli J, et al. ISAR-DESIRE 3 investigators. Paclitaxel-eluting balloons, paclitaxel-eluting stents, and balloon angioplasty in patients with restenosis after implantation of a drug-eluting stent (ISAR-DESIRE 3): a randomised, open-label trial. Lancet. 2013; 381(9865): 461–467.
  372. Indermuehle A, Bahl R, Lansky AJ, et al. Drug-eluting balloon angioplasty for in-stent restenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Heart. 2013; 99(5): 327–333.
  373. Alfonso F, Pérez-Vizcayno MJ, Cárdenas A, et al. RIBS V Study Investigators, under the auspices of the Working Group on Interventional Cardiology of the Spanish Society of Cardiology. A randomized comparison of drug-eluting balloon versus everolimus-eluting stent in patients with bare-metal stent-in-stent restenosis: the RIBS V Clinical Trial (Restenosis Intra-stent of Bare Metal Stents: paclitaxel-eluting balloon vs. everolimus-eluting stent). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 63(14): 1378–1386.
  374. Pleva L, Kukla P, Kusnierova P, et al. Comparison of the efficacy of paclitaxel-eluting balloon catheters and everolimus-eluting stents in the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis: The treatment of in-stent restenosis study. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9(4): e003316.
  375. Alfonso F, Pérez-Vizcayno MJ, Cárdenas A, et al. RIBS IV Study Investigators (under auspices of Interventional Cardiology Working Group of Spanish Society of Cardiology). A prospective randomized trial of drug-eluting balloons versus everolimus-eluting stents in patients with in-stent restenosis of drug-eluting stents: The RIBS IV randomized clinical trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 66(1): 23–33.
  376. Baan J, Claessen BE, Dijk KBv, et al. A randomized comparison of paclitaxel-eluting balloon versus everolimus-eluting stent for the treatment of any in-stent restenosis: The DARE trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018; 11(3): 275–283.
  377. Kufner S, Joner M, Schneider S, et al. ISAR-DESIRE 4 Investigators. Neointimal modification with scoring balloon and efficacy of drug-coated balloon therapy in patients with restenosis in drug-eluting coronary stents: A randomized controlled trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 10(13): 1332–1340.
  378. Siontis GCM, Stefanini GG, Mavridis D, et al. Percutaneous coronary interventional strategies for treatment of in-stent restenosis: a network meta-analysis. Lancet. 2015; 386(9994): 655–664.
  379. Giacoppo D, Gargiulo G, Aruta P, et al. Treatment strategies for coronary in-stent restenosis: systematic review and hierarchical Bayesian network meta-analysis of 24 randomised trials and 4880 patients. BMJ. 2015; 351: h5392.
  380. Kufner S, Cassese S, Valeskini M, et al. ISAR-DESIRE 3 Investigators. Long-term efficacy and safety of paclitaxel-eluting balloon for the treatment of drug-eluting stent restenosis: 3-year results of a randomized controlled trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 8(7): 877–884.
  381. Xu Bo, Qian J, Ge J, et al. PEPCAD China ISR investigators. Two-year results and subgroup analyses of the PEPCAD China in-stent restenosis trial: A prospective, multicenter, randomized trial for the treatment of drug-eluting stent in-stent restenosis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 87 Suppl 1: 624–629.
  382. Byrne RA, Cassese S, Windisch T, et al. Differential relative efficacy between drug-eluting stents in patients with bare metal and drug-eluting stent restenosis; evidence in support of drug resistance: insights from the ISAR-DESIRE and ISAR-DESIRE 2 trials. EuroIntervention. 2013; 9(7): 797–802.
  383. Zellweger MJ, Kaiser C, Jeger R, et al. Coronary artery disease progression late after successful stent implantation. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 59(9): 793–799.
  384. Stone GW, Maehara A, Lansky AJ, et al. PROSPECT Investigators. A prospective natural-history study of coronary atherosclerosis. N Engl J Med. 2011; 364(3): 226–235.
  385. Chechi T, Vecchio S, Vittori G, et al. ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction due to early and late stent thrombosis a new group of high-risk patients. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008; 51(25): 2396–2402.
  386. Alfonso F, Dutary J, Paulo M, et al. Combined use of optical coherence tomography and intravascular ultrasound imaging in patients undergoing coronary interventions for stent thrombosis. Heart. 2012; 98(16): 1213–1220.
  387. Adriaenssens T, Joner M, Godschalk TC, et al. Prevention of Late Stent Thrombosis by an Interdisciplinary Global European Effort (PRESTIGE) Investigators. Optical coherence tomography findings in patients with coronary stent thrombosis: A report of the PRESTIGE Consortium (Prevention of Late Stent Thrombosis by an Interdisciplinary Global European Effort). Circulation. 2017; 136(11): 1007–1021.
  388. Armstrong EJ, Feldman DN, Wang TY, et al. Clinical presentation, management, and outcomes of angiographically documented early, late, and very late stent thrombosis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012; 5(2): 131–140.
  389. Holmes DR, Davis KB, Mock MB, et al. The effect of medical and surgical treatment on subsequent sudden cardiac death in patients with coronary artery disease: a report from the Coronary Artery Surgery Study. Circulation. 1986; 73(6): 1254–1263.
  390. European Coronary Surgery Study Group. Long-term results of prospective randomised study of coronary artery bypass surgery in stable angina pectorisoris. Lancet. 1982; 2(8309): 1173–1180.
  391. Veenhuyzen GD, Singh SN, McAreavey D, et al. Prior coronary artery bypass surgery and risk of death among patients with ischemic left ventricular dysfunction. Circulation. 2001; 104(13): 1489–1493.
  392. Moss AJ, Zareba W, Hall WJ, et al. Multicenter Automatic Defibrillator Implantation Trial II Investigators. Prophylactic implantation of a defibrillator in patients with myocardial infarction and reduced ejection fraction. N Engl J Med. 2002; 346(12): 877–883.
  393. Al-Khatib SM, Hellkamp AS, Lee KL, et al. scd-heft investigators. Implantable cardioverter defibrillator therapy in patients with prior coronary revascularization in the Sudden Cardiac Death in Heart Failure Trial (SCD-HeFT). J Cardiovasc Electrophysiol. 2008; 19(10): 1059–1065.
  394. Sesselberg HW, Moss AJ, McNitt S, et al. MADIT-II Research Group. Ventricular arrhythmia storms in postinfarction patients with implantable defibrillators for primary prevention indications: a MADIT-II substudy. Heart Rhythm. 2007; 4(11): 1395–1402.
  395. Spaulding CM, Joly LM, Rosenberg A, et al. Immediate coronary angiography in survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. N Engl J Med. 1997; 336(23): 1629–1633.
  396. Kern KB. Optimal treatment of patients surviving out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012; 5(6): 597–605.
  397. Garot P, Lefevre T, Eltchaninoff H, et al. Six-month outcome of emergency percutaneous coronary intervention in resuscitated patients after cardiac arrest complicating ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Circulation. 2007; 115(11): 1354–1362.
  398. Radsel P, Knafelj R, Kocjancic S, et al. Angiographic characteristics of coronary disease and postresuscitation electrocardiograms in patients with aborted cardiac arrest outside a hospital. Am J Cardiol. 2011; 108(5): 634–638.
  399. Anyfantakis ZA, Baron G, Aubry P, et al. Acute coronary angiographic findings in survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Am Heart J. 2009; 157(2): 312–318.
  400. Dumas F, Cariou A, Manzo-Silberman S, et al. Immediate percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with better survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: insights from the PROCAT (Parisian Region Out of hospital Cardiac ArresT) registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2010; 3(3): 200–207.
  401. Cronier P, Vignon P, Bouferrache K, et al. Impact of routine percutaneous coronary intervention after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest due to ventricular fibrillation. Crit Care. 2011; 15(3): R122.
  402. Geri G, Dumas F, Bougouin W, et al. Immediate percutaneous coronary intervention is associated with improved short- and long-term survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 8: 1–7.
  403. Vyas A, Chan PS, Cram P, et al. Early coronary angiography and survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 8(10).
  404. Noc M, Fajadet J, Lassen JF, et al. European Association for Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), Stent for Life (SFL) Group. Invasive coronary treatment strategies for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest: a consensus statement from the European association for percutaneous cardiovascular interventions (EAPCI)/stent for life (SFL) groups. EuroIntervention. 2014; 10(1): 31–37.
  405. Kirchhof P, Benussi S, Kotecha D, et al. ESC Scientific Document Group. 2016 ESC Guidelines for the management of atrial fibrillation developed in collaboration with EACTS. Eur Heart J. 2016; 37(38): 2893–2962.
  406. Chan W, Ajani AE, Clark DJ, et al. Melbourne Interventional Group Investigators. Impact of periprocedural atrial fibrillation on short-term clinical outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2012; 109(4): 471–477.
  407. Lopes RD, Elliott LE, White HD, et al. Antithrombotic therapy and outcomes of patients with atrial fibrillation following primary percutaneous coronary intervention: results from the APEX-AMI trial. Eur Heart J. 2009; 30(16): 2019–2028.
  408. Mrdovic I, Savic L, Krljanac G, et al. Incidence, predictors, and 30-day outcomes of new-onset atrial fibrillation after primary percutaneous coronary intervention: insight into the RISK-PCI trial. Coron Artery Dis. 2012; 23(1): 1–8.
  409. Pilgrim T, Kalesan B, Zanchin T, et al. Impact of atrial fibrillation on clinical outcomes among patients with coronary artery disease undergoing revascularisation with drug-eluting stents. EuroIntervention. 2013; 8(9): 1061–1071.
  410. Valgimigli M, Bueno H, Byrne RA, et al. ESC Scientific Document Group, ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG), ESC National Cardiac Societies. 2017 ESC focused update on dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease developed in collaboration with EACTS: The Task Force for dual antiplatelet therapy in coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J. 2018; 39(3): 213–260.
  411. Ahlsson AJ, Bodin L, Lundblad OH, et al. Postoperative atrial fibrillation is not correlated to C-reactive protein. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007; 83(4): 1332–1337.
  412. Arsenault KA, Yusuf AM, Crystal E, et al. Interventions for preventing post-operative atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing heart surgery. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013(1): CD003611.
  413. Mathew JP, Fontes ML, Tudor IC, et al. Investigators of the Ischemia Research and Education Foundation, Multicenter Study of Perioperative Ischemia Research Group. A multicenter risk index for atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery. JAMA. 2004; 291(14): 1720–1729.
  414. Shen J, Lall S, Zheng V, et al. The persistent problem of new-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation: a single-institution experience over two decades. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011; 141(2): 559–570.
  415. LaPar DJ, Speir AM, Crosby IK, et al. Investigators for the Virginia Cardiac Surgery Quality Initiative. Postoperative atrial fibrillation significantly increases mortality, hospital readmission, and hospital costs. Ann Thorac Surg. 2014; 98(2): 527–33; discussion 533.
  416. Saxena A, Dinh DT, Smith JA, et al. Usefulness of postoperative atrial fibrillation as an independent predictor for worse early and late outcomes after isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (multicenter Australian study of 19,497 patients). Am J Cardiol. 2012; 109(2): 219–225.
  417. Steinberg BA, Zhao Y, He X, et al. Management of postoperative atrial fibrillation and subsequent outcomes in contemporary patients undergoing cardiac surgery: insights from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons CAPS-Care Atrial Fibrillation Registry. Clin Cardiol. 2014; 37(1): 7–13.
  418. Ahlsson A, Fengsrud E, Bodin L, et al. Patients with postoperative atrial fibrillation have a doubled cardiovascular mortality. Scand Cardiovasc J. 2009; 43(5): 330–336.
  419. Ahlsson A, Fengsrud E, Bodin L, et al. Postoperative atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing aortocoronary bypass surgery carries an eightfold risk of future atrial fibrillation and a doubled cardiovascular mortality. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2010; 37(6): 1353–1359.
  420. Gialdini G, Nearing K, Bhave PD, et al. Perioperative atrial fibrillation and the long-term risk of ischemic stroke. JAMA. 2014; 312(6): 616–622.
  421. Mariscalco G, Klersy C, Zanobini M, et al. Atrial fibrillation after isolated coronary surgery affects late survival. Circulation. 2008; 118(16): 1612–1618.
  422. Villareal RP, Hariharan R, Liu BC, et al. Postoperative atrial fibrillation and mortality after coronary artery bypass surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004; 43(5): 742–748.
  423. Burgess DC, Kilborn MJ, Keech AC. Interventions for prevention of post-operative atrial fibrillation and its complications after cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis. Eur Heart J. 2006; 27(23): 2846–2857.
  424. Connolly SJ, Cybulsky I, Lamy A, et al. Beta-Blocker Length Of Stay (BLOS) study. Double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized trial of prophylactic metoprolol for reduction of hospital length of stay after heart surgery: the beta-Blocker Length Of Stay (BLOS) study. Am Heart J. 2003; 145(2): 226–232.
  425. Crystal E, Connolly SJ, Sleik K, et al. Interventions on prevention of postoperative atrial fibrillation in patients undergoing heart surgery: a meta-analysis. Circulation. 2002; 106(1): 75–80.
  426. Dunning J, Treasure T, Versteegh M, et al. EACTS Audit and Guidelines Committee. Guidelines on the prevention and management of de novo atrial fibrillation after cardiac and thoracic surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2006; 30(6): 852–872.
  427. Koniari I, Apostolakis E, Rogkakou C, et al. Pharmacologic prophylaxis for atrial fibrillation following cardiac surgery: a systematic review. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2010; 5: 121.
  428. Lúcio Ed, Flores A, Blacher C, et al. Effectiveness of metoprolol in preventing atrial fibrillation and flutter in the postoperative period of coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Arq Bras Cardiol. 2004; 82(1): 42–46, 37.
  429. Tsuboi J, Kawazoe K, Izumoto H, et al. Postoperative treatment with carvedilol, a beta-adrenergic blocker, prevents paroxysmal atrial fibrillation after coronary artery bypass grafting. Circ J. 2008; 72(4): 588–591.
  430. Anderson E, Dyke C, Levy JH. Anticoagulation strategies for the management of postoperative atrial fibrillation. Clin Lab Med. 2014; 34(3): 537–561.
  431. El-Chami MF, Kilgo P, Thourani V, et al. New-onset atrial fibrillation predicts long-term mortality after coronary artery bypass graft. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 55(13): 1370–1376.
  432. Melduni RM, Schaff HV, Lee HC, et al. mpact of left atrial appendage closure during cardiac surgery on the occurrence of early postoperative atrial fibrillation, stroke, and mortality: A propensity score-matched analysis of 10 633 patients. Circulation. 2017; 135(4): 366–378.
  433. Tsai YC, Phan K, Munkholm-Larsen S, et al. Surgical left atrial appendage occlusion during cardiac surgery for patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015; 47(5): 847–854.
  434. Friedman DJ, Piccini JP, Wang T, et al. Association between left atrial appendage occlusion and readmission for thromboembolism among patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing concomitant cardiac surgery. JAMA. 2018; 319(4): 365–374.
  435. Whitlock R, Healey J, Vincent J, et al. Rationale and design of the Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Study (LAAOS) III. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2014; 3(1): 45–54.
  436. Kern KB, Rahman O. Emergent percutaneous coronary intervention for resuscitated victims of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2010; 75(4): 616–624.
  437. Garcia-Tejada J, Jurado-Román A, Rodríguez J, et al. Post-resuscitation electrocardiograms, acute coronary findings and in-hospital prognosis of survivors of out-of-hospital cardiac arrest. Resuscitation. 2014; 85(9): 1245–1250.
  438. Khan MF, Wendel CS, Movahed MR. Prevention of post-coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) atrial fibrillation: efficacy of prophylactic beta-blockers in the modern era: a meta-analysis of latest randomized controlled trials. Ann Noninvasive Electrocardiol. 2013; 18(1): 58–68.
  439. Chatterjee S, Sardar P, Mukherjee D, et al. Timing and route of amiodarone for prevention of postoperative atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery: a network regression meta-analysis. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2013; 36(8): 1017–1023.
  440. Friberg L, Rosenqvist M, Lip GYH. Evaluation of risk stratification schemes for ischaemic stroke and bleeding in 182 678 patients with atrial fibrillation: the Swedish Atrial Fibrillation cohort study. Eur Heart J. 2012; 33(12): 1500–1510.
  441. Lip GYH, Nieuwlaat R, Pisters R, et al. Refining clinical risk stratification for predicting stroke and thromboembolism in atrial fibrillation using a novel risk factor-based approach: the euro heart survey on atrial fibrillation. Chest. 2010; 137(2): 263–272.
  442. Gillinov AM, Bagiella E, Moskowitz AJ, et al. CTSN. Rate control versus rhythm control for atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery. N Engl J Med. 2016; 374(20): 1911–1921.
  443. Head SJ, Milojevic M, Taggart DP, et al. Current practice of state-of-the art surgical coronary revascularization. Circulation. 2017; 136(14): 1331–1345.
  444. Boer C, Meesters MI, Milojevic M, et al. Task Force on Patient Blood Management for Adult Cardiac Surgery of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) and the European Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesiology (EACTA). 2017 EACTS/EACTA Guidelines on patient blood management for adult cardiac surgery. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2018; 32(1): 88–120.
  445. Head SJ, Mack MJ, Holmes DR, et al. Incidence, predictors and outcomes of incomplete revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting: a subgroup analysis of 3-year SYNTAX data. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012; 41(3): 535–541.
  446. Kim YH, Park DW, Lee JY, et al. Impact of angiographic complete revascularization after drug-eluting stent implantation or coronary artery bypass graft surgery for multivessel coronary artery disease. Circulation. 2011; 123(21): 2373–2381.
  447. Mohammadi S, Kalavrouziotis D, Dagenais F, et al. Completeness of revascularization and survival among octogenarians with triple-vessel disease. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012; 93(5): 1432–1437.
  448. Rastan AJ, Walther T, Falk V, et al. Does reasonable incomplete surgical revascularization affect early or long-term survival in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease receiving left internal mammary artery bypass to left anterior descending artery? Circulation. 2009; 120(11 Suppl): S70–S77.
  449. Yi G, Youn YN, Joo HC, et al. Association of incomplete revascularization with long-term survival after off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. J Surg Res. 2013; 185(1): 166–173.
  450. Scott R, Blackstone EH, McCarthy PM, et al. Isolated bypass grafting of the left internal thoracic artery to the left anterior descending coronary artery: late consequences of incomplete revascularization. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000; 120(1): 173–184.
  451. Melby SJ, Saint LL, Balsara K, et al. Complete coronary revascularization improves survival in octogenarians. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016; 102(2): 505–511.
  452. Botman CJ, Schonberger J, Koolen S, et al. Does stenosis severity of native vessels influence bypass graft patency? A prospective fractional flow reserve-guided study. Ann Thorac Surg. 2007; 83(6): 2093–2097.
  453. Boylan MJ, Lytle BW, Loop FD, et al. Surgical treatment of isolated left anterior descending coronary stenosis. Comparison of left internal mammary artery and venous autograft at 18 to 20 years of follow-up. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1994; 107(3): 657–662.
  454. Sabik JF, Blackstone EH, Gillinov AM, et al. Influence of patient characteristics and arterial grafts on freedom from coronary reoperation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2006; 131(1): 90–98.
  455. Schmitto JD, Rajab TK, Cohn LH. Prevalence and variability of internal mammary graft use in contemporary multivessel coronary artery bypass graft. Curr Opin Cardiol. 2010; 25(6): 609–612.
  456. Hess CN, Lopes RD, Gibson CM, et al. Saphenous vein graft failure after coronary artery bypass surgery: insights from PREVENT IV. Circulation. 2014; 130(17): 1445–1451.
  457. Benedetto U, Raja SG, Albanese A, et al. Searching for the second best graft for coronary artery bypass surgery: a network meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials†. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015; 47(1): 59–65; discussion 65.
  458. Dorman MJ, Kurlansky PA, Traad EA, et al. Bilateral internal mammary artery grafting enhances survival in diabetic patients: a 30-year follow-up of propensity score-matched cohorts. Circulation. 2012; 126(25): 2935–2942.
  459. Galbut DL, Kurlansky PA, Traad EA, et al. Bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting improves long-term survival in patients with reduced ejection fraction: a propensity-matched study with 30-year follow-up. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012; 143(4): 844–853.e4.
  460. Grau JB, Ferrari G, Mak AWC, et al. Propensity matched analysis of bilateral internal mammary artery versus single left internal mammary artery grafting at 17-year follow-up: validation of a contemporary surgical experience. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012; 41(4): 770–5; discussion 776.
  461. Kurlansky PA, Traad EA, Dorman MJ, et al. Thirty-year follow-up defines survival benefit for second internal mammary artery in propensity-matched groups. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010; 90(1): 101–108.
  462. Lytle BW. Bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2013; 2: 485–492.
  463. Ruttmann E, Fischler N, Sakic A, et al. Second internal thoracic artery versus radial artery in coronary artery bypass grafting: a long-term, propensity score-matched follow-up study. Circulation. 2011; 124(12): 1321–1329.
  464. Taggart DP, D'Amico R, Altman DG. Effect of arterial revascularisation on survival: a systematic review of studies comparing bilateral and single internal mammary arteries. Lancet. 2001; 358(9285): 870–875.
  465. Weiss AJ, Zhao S, Tian DH, et al. A meta-analysis comparing bilateral internal mammary artery with left internal mammary artery for coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2013; 2(4): 390–400.
  466. Gaudino M, Di Franco A, Rahouma M, et al. Unmeasured confounders in observational studies comparing bilateral versus single internal thoracic artery for coronary artery bypass grafting: A meta-analysis. J Am Heart Assoc. 2018; 7(1).
  467. Taggart DP, Altman DG, Gray AM, et al. ART Investigators. Randomized trial of bilateral versus single internal-thoracic-artery grafts. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375(26): 2540–2549.
  468. Gaudino M, Tranbaugh R, Fremes S. Bilateral versus Single Internal-Thoracic-Artery Grafts. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376(18): e37.
  469. Raza S, Blackstone EH, Sabik JF. III. Bilateral versus single internal-thoracic-artery grafts. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376(18): e37.
  470. Royse A, Eccleston D, Royse C, et al. iGRAFT Collaborators. Bilateral versus single internal-thoracic-artery grafts. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376(18): e37.
  471. Deo SV, Shah IK, Dunlay SM, et al. Bilateral internal thoracic artery harvest and deep sternal wound infection in diabetic patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013; 95(3): 862–869.
  472. Elmistekawy EM, Gawad N, Bourke M, et al. Is bilateral internal thoracic artery use safe in the elderly? J Card Surg. 2012; 27(1): 1–5.
  473. Hemo E, Mohr R, Uretzky G, et al. Long-term outcomes of patients with diabetes receiving bilateral internal thoracic artery grafts. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013; 146(3): 586–592.
  474. Taggart DP, Lees B, Gray A, et al. ART Investigators. Protocol for the Arterial Revascularisation Trial (ART). A randomised trial to compare survival following bilateral versus single internal mammary grafting in coronary revascularisation [ISRCTN46552265]. Trials. 2006; 7: 7.
  475. Toumpoulis IK, Theakos N, Dunning J. Does bilateral internal thoracic artery harvest increase the risk of mediastinitis? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2007; 6(6): 787–791.
  476. Benedetto U, Altman DG, Gerry S, et al. Arterial Revascularization Trial investigators. Pedicled and skeletonized single and bilateral internal thoracic artery grafts and the incidence of sternal wound complications: Insights from the Arterial Revascularization Trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016; 152(1): 270–276.
  477. Hayward PA, Gordon IR, Hare DL, et al. Comparable patencies of the radial artery and right internal thoracic artery or saphenous vein beyond 5 years: results from the Radial Artery Patency and Clinical Outcomes trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2010; 139(1): 60–5; discussion 65.
  478. Schwann TA, Engoren M, Bonnell M, et al. Comparison of late coronary artery bypass graft survival effects of radial artery versus saphenous vein grafting in male and female patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012; 94(5): 1485–1491.
  479. Tranbaugh RF, Dimitrova KR, Friedmann P, et al. Radial artery conduits improve long-term survival after coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010; 90(4): 1165–1172.
  480. Tranbaugh RF, Dimitrova KR, Friedmann P, et al. Coronary artery bypass grafting using the radial artery: clinical outcomes, patency, and need for reintervention. Circulation. 2012; 126(11; Suppl 1): S170–S175.
  481. Cao C, Manganas C, Horton M, et al. Angiographic outcomes of radial artery versus saphenous vein in coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013; 146(2): 255–261.
  482. Gaudino M, Benedetto U, Fremes S, et al. RADIAL Investigators. Radialartery or saphenous-vein grafts in coronary-artery bypass surgery. N Engl J Med. 2018; 378(22): 2069–2077.
  483. Lytle BW. Skeletonized internal thoracic artery grafts and wound complications. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2001; 121(4): 625–627.
  484. Sá MP, Ferraz PE, Escobar RR, et al. Skeletonized versus pedicled internal thoracic artery and risk of sternal wound infection after coronary bypass surgery: meta-analysis and meta-regression of 4817 patients. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013; 16(6): 849–857.
  485. Sakic A, Chevtchik O, Kilo J, et al. Simple adaptations of surgical technique to critically reduce the risk of postoperative sternal complications in patients receiving bilateral internal thoracic arteries. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013; 17(2): 378–382.
  486. Wendler O, Hennen B, Markwirth T, et al. T grafts with the right internal thoracic artery to left internal thoracic artery versus the left internal thoracic artery and radial artery: flow dynamics in the internal thoracic artery main stem. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1999; 118(5): 841–848.
  487. Kajimoto K, Yamamoto T, Amano A. Coronary artery bypass revascularization using bilateral internal thoracic arteries in diabetic patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015; 99(3): 1097–1104.
  488. Sá MP, Cavalcanti PE, Santos HJ, et al. Flow capacity of skeletonized versus pedicled internal thoracic artery in coronary artery bypass graft surgery: systematic review, meta-analysis and meta-regression. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015; 48(1): 25–31.
  489. Navia JL, Olivares G, Ehasz P, et al. Endoscopic radial artery harvesting procedure for coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2013; 2(4): 557–564.
  490. Cao C, Tian DH, Ang SuC, et al. A meta-analysis of endoscopic versus conventional open radial artery harvesting for coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Innovations (Phila). 2014; 9(4): 269–275.
  491. Gaudino M, Leone A, Lupascu A, et al. Morphological and functional consequences of transradial coronary angiography on the radial artery: implications for its use as a bypass conduit. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015; 48(3): 370–374.
  492. Ouzounian M, Hassan A, Buth KJ, et al. Impact of endoscopic versus open saphenous vein harvest techniques on outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010; 89(2): 403–408.
  493. Yun KL, Wu Y, Aharonian V, et al. Randomized trial of endoscopic versus open vein harvest for coronary artery bypass grafting: six-month patency rates. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2005; 129(3): 496–503.
  494. Chernyavskiy A, Volkov A, Lavrenyuk O, et al. Comparative results of endoscopic and open methods of vein harvesting for coronary artery bypass grafting: a prospective randomized parallel-group trial. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015; 10: 163.
  495. Krishnamoorthy B, Critchley WR, Glover AT, et al. A randomized study comparing three groups of vein harvesting methods for coronary artery bypass grafting: endoscopic harvest versus standard bridging and open techniques. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2012; 15(2): 224–228.
  496. Lopes RD, Hafley GE, Allen KB, et al. Endoscopic versus open vein-graft harvesting in coronary-artery bypass surgery. N Engl J Med. 2009; 361: 235–244.
  497. Zenati MA, Shroyer AL, Collins JF, et al. Impact of endoscopic versus open saphenous vein harvest technique on late coronary artery bypass grafting patient outcomes in the ROOBY (Randomized On/Off Bypass) Trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011; 141(2): 338–344.
  498. Andreasen JJ, Vadmann H, Oddershede L, et al. Decreased patency rates following endoscopic vein harvest in coronary artery bypass surgery. Scand Cardiovasc J. 2015; 49(5): 286–292.
  499. Deppe AC, Liakopoulos OJ, Choi YH, et al. Endoscopic vein harvesting for coronary artery bypass grafting: a systematic review with meta-analysis of 27,789 patients. J Surg Res. 2013; 180(1): 114–124.
  500. Williams JB, Peterson ED, Brennan JM, et al. Association between endoscopic vs open vein-graft harvesting and mortality, wound complications, and cardiovascular events in patients undergoing CABG surgery. JAMA. 2012; 308(5): 475–484.
  501. Brown EN, Kon ZN, Tran R, et al. Strategies to reduce intraluminal clot formation in endoscopically harvested saphenous veins. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007; 134(5): 1259–1265.
  502. Khaleel MS, Dorheim TA, Duryee MJ, et al. High-pressure distention of the saphenous vein during preparation results in increased markers of inflammation: a potential mechanism for graft failure. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012; 93(2): 552–558.
  503. Rousou LJ, Taylor KB, Lu XG, et al. Saphenous vein conduits harvested by endoscopic technique exhibit structural and functional damage. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009; 87(1): 62–70.
  504. Johansson BL, Souza DSR, Bodin L, et al. Slower progression of atherosclerosis in vein grafts harvested with 'no touch' technique compared with conventional harvesting technique in coronary artery bypass grafting: an angiographic and intravascular ultrasound study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2010; 38(4): 414–419.
  505. Souza DSR, Dashwood MR, Tsui JCS, et al. Improved patency in vein grafts harvested with surrounding tissue: results of a randomized study using three harvesting techniques. Ann Thorac Surg. 2002; 73(4): 1189–1195.
  506. Dreifaldt M, Mannion JD, Bodin L, et al. The no-touch saphenous vein as the preferred second conduit for coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg. 2013; 96(1): 105–111.
  507. Samano N, Geijer H, Liden M, et al. The no-touch saphenous vein for coronary artery bypass grafting maintains a patency, after 16 years, comparable to the left internal thoracic artery: A randomized trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015; 150(4): 880–888.
  508. Emmert MY, Seifert B, Wilhelm M, et al. Aortic no-touch technique makes the difference in off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011; 142(6): 1499–1506.
  509. Börgermann J, Hakim K, Renner A, et al. Clampless off-pump versus conventional coronary artery revascularization: a propensity score analysis of 788 patients. Circulation. 2012; 126(11; Suppl 1): 176–182.
  510. Misfeld M, Brereton RJ, Sweetman EA, et al. Neurologic complications after off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting with and without aortic manipulation: meta-analysis of 11,398 cases from 8 studies. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2011; 142(2): e11–e17.
  511. Guerrieri Wolf L, Abu-Omar Y, Choudhary BP, et al. Gaseous and solid cerebral microembolization during proximal aortic anastomoses in off-pump coronary surgery: the effect of an aortic side-biting clamp and two clampless devices. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2007; 133(2): 485–493.
  512. El Zayat H, Puskas JD, Hwang S, et al. Avoiding the clamp during off-pump coronary artery bypass reduces cerebral embolic events: results of a prospective randomized trial. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2012; 14(1): 12–16.
  513. Kieser TM, Rose S, Kowalewski R, et al. Transit-time flow predicts outcomes in coronary artery bypass graft patients: a series of 1000 consecutive arterial grafts. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2010; 38(2): 155–162.
  514. Mujanović E, Kabil E, Bergsland J. Transit time flowmetry in coronary surgery--an important tool in graft verification. Bosn J Basic Med Sci. 2007; 7(3): 275–278.
  515. Jokinen JJ, Werkkala K, Vainikka T, et al. Clinical value of intra-operative transit-time flow measurement for coronary artery bypass grafting: a prospective angiography-controlled study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011; 39(6): 918–923.
  516. Lehnert P, Møller CH, Damgaard S, et al. Transit-time flow measurement as a predictor of coronary bypass graft failure at one year angiographic follow-up. J Card Surg. 2015; 30(1): 47–52.
  517. Niclauss L. Techniques and standards in intraoperative graft verification by transit time flow measurement after coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a critical review. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017; 51(1): 26–33.
  518. Diegeler A, Börgermann J, Kappert U, et al. GOPCABE Study Group. Off-pump versus on-pump coronary-artery bypass grafting in elderly patients. N Engl J Med. 2013; 368(13): 1189–1198.
  519. Nguyen TL, Collins GS, Lamy A, et al. CORONARY Investigators, CORONARY Investigators, CORONARY Investigators, CORONARY Investigators, CORONARY Investigators. Off-pump or on-pump coronary-artery bypass grafting at 30 days. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366(16): 1489–1497.
  520. Lamy A, Devereaux PJ, Prabhakaran D, et al. CORONARY Investigators. Effects of off-pump and on-pump coronary-artery bypass grafting at 1 year. N Engl J Med. 2013; 368(13): 1179–1188.
  521. Hattler B, Messenger JC, Shroyer AL, et al. Veterans Affairs Randomized On/Off Bypass (ROOBY) Study Group. Off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery is associated with worse arterial and saphenous vein graft patency and less effective revascularization: Results from the Veterans Affairs Randomized On/Off Bypass (ROOBY) trial. Circulation. 2012; 125(23): 2827–2835.
  522. Houlind K, Kjeldsen BoJ, Madsen SN, et al. DOORS Study Group. On-pump versus off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery in elderly patients: results from the Danish on-pump versus off-pump randomization study. Circulation. 2012; 125(20): 2431–2439.
  523. Shroyer AL, Grover FL, Hattler B, et al. Veterans Affairs Randomized On/Off Bypass (ROOBY) Study Group. On-pump versus off-pump coronary-artery bypass surgery. N Engl J Med. 2009; 361(19): 1827–1837.
  524. Keeling WB, Kilgo PD, Puskas JD, et al. Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting attenuates morbidity and mortality for patients with low and high body mass index. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013; 146(6): 1442–1448.
  525. Puskas JD, Thourani VH, Kilgo P, et al. Off-pump coronary artery bypass disproportionately benefits high-risk patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2009; 88(4): 1142–1147.
  526. Puskas JD, Williams WH, O'Donnell R, et al. Off-pump and on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting are associated with similar graft patency, myocardial ischemia, and freedom from reintervention: long-term follow-up of a randomized trial. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011; 91(6): 1836–42; discussion 1842.
  527. Sedrakyan A, Wu AW, Parashar A, et al. Off-pump surgery is associated with reduced occurrence of stroke and other morbidity as compared with traditional coronary artery bypass grafting: a meta-analysis of systematically reviewed trials. Stroke. 2006; 37(11): 2759–2769.
  528. Altarabsheh SE, Deo SV, Rababa'h AM, et al. Off-pump coronary artery bypass reduces early stroke in octogenarians: a meta-analysis of 18,000 patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2015; 99(5): 1568–1575.
  529. Chawla LS, Zhao Y, Lough FC, et al. Off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting outcomes stratified by preoperative renal function. J Am Soc Nephrol. 2012; 23(8): 1389–1397.
  530. Head SJ, Börgermann J, Osnabrugge RLJ, et al. Coronary artery bypass grafting: Part 2 — optimizing outcomes and future prospects. Eur Heart J. 2013; 34(37): 2873–2886.
  531. Diegeler A, Walther T, Metz S, et al. Comparison of MIDCAP versus conventional CABG surgery regarding pain and quality of life. Heart Surg Forum. 1999; 2(4): 295–296.
  532. Groh MA, Sutherland SE, Burton HG, et al. Port-access coronary artery bypass grafting: technique and comparative results. Ann Thorac Surg. 1999; 68(4): 1506–1508.
  533. Lapierre H, Chan V, Sohmer B, et al. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting via a small thoracotomy versus off-pump: a case-matched study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2011; 40(4): 804–810.
  534. Deppe AC, Liakopoulos OJ, Kuhn EW, et al. Minimally invasive direct coronary bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention for single-vessel disease: a meta-analysis of 2885 patients. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015; 47(3): 397–406; discussion 406.
  535. Wang XW, Qu C, Huang C, et al. Minimally invasive direct coronary bypass compared with percutaneous coronary intervention for left anterior descending artery disease: a meta-analysis. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016; 11(1): 125.
  536. Gąsior M, Zembala MO, Tajstra M, et al. POL-MIDES (HYBRID) Study Investigators. Hybrid revascularization for multivessel coronary artery disease. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014; 7(11): 1277–1283.
  537. Bonatti JO, Zimrin D, Lehr EJ, et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization using robotic totally endoscopic surgery: perioperative outcomes and 5-year results. Ann Thorac Surg. 2012; 94(6): 1920–6; discussion 1926.
  538. Shen L, Hu S, Wang H, et al. One-stop hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease: 3-year follow-up results from a single institution. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 61(25): 2525–2533.
  539. Harskamp RE, Bonatti JO, Zhao DX, et al. Standardizing definitions for hybrid coronary revascularization. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014; 147(2): 556–560.
  540. Zembala M, Tajstra M, Zembala M, et al. Prospective randomised pilOt study evaLuating the safety and efficacy of hybrid revascularisation in MultI-vessel coronary artery DisEaSe (POLMIDES) — study design. Kardiol Pol. 2011; 69(5): 460–466.
  541. Tajstra M, Hrapkowicz T, Hawranek M, et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization in selected patients with multivessel disease: 5-year clinical outcomes of the prospective randomized pilot study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018; 11(9): 847–852.
  542. Panoulas VF, Colombo A, Margonato A, et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization: promising, but yet to take off. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 65(1): 85–97.
  543. Siregar S, Groenwold RHH, de Mol BA, et al. Evaluation of cardiac surgery mortality rates: 30-day mortality or longer follow-up? Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013; 44(5): 875–883.
  544. Zhao DF, Edelman JJ, Seco M, et al. Coronary artery bypass grafting with and without manipulation of the ascending aorta: A network meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017; 69(8): 924–936.
  545. Moss E, Puskas JD, Thourani VH, et al. Avoiding aortic clamping during coronary artery bypass grafting reduces postoperative stroke. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015; 149(1): 175–180.
  546. Hlatky MA, Boothroyd DB, Reitz BA, et al. Adoption and effectiveness of internal mammary artery grafting in coronary artery bypass surgery among Medicare beneficiaries. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 63(1): 33–39.
  547. Kieser TM, Lewin AM, Graham MM, et al. APPROACH Investigators. Outcomes associated with bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting: the importance of age. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011; 92(4): 1269–75; discussion 1275.
  548. Yi G, Shine B, Rehman SM, et al. Effect of bilateral internal mammary artery grafts on long-term survival: a meta-analysis approach. Circulation. 2014; 130(7): 539–545.
  549. Taggart DP, Altman DG, Flather M, et al. ART (Arterial Revascularization Trial) Investigators. ssociations between adding a radial artery graft to single and bilateral internal thoracic artery grafts and outcomes: Insights from the Arterial Revascularization Trial. Circulation. 2017; 136(5): 454–463.
  550. Yamasaki M, Deb S, Tsubota H, et al. Radial Artery Patency Study Investigators. Comparison of radial artery and saphenous vein graft stenosis more than 5 years after coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016; 102(3): 712–719.
  551. Benedetto U, Amrani M, Raja SG, et al. Harefield Cardiac Outcomes Research Group. Guidance for the use of bilateral internal thoracic arteries according to survival benefit across age groups. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014; 148(6): 2706–2711.
  552. Desai ND, Cohen EA, Naylor CD, et al. Radial Artery Patency Study Investigators. A randomized comparison of radial-artery and saphenous-vein coronary bypass grafts. N Engl J Med. 2004; 351(22): 2302–2309.
  553. Gaudino M, Tondi P, Benedetto U, et al. Radial artery as a coronary artery bypass conduit: 20-year results. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016; 68(6): 603–610.
  554. Dacey LJ, Braxton JH, Kramer RS, et al. Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group. Long-term outcomes of endoscopic vein harvesting after coronary artery bypass grafting. Circulation. 2011; 123(2): 147–153.
  555. Sen O, Gonca S, Solakoglu S, et al. Comparison of conventional and no-touch techniques in harvesting saphenous vein for coronary artery bypass grafting in view of endothelial damage. Heart Surg Forum. 2013; 16(4): E177–E183.
  556. Kim YH, Oh HC, Choi JW, et al. No-touch saphenous vein harvesting may improve further the patency of saphenous vein composite grafts: Early outcomes and 1-year angiographic results. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017; 103(5): 1489–1497.
  557. Benedetto U, Lau C, Caputo M, et al. Comparison of outcomes for off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting in low-volume and high-volume centers and by low-volume and high-volume surgeons. Am J Cardiol. 2018; 121(5): 552–557.
  558. Lapar DJ, Mery CM, Kozower BD, et al. The effect of surgeon volume on mortality for off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012; 143(4): 854–863.
  559. Afilalo J, Rasti M, Ohayon SM, et al. Off-pump vs. on-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: an updated meta-analysis and meta-regression of randomized trials. Eur Heart J. 2012; 33(10): 1257–1267.
  560. Lemma MG, Coscioni E, Tritto FP, et al. On-pump versus off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery in high-risk patients: operative results of a prospective randomized trial (on-off study). J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012; 143(3): 625–631.
  561. Rosenblum JM, Harskamp RE, Hoedemaker N, et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass surgery with bilateral or single internal mammary artery grafts. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016; 151(4): 1081–1089.
  562. Harskamp RE, Brennan JM, Xian Y, et al. Practice patterns and clinical outcomes after hybrid coronary revascularization in the United States: an analysis from the society of thoracic surgeons adult cardiac database. Circulation. 2014; 130(11): 872–879.
  563. Puskas JD, Halkos ME, DeRose JJ, et al. Hybrid coronary revascularization for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease: A multicenter observational study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016; 68(4): 356–365.
  564. Brophy JM, Belisle P, Joseph L. Evidence for use of coronary stents. A hierarchical bayesian meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2003; 138(10): 777–786.
  565. Mehran R, Baber U, Steg PG, et al. Cessation of dual antiplatelet treatment and cardiac events after percutaneous coronary intervention (PARIS): 2 year results from a prospective observational study. Lancet. 2013; 382(9906): 1714–1722.
  566. Silber S, Kirtane AJ, Belardi JA, et al. Lack of association between dual antiplatelet therapy use and stent thrombosis between 1 and 12 months following resolute zotarolimus-eluting stent implantation. Eur Heart J. 2014; 35(29): 1949–1956.
  567. Kastrati A, Mehilli J, Dirschinger J, et al. Intracoronary stenting and angiographic results: strut thickness effect on restenosis outcome (ISAR-STEREO) trial. Circulation. 2001; 103(23): 2816–2821.
  568. Pache J, Kastrati A, Mehilli J, et al. Intracoronary stenting and angiographic results: strut thickness effect on restenosis outcome (ISAR-STEREO-2) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2003; 41(8): 1283–1288.
  569. Kastrati A, Dibra A, Spaulding C, et al. Analysis of 14 trials comparing sirolimus-eluting stents with bare-metal stents. N Engl J Med. 2007; 356(10): 1030–1039.
  570. Stone G, Moses J, Ellis S, et al. Safety and efficacy of sirolimus- and paclitaxel-eluting coronary stents. N Engl J Med. 2007; 356(10): 998–1008.
  571. Räber L, Magro M, Stefanini GG, et al. Very late coronary stent thrombosis of a newer-generation everolimus-eluting stent compared with early-generation drug-eluting stents: a prospective cohort study. Circulation. 2012; 125(9): 1110–1121.
  572. Stone GW, Rizvi A, Newman W, et al. SPIRIT IV Investigators. Everolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2010; 362(18): 1663–1674.
  573. Serruys P, Silber S, Garg S, et al. Comparison of zotarolimus-eluting and everolimus-eluting coronary stents. N Engl J Med. 2010; 363(2): 136–146.
  574. Christiansen EH, Jensen LO, Thayssen P, et al. Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials with Clinical Outcome (SORT OUT) V investigators. Biolimus-eluting biodegradable polymer-coated stent versus durable polymer-coated sirolimus-eluting stent in unselected patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (SORT OUT V): a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2013; 381(9867): 661–669.
  575. Byrne RA, Kastrati A, Kufner S, et al. Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Test Efficacy of 3 Limus-Eluting Stents (ISAR-TEST-4) Investigators. Randomized, non-inferiority trial of three limus agent-eluting stents with different polymer coatings: the Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Test Efficacy of 3 Limus-Eluting Stents (ISAR-TEST-4) Trial. Eur Heart J. 2009; 30(20): 2441–2449.
  576. Smits PC, Hofma S, Togni M, et al. Abluminal biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent (COMPARE II): a randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2013; 381(9867): 651–660.
  577. Massberg S, Byrne RA, Kastrati A, et al. Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Test Efficacy of Sirolimus- and Probucol-Eluting Versus Zotarolimus- Eluting Stents (ISAR-TEST 5) Investigators. Polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting versus new generation zotarolimus-eluting stents in coronary artery disease: the Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Test Efficacy of Sirolimus- and Probucol-Eluting versus Zotarolimus-eluting Stents (ISAR-TEST 5) trial. Circulation. 2011; 124(5): 624–632.
  578. Byrne RA, Serruys PW, Baumbach A, et al. Report of a European Society of Cardiology–European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions task force on the evaluation of coronary stents in Europe: executive summary. Eur Heart J. 2015; 36(38): 2608–2620.
  579. Bønaa KH, Mannsverk J, Wiseth R, et al. NORSTENT Investigators. Drug-eluting or bare-metal stents for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375(13): 1242–1252.
  580. Palmerini T, Benedetto U, Biondi-Zoccai G, et al. Long-term safety of drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: Evidence from a comprehensive network meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 65(23): 2496–2507.
  581. Varenne O, Cook S, Sideris G, et al. SENIOR investigators. Drug-eluting stents in elderly patients with coronary artery disease (SENIOR): a randomised single-blind trial. Lancet. 2018; 391(10115): 41–50.
  582. Kang SH, Park KW, Kang DY, et al. Biodegradable-polymer drug-eluting stents vs. bare metal stents vs. durable-polymer drug-eluting stents: a systematic review and Bayesian approach network meta-analysis. Eur Heart J. 2014; 35(17): 1147–1158.
  583. Pilgrim T, Heg D, Roffi M, et al. Ultrathin strut biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent for percutaneous coronary revascularisation (BIOSCIENCE): a randomised, single-blind, non-inferiority trial. The Lancet. 2014; 384(9960): 2111–2122.
  584. Kaiser C, Galatius S, Jeger R, et al. BASKET-PROVE II study group. Long-term efficacy and safety of biodegradable-polymer biolimus-eluting stents: main results of the Basel Stent Kosten-Effektivitäts Trial-PROspective Validation Examination II (BASKET-PROVE II), a randomized, controlled noninferiority 2-year outcome trial. Circulation. 2015; 131(1): 74–81.
  585. Raungaard B, Jensen LO, Tilsted HH, et al. Scandinavian Organization for Randomized Trials with Clinical Outcome (SORT OUT). Zotarolimus-eluting durable-polymer-coated stent versus a biolimus-eluting biodegradable-polymer-coated stent in unselected patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (SORT OUT VI): a randomised non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2015; 385(9977): 1527–1535.
  586. von Birgelen C, Kok MM, van der Heijden LC, et al. Very thin strut biodegradable polymer everolimus-eluting and sirolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents in allcomers with coronary artery disease (BIO-RESORT): a three-arm, randomised, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2016; 388(10060): 2607–2617.
  587. Kereiakes DJ, Meredith IT, Windecker S, et al. Efficacy and safety of a novel bioabsorbable polymer-coated, everolimus-eluting coronary stent: the EVOLVE II Randomized Trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 8(4).
  588. Natsuaki M, Kozuma K, Morimoto T, et al. NEXT Investigators. Biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent: a randomized, controlled, noninferiority trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 62(3): 181–190.
  589. Saito S, Valdes-Chavarri M, Richardt G, et al. CENTURY II Investigators. A randomized, prospective, intercontinental evaluation of a bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting coronary stent system: the CENTURY II (Clinical Evaluation of New Terumo Drug-Eluting Coronary Stent System in the Treatment of Patients with Coronary Artery Disease) trial. Eur Heart J. 2014; 35(30): 2021–2031.
  590. Kandzari DE, Mauri L, Koolen JJ, et al. BIOFLOW V Investigators. Ultrathin, bioresorbable polymer sirolimus-eluting stents versus thin, durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients undergoing coronary revascularisation (BIOFLOW V): a randomised trial. Lancet. 2017; 390(10105): 1843–1852.
  591. Kufner S, Sorges J, Mehilli J, et al. ISAR-TEST-5 Investigators. Randomized trial of polymer-free sirolimus- and probucol-eluting stents versus durable polymer zotarolimus-eluting stents: 5-year results of the ISAR-TEST-5 trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9(8): 784–792.
  592. Kufner Sie, Byrne RA, Valeskini M, et al. Intracoronary Stenting and Angiographic Results: Test Efficacy of 3 Limus-Eluting Stents (ISAR-TEST4) Investigators. Five-year outcomes from a trial of three limus-eluting stents with different polymer coatings in patients with coronary artery disease: final results from the ISAR-TEST 4 randomised trial. EuroIntervention. 2016; 11(12): 1372–1379.
  593. Vlachojannis GJ, Smits PC, Hofma SH, et al. Biodegradable polimer biolimus-eluting stents versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stents in patients with coronary artery disease: Final 5-year report from the COMPARE II Trial (abluminal biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 10(12): 1215–1221.
  594. Vlachojannis GJ, Puricel S, Natsuaki M, et al. Biolimus-eluting versus everolimus-eluting stents in coronary artery disease: a pooled analysis from the NEXT (NOBORI biolimus-eluting versus XIENCE/PROMUS everolimus-eluting stent) and COMPARE II (Abluminal biodegradable polymer biolimus-eluting stent versus durable polymer everolimus-eluting stent) randomised trials. EuroIntervention. 2017; 12(16): 1970–1977.
  595. Wiebe J, Nef HM, Hamm CW. Current status of bioresorbable scaffolds in the treatment of coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014; 64(23): 2541–2551.
  596. Sorrentino S, Giustino G, Mehran R, et al. Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017; 69(25): 3055–3066.
  597. Montone RA, Niccoli G, De Marco F, et al. Temporal trends in adverse events after everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffold versus everolimus-eluting metallic stent implantation: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Circulation. 2017; 135(22): 2145–2154.
  598. Bondesson P, Lagerqvist Bo, James SK, et al. Comparison of two drug-eluting balloons: a report from the SCAAR registry. EuroIntervention. 2012; 8(4): 444–449.
  599. Latib A, Colombo A, Castriota F, et al. A randomized multicenter study comparing a paclitaxel drug-eluting balloon with a paclitaxel-eluting stent in small coronary vessels: The BELLO (Balloon Elution and Late Loss Optimization) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 60(24): 2473–2480.
  600. Cortese B, Micheli A, Picchi A, et al. Paclitaxel-coated balloon versus drug-eluting stent during PCI of small coronary vessels, a prospective randomised clinical trial. The PICCOLETO study. Heart. 2010; 96(16): 1291–1296.
  601. Stella PR, Belkacemi A, Dubois C, et al. A multicenter randomized comparison of drug-eluting balloon plus bare-metal stent versus bare-metal stent versus drug-eluting stent in bifurcation lesions treated with a single-stenting technique: six-month angiographic and 12-month clinical results of the drug-eluting balloon in bifurcations trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2012; 80(7): 1138–1146.
  602. Abdel-Wahab M, Richardt G, Joachim Büttner H, et al. High-speed rotational atherectomy before paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation in complex calcified coronary lesions: the randomized ROTAXUS (Rotational Atherectomy Prior to Taxus Stent Treatment for Complex Native Coronary Artery Disease) trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2013; 6(1): 10–19.
  603. Parise H, Maehara A, Stone GW, et al. Meta-analysis of randomized studies comparing intravascular ultrasound versus angiographic guidance of percutaneous coronary intervention in pre-drug-eluting stent era. Am J Cardiol. 2011; 107(3): 374–382.
  604. Lodi-Junqueira L, de Sousa MR, da Paixão LC, et al. Does intravascular ultrasound provide clinical benefits for percutaneous coronary intervention with bare-metal stent implantation? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Syst Rev. 2012; 1: 42.
  605. Nerlekar N, Cheshire CJ, Verma KP, et al. Intravascular ultrasound guidance improves clinical outcomes during implantation of both first- and second-generation drug-eluting stents: a meta-analysis. EuroIntervention. 2017; 12(13): 1632–1642.
  606. Buccheri S, Franchina G, Romano S, et al. linical outcomes following intravascular imaging-guided versus coronary angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation: A systematic review and Bayesian network meta-analysis of 31 studies and 17,882 patients. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2017; 10(24): 2488–2498.
  607. Prati F, Di Vito L, Biondi-Zoccai G, et al. Angiography alone versus angiography plus optical coherence tomography to guide decision-making during percutaneous coronary intervention: the Centro per la Lotta contro l'Infarto-Optimisation of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention (CLI-OPCI) study. EuroIntervention. 2012; 8(7): 823–829.
  608. Wijns W, Shite J, Jones MR, et al. Optical coherence tomography imaging during percutaneous coronary intervention impacts physician decision-making: ILUMIEN I study. Eur Heart J. 2015; 36(47): 3346–3355.
  609. Prati F, Guagliumi G, Mintz GS, et al. Expert's OCT Review Document. Expert review document part 2: methodology, terminology and clinical applications of optical coherence tomography for the assessment of interventional procedures. Eur Heart J. 2012; 33(20): 2513–2520.
  610. Radu MD, Räber L, Heo J, et al. Natural history of optical coherence tomography-detected non-flow-limiting edge dissections following drug-eluting stent implantation. EuroIntervention. 2014; 9(9): 1085–1094.
  611. Ali ZA, Maehara A, Généreux P, et al. ILUMIEN III: OPTIMIZE PCI Investigators. Optical coherence tomography compared with intravascular ultrasound and with angiography to guide coronary stent implantation (ILUMIEN III: OPTIMIZE PCI): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2016; 388(10060): 2618–2628.
  612. Meneveau N, Souteyrand G, Motreff P, et al. Optical coherence tomography to optimize results of percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: Results of the multicenter, randomized DOCTORS study (Does Optical Coherence Tomography Optimize Results of Stenting). Circulation. 2016; 134(13): 906–917.
  613. Taniwaki M, Radu MD, Zaugg S, et al. Mechanisms of very late drug-eluting stent thrombosis assessed by optical coherence tomography. Circulation. 2016; 133(7): 650–660.
  614. Souteyrand G, Amabile N, Mangin L, et al. PESTO Investigators. Mechanisms of stent thrombosis analysed by optical coherence tomography: insights from the national PESTO French registry. Eur Heart J. 2016; 37(15): 1208–1216.
  615. Kang SJ, Mintz GS, Akasaka T, et al. Optical coherence tomographic analysis of instent neoatherosclerosis after drug-eluting stent implantation. Circulation. 2011; 123(25): 2954–2963.
  616. Malle C, Tada T, Steigerwald K, et al. Tissue characterization after drug-eluting stent implantation using optical coherence tomography. Arterioscler Thromb Vasc Biol. 2013; 33(6): 1376–1383.
  617. Gao XF, Zhang YJ, Tian NL, et al. Stenting strategy for coronary artery bifurcation with drug-eluting stents: a meta-analysis of nine randomised trials and systematic review. EuroIntervention. 2014; 10(5): 561–569.
  618. Behan MW, Holm NR, de Belder AJ, et al. Coronary bifurcation lesions treated with simple or complex stenting: 5-year survival from patient-level pooled analysis of the Nordic Bifurcation Study and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study. Eur Heart J. 2016; 37(24): 1923–1928.
  619. Hildick-Smith D, Behan MW, Lassen JF, et al. The EBC TWO (European Bifurcation Coronary TWO) Study: A randomized comparison of provisional T-stenting versus a systematic 2 stent culotte strategy in large caliber true bifurcations. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9(9).
  620. Chen SL, Zhang JJ, Han Y, et al. Double kissing crush versus provisional stenting for left main distal bifurcation lesions: DKCRUSH-V randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017; 70(21): 2605–2617.
  621. Erglis A, Kumsars I, Niemelä M, et al. Nordic PCI Study Group. Randomized comparison of coronary bifurcation stenting with the crush versus the culotte technique using sirolimus eluting stents: the Nordic stent technique study. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2009; 2(1): 27–34.
  622. Zheng XW, Zhao DH, Peng HY, et al. Randomized comparison of the crush versus the culotte stenting for coronary artery bifurcation lesions. Chin Med J (Engl). 2016; 129(5): 505–510.
  623. Chen SL, Xu Bo, Han YL, et al. Comparison of double kissing crush versus Culotte stenting for unprotected distal left main bifurcation lesions: results from a multicenter, randomized, prospective DKCRUSH-III study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 61(14): 1482–1488.
  624. Niemelä M, Kervinen K, Erglis A, et al. Nordic-Baltic PCI Study Group. Randomized comparison of final kissing balloon dilatation versus no final kissing balloon dilatation in patients with coronary bifurcation lesions treated with main vessel stenting: the Nordic-Baltic Bifurcation Study III. Circulation. 2011; 123(1): 79–86.
  625. Gwon HC, Hahn JY, Koo BK, et al. Final kissing ballooning and long-term clinical outcomes in coronary bifurcation lesions treated with 1-stent technique: results from the COBIS registry. Heart. 2011; 98(3): 225–231.
  626. Généreux P, Kumsars I, Lesiak M, et al. A randomized trial of a dedicated bifurcation stent versus provisional stenting in the treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 65(6): 533–543.
  627. Lassen JF, Holm NR, Banning A, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention for coronary bifurcation disease: 11th consensus document from the European Bifurcation Club. EuroIntervention. 2016; 12(1): 38–46.
  628. Henriques J, Hoebers L, Råmunddal T, et al. Percutaneous intervention for concurrent chronic total occlusions in patients with STEMI: The EXPLORE trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016; 68(15): 1622–1632.
  629. Werner GS, Martin-Yuste V, Hildick-Smith D, et al. EUROCTO trial investigators. A randomized multicentre trial to compare revascularization with optimal medical therapy for the treatment of chronic total coronary occlusions. Eur Heart J. 2018; 39(26): 2484–2493.
  630. Christakopoulos GE, Christopoulos G, Carlino M, et al. Meta-analysis of clinical outcomes of patients who underwent percutaneous coronary interventions for chronic total occlusions. Am J Cardiol. 2015; 115(10): 1367–1375.
  631. Brilakis ES, Banerjee S, Karmpaliotis D, et al. Procedural outcomes of chronic total occlusion percutaneous coronary intervention: a report from the NCDR (National Cardiovascular Data Registry). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 8(2): 245–253.
  632. Bakker EJ, Maeremans J, Zivelonghi C, et al. RECHARGE Investigators. The hybrid algorithm for treating chronic total occlusions in Europe: The RECHARGE registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016; 68(18): 1958–1970.
  633. Galassi AR, Sianos G, Werner GS, et al. Euro CTO Club. Retrograde recanalization of chronic total occlusions in Europe: Procedural, in-hospital, and long-term outcomes from the multicenter ERCTO registry. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 65(22): 2388–2400.
  634. Koh JS, Koo BK, Kim JH, et al. Relationship between fractional flow reserve and angiographic and intravascular ultrasound parameters in ostial lesions: major epicardial vessel versus side branch ostial lesions. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012; 5(4): 409–415.
  635. Arnous S, Shakhshir N, Wiper A, et al. Incidence and mechanisms of longitudinal stent deformation associated with Biomatrix, Resolute, Element, and Xience stents: Angiographic and case-by-case review of 1,800 PCIs. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 86(6): 1002–1011.
  636. Szabo S, Abramowitz B, Vaitkus P. New technique of aorto-ostial stent placement. Am J Cardiol. 2005; 96: 212H.
  637. Gutiérrez-Chico JL, Villanueva-Benito I, Villanueva-Montoto L, et al. Szabo technique versus conventional angiographic placement in bifurcations 010-001 of Medina and in aorto-ostial stenting: Angiographic and procedural results. EuroIntervention. 2010; 5(7): 801–808.
  638. Jolly SS, Yusuf S, Cairns J, et al. RIVAL trial group. Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2011; 377(9775): 1409–1420.
  639. Hamon M, Pristipino C, Di Mario C, et al. European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions, Working Group on Acute Cardiac Care of the European Society of Cardiology, Working Group on Thrombosis on the European Society of Cardiology. Consensus document on the radial approach in percutaneous cardiovascular interventions: position paper by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions and Working Groups on Acute Cardiac Care** and Thrombosis of the European Society of Cardiology. EuroIntervention. 2013; 8(11): 1242–1251.
  640. Palmerini T, Benedetto U, Biondi-Zoccai G, et al. Stent thrombosis with drug-eluting and bare-metal stents: evidence from a comprehensive network meta-analysis. Lancet. 2012; 379(9824): 1393–1402.
  641. Ferrante G, Rao SV, Jüni P, et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary interventions across the entire spectrum of patients with coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis of randomized trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9(14): 1419–1434.
  642. Sabaté M, Windecker S, Iñiguez A, et al. Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable stent vs. durable polymer everolimus-eluting metallic stent in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: results of the randomized ABSORB ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction-TROFI II trial. Eur Heart J. 2016; 37(3): 229–240.
  643. Cassese S, Byrne RA, Ndrepepa G, et al. Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2016; 387(10018): 537–544.
  644. Serruys PW, Chevalier B, Dudek D, et al. A bioresorbable everolimus-eluting scaffold versus a metallic everolimus-eluting stent for ischaemic heart disease caused by de-novo native coronary artery lesions (ABSORB II): an interim 1-year analysis of clinical and procedural secondary outcomes from a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2015; 385(9962): 43–54.
  645. Arroyo D, Gendre G, Schukraft S, et al. Comparison of everolimus- and biolimus-eluting coronary stents with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable vascular scaffolds. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 65(8): 791–801.
  646. Kimura T, Kozuma K, Tanabe K, et al. ABSORB Japan Investigators. A randomized trial evaluating everolimus-eluting Absorb bioresorbable scaffolds vs. everolimus-eluting metallic stents in patients with coronary artery disease: ABSORB Japan. Eur Heart J. 2015; 36(47): 3332–3342.
  647. Gao R, Yang Y, Han Y, et al. ABSORB China Investigators. Bioresorbable vascular scaffolds versus metallic stents in patients with coronary artery disease: ABSORB China trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 66(21): 2298–2309.
  648. Ellis SG, Kereiakes DJ, Metzger DC, et al. ABSORB III Investigators. Everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds for coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373(20): 1905–1915.
  649. Wykrzykowska JJ, Kraak RP, Hofma SH, et al. AIDA Investigators. Bioresorbable scaffolds versus metallic stents in routine PCI. N Engl J Med. 2017; 376(24): 2319–2328.
  650. Cassese S, Byrne RA, Jüni P, et al. Midterm clinical outcomes with everolimus-eluting bioresorbable scaffolds versus everolimus-eluting metallic stents for percutaneous coronary interventions: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. EuroIntervention. 2018; 13(13): 1565–1573.
  651. Casella G, Klauss V, Ottani F, et al. Impact of intravascular ultrasound-guided stenting on long-term clinical outcome: a meta-analysis of available studies comparing intravascular ultrasound-guided and angiographically guided stenting. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2003; 59(3): 314–321.
  652. Witzenbichler B, Maehara A, Weisz G, et al. Relationship between intravascular ultrasound guidance and clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stents: the assessment of dual antiplatelet therapy with drug-eluting stents (ADAPT-DES) study. Circulation. 2014; 129(4): 463–470.
  653. Maehara A, Ben-Yehuda O, Ali Z, et al. Comparison of stent expansion guided by optical coherence tomography versus intravascular ultrasound: The ILUMIEN II study (observational study of optical coherence tomography [OCT] in patients undergoing fractional flow reserve [FFR] and percutaneous coronary intervention). JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015; 8(13): 1704–1714.
  654. Maeng M, Holm NR, Erglis A, et al. Nordic-Baltic Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Study Group. Long-term results after simple versus complex stenting of coronary artery bifurcation lesions: Nordic Bifurcation Study 5-year follow-up results. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 62(1): 30–34.
  655. Hildick-Smith D, de Belder AJ, Cooter N, et al. Randomized trial of simple versus complex drug-eluting stenting for bifurcation lesions: the British Bifurcation Coronary Study: old, new, and evolving strategies. Circulation. 2010; 121(10): 1235–1243.
  656. Behan MW, Holm NR, de Belder AJ, et al. Simple or complex stenting for bifurcation coronary lesions: a patient-level pooled-analysis of the Nordic Bifurcation Study and the British Bifurcation Coronary Study. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2011; 4(1): 57–64.
  657. Chen SL, Santoso T, Zhang JJ, et al. A randomized clinical study comparing double kissing crush with provisional stenting for treatment of coronary bifurcation lesions: results from the DKCRUSH-II (Double Kissing Crush versus Provisional Stenting Technique for Treatment of Coronary Bifurcation Lesions) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 57(8): 914–920.
  658. Katritsis DG, Siontis GCM, Ioannidis JPA. Double versus single stenting for coronary bifurcation lesions: a meta-analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2009; 2(5): 409–415.
  659. Mehran R, Claessen B, Godino C, et al. Long-term outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusions. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011; 4(9): 952–961.
  660. Claessen BE, Dangas GD, Godino C, et al. Multinational Cto Registry. Long-term clinical outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention for chronic total occlusions in patients with versus without diabetes mellitus. Am J Cardiol. 2011; 108(7): 924–931.
  661. Jones DA, Weerackody R, Rathod K, et al. Successful recanalization of chronic total occlusions is associated with improved long-term survival. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2012; 5(4): 380–388.
  662. Grantham JA, Jones PG, Cannon L, et al. Quantifying the early health status benefits of successful chronic total occlusion recanalization: Results from the FlowCardia's Approach to Chronic Total Occlusion Recanalization (FACTOR) Trial. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2010; 3(3): 284–290.
  663. Joyal D, Afilalo J, Rinfret S. Effectiveness of recanalization of chronic total occlusions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am Heart J. 2010; 160(1): 179–187.
  664. Ndrepepa G, Berger PB, Mehilli J, et al. Periprocedural bleeding and 1-year outcome after percutaneous coronary interventions: appropriateness of including bleeding as a component of a quadruple end point. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008; 51(7): 690–697.
  665. Schömig A, Neumann FJ, Kastrati A, et al. A randomized comparison of antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapy after the placement of coronary-artery stents. N Engl J Med. 1996; 334(17): 1084–1089.
  666. Sibbing D, Kastrati A, Berger PB. Pre-treatment with P2Y12 inhibitors in ACS patients: who, when, why, and which agent? Eur Heart J. 2016; 37(16): 1284–1295.
  667. Steinhubl S, Berger P, III JM, et al. Early and sustained dual oral antiplatelet therapy following percutaneous coronary intervention. JAMA. 2002; 288(19): 2411.
  668. Bellemain-Appaix A, O'Connor SA, Silvain J, et al. ACTION Group. Association of clopidogrel pretreatment with mortality, cardiovascular events, and major bleeding among patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA. 2012; 308(23): 2507–2516.
  669. Lincoff AM, Kleiman NS, Kereiakes DJ, et al. REPLACE-2 Investigators. Long-term efficacy of bivalirudin and provisional glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade vs heparin and planned glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade during percutaneous coronary revascularization: REPLACE-2 randomized trial. JAMA. 2004; 292(6): 696–703.
  670. Kastrati A, Neumann FJ, Mehilli J, et al. ISAR-REACT 3 Trial Investigators. Bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2008; 359(7): 688–696.
  671. Schulz S, Mehilli J, Neumann FJ, et al. Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment (ISAR-REACT) 3A Trial Investigators. ISAR-REACT 3A: a study of reduced dose of unfractionated heparin in biomarker negative patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Eur Heart J. 2010; 31(20): 2482–2491.
  672. Montalescot G, Gallo R, White HD, et al. STEEPLE Investigators, STEEPLE Investigators. Enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin in elective percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2006; 355(10): 1006–1017.
  673. Steg PG, Bhatt DL, Hamm CW, et al. CHAMPION Investigators. Effect of cangrelor on periprocedural outcomes in percutaneous coronary interventions: a pooled analysis of patient-level data. Lancet. 2013; 382(9909): 1981–1992.
  674. Valgimigli M, Percoco G, Barbieri D, et al. The additive value of tirofiban administered with the high-dose bolus in the prevention of ischemic complications during high-risk coronary angioplasty: the ADVANCE Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004; 44(1): 14–19.
  675. Kastrati A, Mehilli J, Schühlen H, et al. Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen-Rapid Early Action for Coronary Treatment Study Investigators. A clinical trial of abciximab in elective percutaneous coronary intervention after pretreatment with clopidogrel. N Engl J Med. 2004; 350(3): 232–238.
  676. Winchester DE, Wen X, Brearley WD, et al. Efficacy and safety of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors during elective coronary revascularization: a meta-analysis of randomized trials performed in the era of stents and thienopyridines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011; 57(10): 1190–1199.
  677. Iakovou I, Schmidt T, Bonizzoni E, et al. Incidence, predictors, and outcome of thrombosis after successful implantation of drug-eluting stents. JAMA. 2005; 293(17): 2126–2130.
  678. Eikelboom J, Connolly S, Bosch J, et al. Rivaroxaban with or without Aspirin in Stable Cardiovascular Disease. N Engl J Med. 2017; 377(14): 1319–1330.
  679. Di Sciascio G, Patti G, Pasceri V, et al. ARMYDA-5 PRELOAD Investigators. Effectiveness of in-laboratory high-dose clopidogrel loading versus routine pre-load in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: results of the ARMYDA-5 PRELOAD (Antiplatelet therapy for Reduction of MYocardial Damage during Angioplasty) randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 56(7): 550–557.
  680. Widimsky P, Motovská Z, Simek S, et al. PRAGUE-8 Trial Investigators. Clopidogrel pre-treatment in stable angina: for all patients > 6 h before elective coronary angiography or only for angiographically selected patients a few minutes before PCI? A randomized multicentre trial PRAGUE-8. Eur Heart J. 2008; 29(12): 1495–1503.
  681. Antithrombotic Trialists' Collaboration. Collaborative meta-analysis of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy for prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in high risk patients. BMJ. 2002; 324(7329): 71–86.
  682. Antiplatelet Trialists' Collaboration. Collaborative overview of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy — I: Prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke by prolonged antiplatelet therapy in various categories of patients. BMJ. 1994; 308(6921): 81–106.
  683. Baigent C, Blackwell L, Collins R, et al. Antithrombotic Trialists' (ATT) Collaboration. Aspirin in the primary and secondary prevention of vascular disease: collaborative meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised trials. Lancet. 2009; 373(9678): 1849–1860.
  684. Bertrand ME, Rupprecht HJ, Urban P, et al. CLASSICS Investigators. Double-blind study of the safety of clopidogrel with and without a loading dose in combination with aspirin compared with ticlopidine in combination with aspirin after coronary stenting : the clopidogrel aspirin stent international cooperative study (CLASSICS). Circulation. 2000; 102(6): 624–629.
  685. Taniuchi M, Kurz HI, Lasala JM. Randomized comparison of ticlopidine and clopidogrel after intracoronary stent implantation in a broad patient population. Circulation. 2001; 104(5): 539–543.
  686. Müller C, Büttner HJ, Petersen J, et al. A randomized comparison of clopidogrel and aspirin versus ticlopidine and aspirin after the placement of coronary-artery stents. Circulation. 2000; 101(6): 590–593.
  687. von Beckerath N, Taubert D, Pogatsa-Murray G, et al. Absorption, metabolization, and antiplatelet effects of 300-, 600-, and 900-mg loading doses of clopidogrel: results of the ISAR-CHOICE (Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Choose Between 3 High Oral Doses for Immediate Clopidogrel Effect) Trial. Circulation. 2005; 112(19): 2946–2950.
  688. Montalescot G, Sideris G, Meuleman C, et al. ALBION Trial Investigators. A randomized comparison of high clopidogrel loading doses in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: the ALBION ALBION (Assessment of the Best Loading Dose of Clopidogrel to Blunt Platelet Activation, Inflammation and Ongoing Necrosis) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 48(5): 931–938.
  689. Silvain J, Beygui F, Barthélémy O, et al. Efficacy and safety of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2012; 344: e553.
  690. Valgimigli M, Campo G, Monti M, et al. Prolonging Dual Antiplatelet Treatment After Grading Stent-Induced Intimal Hyperplasia Study (PRODIGY) Investigators. Short- versus long-term duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy after coronary stenting: a randomized multicenter trial. Circulation. 2012; 125(16): 2015–2026.
  691. Schulz-Schüpke S, Byrne RA, Ten Berg JM, et al. Intracoronary Stenting and Antithrombotic Regimen: Safety And EFficacy of 6 Months Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Drug-Eluting Stenting (ISAR-SAFE) Trial Investigators. ISAR-SAFE: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial of 6 vs. 12 months of clopidogrel therapy after drug-eluting stenting. Eur Heart J. 2015; 36(20): 1252–1263.
  692. Han Y, Xu Bo, Xu K, et al. Six versus 12 months of dual antiplatelet therapy after implantation of biodegradable polymer sirolimus-eluting stent: randomized substudy of the I-LOVE-IT 2 trial. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9(2): e003145.
  693. Hong SJ, Shin DH, Kim JS, et al. IVUS-XPL Investigators. 6- versus 12-month dual-antiplatelet therapy following long everolimus-eluting stent implantation: the IVUS-XPL randomized clinical trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9(14): 1438–1446.
  694. Kereiakes DJ, Yeh RW, Massaro JM, et al. Dual Antiplatelet Therapy (DAPT) Study Investigators. Antiplatelet therapy duration following bare metal or drug-eluting coronary stents: the dual antiplatelet therapy randomized clinical trial. JAMA. 2015; 313(11): 1113–1121.
  695. Kim BK, Hong MK, Shin DH, et al. RESET Investigators. A new strategy for discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy: the RESET Trial (REal Safety and Efficacy of 3-month dual antiplatelet Therapy following Endeavor zotarolimus-eluting stent implantation). J Am Coll Cardiol. 2012; 60(15): 1340–1348.
  696. Feres F, Costa RA, Abizaid A, et al. OPTIMIZE Trial Investigators. Thrre vs twelve months of dual antiplatelet therapy after zotarolimus-eluting stents: The OPTIMIZE randomized trial. JAMA. 2013; 310: 2510–2522.
  697. Palmerini T, Benedetto U, Bacchi-Reggiani L, et al. Mortality in patients treated with extended duration dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent implantation: a pairwise and Bayesian network meta-analysis of randomised trials. The Lancet. 2015; 385(9985): 2371–2382.
  698. Giustino G, Baber U, Sartori S, et al. Duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stent implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 65(13): 1298–1310.
  699. Navarese EP, Andreotti F, Schulze V, et al. Optimal duration of dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention with drug eluting stents: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2015; 350: h1618.
  700. Mauri L, Kereiakes DJ, Yeh RW, et al. DAPT Study Investigators. Twelve or 30 months of dual antiplatelet therapy after drug-eluting stents. N Engl J Med. 2014; 371(23): 2155–2166.
  701. Wiviott S, Braunwald E, McCabe C, et al. Prasugrel versus Clopidogrel in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2007; 357(20): 2001–2015.
  702. Wallentin L, Becker RC, Budaj A, et al. PLATO Investigators. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2009; 361(11): 1045–1057.
  703. Eikelboom JW, Anand SS, Malmberg K, et al. Unfractionated heparin and low-molecular-weight heparin in acute coronary syndrome without ST elevation: a meta-analysis. Lancet. 2000; 355(9219): 1936–1942.
  704. Cohen M, Mahaffey KW, Pieper K, et al. SYNERGY Trial Investigators. A subgroup analysis of the impact of prerandomization antithrombin therapy on outcomes in the SYNERGY trial: enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006; 48(7): 1346–1354.
  705. Ferguson JJ, Califf RM, Antman EM, et al. SYNERGY Trial Investigators. Enoxaparin vs unfractionated heparin in high-risk patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes managed with an intended early invasive strategy: primary results of the SYNERGY randomized trial. JAMA. 2004; 292(1): 45–54.
  706. Cavender MA, Sabatine MS. Bivalirudin versus heparin in patients planned for percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2014; 384(9943): 599–606.
  707. Cassese S, Byrne RA, Laugwitz KL, et al. Bivalirudin versus heparin in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. EuroIntervention. 2015; 11(2): 196–203.
  708. Zhang S, Gao W, Li H, et al. Efficacy and safety of bivalirudin versus heparin in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Int J Cardiol. 2016; 209: 87–95.
  709. Erlinge D, Koul S, Omerovic E, et al. Bivalirudin versus heparin monotherapy in myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2017; 377(12): 1132–1142.
  710. Nührenberg TG, Hochholzer W, Mashayekhi K, et al. Efficacy and safety of bivalirudin for percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndromes: a meta-analysis of randomized-controlled trials. Clin Res Cardiol. 2018; 107(9): 807–815.
  711. Mehta SR, Granger CB, Eikelboom JW, et al. Fifth Organization to Assess Strategies in Acute Ischemic Syndromes Investigators. Comparison of fondaparinux and enoxaparin in acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2006; 354(14): 1464–1476.
  712. Boersma E, Harrington RA, Moliterno DJ, et al. Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in acute coronary syndromes: a meta-analysis of all major randomised clinical trials. Lancet. 2002; 359(9302): 189–198.
  713. Giugliano RP, White JA, Bode C, et al. EARLY ACS Investigators. Early versus delayed, provisional eptifibatide in acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2009; 360(21): 2176–2190.
  714. Stone G, McLaurin B, Cox D, et al. ACUITY Investigators. Bivalirudin for Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2006; 355(21): 2203–2216.
  715. Hahn JY, Song YB, Oh JH, et al. SMART-DATE investigators. 6- versus 12-month or longer dual antiplatelet therapy after percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome (SMART-DATE): a randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet. 2018; 391(10127): 1274–1284.
  716. Cuisset T, Deharo P, Quilici J, et al. Benefit of switching dual antiplatelet therapy after acute coronary syndrome: the TOPIC (Timing of Patelet Inhibition after acute Coronary syndrome) randomized study. European Heart Journal. 2017; 38(41): 3070–3078.
  717. Sibbing D, Aradi D, Jacobshagen C, et al. TROPICAL-ACS Investigators. Guided de-escalation of antiplatelet treatment in patients with acute coronary syndrome undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (TROPICAL-ACS): a randomised, open-label, multicentre trial. Lancet. 2017; 390(10104): 1747–1757.
  718. Angiolillo DJ, Rollini F, Storey RF, et al. International Expert Consensus on Switching Platelet P2Y Receptor-Inhibiting Therapies. Circulation. 2017; 136(20): 1955–1975.
  719. Grines CL, Bonow RO, Casey DE, et al. American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, American College of Surgeons, American Dental Association, American College of Physicians. Prevention of premature discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary artery stents: a science advisory from the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, American College of Surgeons, and American Dental Association, with representation from the American College of Physicians. Circulation. 2007; 115(6): 813–818.
  720. Mega JL, Braunwald E, Wiviott SD, et al. ATLAS ACS 2–TIMI 51 Investigators. Rivaroxaban in patients with a recent acute coronary syndrome. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366(1): 9–19.
  721. Patrono C, Andreotti F, Arnesen H, et al. Antiplatelet agents for the treatment and prevention of atherothrombosis. Eur Heart J. 2011; 32(23): 2922–2932.
  722. Mehta SR, Yusuf S, Peters RJ, et al. Clopidogrel in Unstable angina to prevent Recurrent Events trial (CURE) Investigators. Effects of pretreatment with clopidogrel and aspirin followed by long-term therapy in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the PCI-CURE study. Lancet. 2001; 358(9281): 527–533.
  723. Yusuf S, Mehta SR, Chrolavicius T, et al. Clopidogrel in Unstable Angina to Prevent Recurrent Events Trial Investigators. Effects of Clopidogrel in Addition to Aspirin in Patients with Acute Coronary Syndromes without ST-Segment Elevation. N Engl J Med. 2001; 345(7): 494–502.
  724. Mehta SR, Tanguay JF, Eikelboom JW, et al. CURRENT-OASIS 7 trial investigators. Double-dose versus standard-dose clopidogrel and high-dose versus low-dose aspirin in individuals undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute coronary syndromes (CURRENT-OASIS 7): a randomised factorial trial. Lancet. 2010; 376(9748): 1233–1243.
  725. Stone GW, Bertrand ME, Moses JW, et al. ACUITY Investigators. Routine upstream initiation vs deferred selective use of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in acute coronary syndromes: the ACUITY Timing trial. JAMA. 2007; 297(6): 591–602.
  726. Oler A, Whooley MA, Oler J, et al. Adding heparin to aspirin reduces the incidence of myocardial infarction and death in patients with unstable angina. A meta-analysis. JAMA. 1996; 276(10): 811–815.
  727. Steg PG, Jolly SS, Mehta SR, et al. FUTURA/OASIS-8 Trial Group. Low-dose vs standard-dose unfractionated heparin for percutaneous coronary intervention in acute coronary syndromes treated with fondaparinux: the FUTURA/OASIS-8 randomized trial. JAMA. 2010; 304(12): 1339–1349.
  728. Valgimigli M, Frigoli E, Leonardi S, et al. MATRIX Investigators. Bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin in acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2015; 373(11): 997–1009.
  729. Palmerini T, Della Riva D, Benedetto U, et al. Three, six, or twelve months of dual antiplatelet therapy after DES implantation in patients with or without acute coronary syndromes: an individual patient data pairwise and network meta-analysis of six randomized trials and 11 473 patients. Eur Heart J. 2017; 38(14): 1034–1043.
  730. Costa F, van Klaveren D, James S, et al. PRECISE-DAPT Study Investigators. Derivation and validation of the predicting bleeding complications in patients undergoing stent implantation and subsequent dual antiplatelet therapy (PRECISE-DAPT) score: a pooled analysis of individual-patient datasets from clinical trials. Lancet. 2017; 389(10073): 1025–1034.
  731. Bonaca MP, Bhatt DL, Steg PG, et al. Ischaemic risk and efficacy of ticagrelor in relation to time from P2Y12 inhibitor withdrawal in patients with prior myocardial infarction: insights from PEGASUS-TIMI 54. Eur Heart J. 2016; 37(14): 1133–1142.
  732. Bonaca MP, Bhatt DL, Cohen M, et al. PEGASUS-TIMI 54 Steering Committee and Investigators. Long-term use of ticagrelor in patients with prior myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2015; 372(19): 1791–1800.
  733. Costa F, Adamo M, Ariotti S, et al. Impact of greater than 12-month dual antiplatelet therapy duration on mortality: Drug-specific or a class-effect? A meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol. 2015; 201: 179–181.
  734. Hermiller JB, Krucoff MW, Kereiakes DJ, et al. DAPT Study Investigators. Benefits and Risks of Extended Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Everolimus-Eluting Stents. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9(2): 138–147.
  735. Motovska Z, Hlinomaz O, Miklik R, et al. PRAGUE-18 Study Group. Prasugrel versus ticagrelor in patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention: multicenter randomized PRAGUE-18 study. Circulation. 2016; 134(21): 1603–1612.
  736. Montalescot G, van't Hof AW, Lapostolle F, et al. ATLANTIC Investigators. Prehospital ticagrelor in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2014; 371(11): 1016–1027.
  737. Montalescot G, Zeymer U, Silvain J, et al. ATOLL Investigators. Intravenous enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin in primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the international randomised open-label ATOLL trial. Lancet. 2011; 378(9792): 693–703.
  738. Montalescot G, Barragan P, Wittenberg O, et al. ADMIRAL Investigators. Abciximab before Direct Angioplasty and Stenting in Myocardial Infarction Regarding Acute and Long-Term Follow-up. Platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibition with coronary stenting for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2001; 344(25): 1895–1903.
  739. Stone GW, Grines CL, Cox DA, et al. Controlled Abciximab and Device Investigation to Lower Late Angioplasty Complications (CADILLAC) Investigators. Comparison of angioplasty with stenting, with or without abciximab, in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2002; 346(13): 957–966.
  740. De Luca G, Navarese E, Marino P. Risk profile and benefits from Gp IIb-IIIa inhibitors among patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction treated with primary angioplasty: a meta-regression analysis of randomized trials. Eur Heart J. 2009; 30(22): 2705–2713.
  741. Ellis SG, Tendera M, de Belder MA, et al. FINESSE Investigators. Facilitated PCI in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358(21): 2205–2217.
  742. Hof Av, Berg Jt, Heestermans T, et al. Prehospital initiation of tirofiban in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary angioplasty (On-TIME 2): a multicentre, double-blind, randomised controlled trial. The Lancet. 2008; 372(9638): 537–546.
  743. Steg PG, James S, Harrington RA, et al. PLATO Study Group. Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes intended for reperfusion with primary percutaneous coronary intervention: A Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes (PLATO) trial subgroup analysis. Circulation. 2010; 122(21): 2131–2141.
  744. Steg PG, van 't Hof A, Hamm CW, et al. EUROMAX Investigators. Bivalirudin started during emergency transport for primary PCI. N Engl J Med. 2013; 369(23): 2207–2217.
  745. Stone G, Witzenbichler B, Guagliumi G, et al. Bivalirudin during Primary PCI in Acute Myocardial Infarction. N Engl J Med. 2008; 358(21): 2218–2230.
  746. Shahzad A, Kemp I, Mars C, et al. HEAT-PPCI trial investigators. Unfractionated heparin versus bivalirudin in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (HEAT-PPCI): an open-label, single centre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2014; 384(9957): 1849–1858.
  747. Hansson EC, Jidéus L, Åberg B, et al. Coronary artery bypass grafting-related bleeding complications in patients treated with ticagrelor or clopidogrel: a nationwide study. Eur Heart J. 2016; 37(2): 189–197.
  748. Tomšič A, Schotborgh MA, Manshanden JSJ, et al. Coronary artery bypass grafting-related bleeding complications in patients treated with dual antiplatelet treatment. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016; 50(5): 849–856.
  749. Gherli R, Mariscalco G, Dalén M, et al. Safety of preoperative use of ticagrelor with or without aspirin compared with aspirin alone in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. JAMA Cardiol. 2016; 1(8): 921–928.
  750. Kwak YL, Kim JC, Choi YS, et al. Clopidogrel responsiveness regardless of the discontinuation date predicts increased blood loss and transfusion requirement after off-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010; 56(24): 1994–2002.
  751. Ranucci M, Baryshnikova E, Soro G, et al. Surgical and Clinical Outcome Research (SCORE) Group. Multiple electrode whole-blood aggregometry and bleeding in cardiac surgery patients receiving thienopyridines. Ann Thorac Surg. 2011; 91(1): 123–129.
  752. Ranucci M, Colella D, Baryshnikova E, et al. Surgical and Clinical Outcome Research (SCORE) Group. Effect of preoperative P2Y12 and thrombin platelet receptor inhibition on bleeding after cardiac surgery. Br J Anaesth. 2014; 113(6): 970–976.
  753. Lamberts M, Gislason GH, Olesen JB, et al. Oral anticoagulation and antiplatelets in atrial fibrillation patients after myocardial infarction and coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013; 62(11): 981–989.
  754. Dewilde WJM, Oirbans T, Verheugt FWA, et al. WOEST study investigators. Use of clopidogrel with or without aspirin in patients taking oral anticoagulant therapy and undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: an open-label, randomised, controlled trial. Lancet. 2013; 381(9872): 1107–1115.
  755. Fiedler KA, Maeng M, Mehilli J, et al. Duration of triple therapy in patients requiring oral anticoagulation after drug-eluting stent implantation: the ISAR-TRIPLE trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015; 65(16): 1619–1629.
  756. Gibson CM, Mehran R, Bode C, et al. Prevention of bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI. N Engl J Med. 2016; 375(25): 2423–2434.
  757. Cannon CP, Bhatt DL, Oldgren J, et al. RE-DUAL PCI Steering Committee and Investigators. Dual antithrombotic therapy with dabigatran after PCI in atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med. 2017; 377(16): 1513–1524.
  758. Dans AL, Connolly SJ, Wallentin L, et al. Concomitant use of antiplatelet therapy with dabigatran or warfarin in the Randomized Evaluation of Long-Term Anticoagulation Therapy (RE-LY) trial. Circulation. 2013; 127(5): 634–640.
  759. Kopin D, Jones WS, Sherwood MW, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention and antiplatelet therapy in patients with atrial fibrillation receiving apixaban or warfarin: Insights from the ARISTOTLE trial. Am Heart J. 2018; 197: 133–141.
  760. Ruff CT, Giugliano RP, Braunwald E, et al. Comparison of the efficacy and safety of new oral anticoagulants with warfarin in patients with atrial fibrillation: a meta-analysis of randomised trials. Lancet. 2014; 383(9921): 955–962.
  761. Post PN, Kuijpers M, Ebels T, et al. The relation between volume and outcome of coronary interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J. 2010; 31(16): 1985–1992.
  762. Kim LK, Looser P, Feldman DN. Peri- and postoperative care after coronary artery bypass grafting in low versus high volume centers. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016; 152(4): 1205.
  763. Gonzalez AA, Dimick JB, Birkmeyer JD, et al. Understanding the volume-outcome effect in cardiovascular surgery: the role of failure to rescue. JAMA Surg. 2014; 149(2): 119–123.
  764. Birkmeyer JD, Stukel TA, Siewers AE, et al. Surgeon volume and operative mortality in the United States. N Engl J Med. 2003; 349(22): 2117–2127.
  765. Zacharias A, Schwann TA, Riordan CJ, et al. Is hospital procedure volume a reliable marker of quality for coronary artery bypass surgery? A comparison of risk and propensity adjusted operative and midterm outcomes. Ann Thorac Surg. 2005; 79(6): 1961–1969.
  766. Kurlansky PA, Argenziano M, Dunton R, et al. Quality, not volume, determines outcome of coronary artery bypass surgery in a university-based community hospital network. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2012; 143(2): 287–293.
  767. Auerbach AD, Hilton JF, Maselli J, et al. Shop for quality or volume? Volume, quality, and outcomes of coronary artery bypass surgery. Ann Intern Med. 2009; 150(10): 696–704.
  768. Pagano D, Kappetein AP, Sousa-Uva M, et al. European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) and the EACTS Quality Improvement Programme. EACTS clinical statement: guidance for the provision of adult cardiac surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016; 50(6): 1006–1009.
  769. Hannan EL, Wu C, Walford G, et al. Volume-outcome relationships for percutaneous coronary interventions in the stent era. Circulation. 2005; 112(8): 1171–1179.
  770. McGrath PD, Wennberg DE, Dickens JD, et al. Relation between operator and hospital volume and outcomes following percutaneous coronary interventions in the era of the coronary stent. JAMA. 2000; 284(24): 3139–3144.
  771. Nallamothu BK, Wang Y, Magid DJ, et al. National Registry of Myocardial Infarction Investigators. 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; 113(2): 222–229.
  772. Spaulding C, Morice MC, Lancelin B, et al. CARDIO-ARIF registry Investigators. Is the volume-outcome relation still an issue in the era of PCI with systematic stenting? Results of the greater Paris area PCI registry. Eur Heart J. 2006; 27(9): 1054–1060.
  773. Vakili BA, Kaplan R, Brown DL. Volume-outcome relation for physicians and hospitals performing angioplasty for acute myocardial infarction in New York state. Circulation. 2001; 104(18): 2171–2176.
  774. Canto JG, Every NR, Magid DJ, et al. The volume of primary angioplasty procedures and survival after acute myocardial infarction. National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2 Investigators. N Engl J Med. 2000; 342(21): 1573–1580.
  775. Xu Bo, Redfors B, Yang Y, et al. Impact of operator experience and Volume on outcomes after left main coronary artery percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016; 9(20): 2086–2093.
  776. Di Mario C, Di Sciascio G, Dubois-Randé JL, et al. Curriculum and syllabus for interventional cardiology subspecialty training in europe. EuroIntervention. 2006; 2(1): 31–36.
  777. Anderson L, Oldridge N, Thompson DR, et al. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary heart disease: Cochrane systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016; 67: 1–12.
  778. Clark AM, Hartling L, Vandermeer B, et al. Meta-analysis: secondary prevention programs for patients with coronary artery disease. Ann Intern Med. 2005; 143(9): 659–672.
  779. Critchley JA, Capewell S. Mortality risk reduction associated with smoking cessation in patients with coronary heart disease: a systematic review. JAMA. 2003; 290(1): 86–97.
  780. Estruch R, Ros E, Salas-Salvadó J, et al. PREDIMED Study Investigators. Primary prevention of cardiovascular disease with a mediterranean diet. N Engl J Med. 2013; 368(14): 1279–1290.
  781. Baigent C, Blackwell L, Emberson J, et al. Cholesterol Treatment Trialists’ (CTT) Collaboration. Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170,000 participants in 26 randomised trials. Lancet. 2010; 376(9753): 1670–1681.
  782. Patrono C, Morais J, Baigent C, et al. Antiplatelet agents for the treatment and prevention of coronary atherothrombosis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017; 70(14): 1760–1776.
  783. Ettehad D, Emdin CA, Kiran A, et al. Blood pressure lowering for prevention of cardiovascular disease and death: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Lancet. 2016; 387(10022): 957–967.
  784. Selvin E, Marinopoulos S, Berkenblit G, et al. Meta-analysis: glycosylated hemoglobin and cardiovascular disease in diabetes mellitus. Ann Intern Med. 2004; 141(6): 421–431.
  785. UK Prospective 1Diabetes Study (UKPDS) Group. Effect of intensive blood-glucose control with metformin on complications in overweight patients with type 2 diabetes (UKPDS 34). The Lancet. 1998; 352(9131): 854–865.
  786. Harb SC, Marwick TH. Prognostic value of stress imaging after revascularization: a systematic review of stress echocardiography and stress nuclear imaging. Am Heart J. 2014; 167(1): 77–85.

Important: This website uses cookies. More >>

The cookies allow us to identify your computer and find out details about your last visit. They remembering whether you've visited the site before, so that you remain logged in - or to help us work out how many new website visitors we get each month. Most internet browsers accept cookies automatically, but you can change the settings of your browser to erase cookies or prevent automatic acceptance if you prefer.

By "Via Medica sp. z o.o." sp.k., Świętokrzyska 73 street, 80–180 Gdańsk, Poland

tel.:+48 58 320 94 94, faks:+48 58 320 94 60, e-mail: viamedica@viamedica.pl