Abstract
Although revascularization has been one of the primary treatment options for obstructive coronary artery disease (CAD) for about 50 years, the evidence base for its use is most robust in the area of acute coronary disease. By contrast, evidence — particularly from clinical trials — supporting the use of revascularization to improve clinical outcomes in stable CAD is in some important respects outdated in that it reflects therapies that predate both contemporary standards for optimal medical therapy and current revascularization techniques and technologies. Despite such limitations, these clinical trials still provide the foundation for many of the current guideline-based indications for coronary revascularization in patients with stable CAD. In this Review, we discuss the major factors underlying the clinical decision to perform revascularization in patients with stable CAD and examine the use and limitations of existing evidence on the choice for, and preferred methods of, revascularization, namely, CABG surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention.
Key points
-
Medical therapy with agents with proven prognostic benefit is now the cornerstone of therapy for stable coronary artery disease (CAD).
-
Revascularization in addition to medical therapy is appropriate in patients with symptoms refractory to medical therapy, high-risk features, and high coronary disease burden, but the potential incremental benefit of revascularization varies between patient subgroups.
-
Our current understanding of what to do therapeutically is based largely on clinical trials designed to detect significant average treatment differences in major adverse clinical events.
-
The evidence base in revascularization for stable CAD is fragmentary, requiring clinicians to use their learning and judgement to treat individual patients who are not typical representatives of any clinical trial.
-
The treatment recommendation should be formulated by a multidisciplinary approach from interventionalists, cardiac surgeons, and noninvasive cardiologists and from patients themselves.
Similar content being viewed by others
Explore related subjects
Discover the latest articles, news and stories from top researchers in related subjects.References
Lozano, R. et al. Global and regional mortality from 235 causes of death for 20 age groups in 1990 and 2010: a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. Lancet 380, 2095–2128 (2013).
Ford, E. S. et al. Explaining the decrease in U. S. deaths from coronary disease, 1980–2000. N. Engl. J. Med. 356, 2388–2398 (2007).
Benjamin, E. J. et al. Heart disease and stroke statistics-2017 update: a report from the American Heart Association. Circulation 135, e146–e603 (2017).
Fanaroff, A. C. et al. Outcomes of PCI in relation to procedural characteristics and operator volumes in the United States. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 69, 2913–2924 (2017).
Shahian, D. M. et al. Predictors of long-term survival after coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: results from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database (the ASCERT study). Circulation 125, 1491–1500 (2012).
VA Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Cooperative Study Group. Eighteen-year follow-up in the Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study of Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for stable angina. Circulation 86, 121–130 (1992).
Alderman, E. L. et al. Ten-year follow-up of survival and myocardial infarction in the randomized Coronary Artery Surgery Study. Circulation 82, 1629–1646 (1990).
Varnauskas, E. Twelve-year follow-up of survival in the randomized European Coronary Surgery Study. N. Engl. J. Med. 319, 332–337 (1988).
Takaro, T., Hultgren, H. N., Lipton, M. J. & Detre, K. M. The VA cooperative randomized study of surgery for coronary arterial occlusive disease II. Subgroup with significant left main lesions. Circulation 54 (Suppl.), III107–III117 (1976).
Yusuf, S. 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 344, 563–570 (1994).
Davies, R. F. 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 95, 2037–2043 (1997).
Pfisterer, M. Trial of Invasive versus Medical therapy in Elderly patients Investigators. Long-term outcome in elderly patients with chronic angina managed invasively versus by optimized medical therapy: four-year follow-up of the randomized Trial of Invasive versus Medical therapy in Elderly patients (TIME). Circulation 110, 1213–1218 (2004).
Erne, P. et al. Effects of percutaneous coronary interventions in silent ischemia after myocardial infarction: the SWISSI II randomized controlled trial. JAMA 297, 1985–1991 (2007).
van Nunen, L. X. et al. 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 386, 1853–1860 (2015).
Katritsis, D. G. & Ioannidis, J. P. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus conservative therapy in nonacute coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. Circulation 111, 2906–2912 (2005).
Katritsis, D. G. & Ioannidis, J. P. PCI for stable coronary disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 357, 414–415 (2007).
Stergiopoulos, K. & Brown, D. L. Initial coronary stent implantation with medical therapy versus medical therapy alone for stable coronary artery disease: meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Arch. Intern. Med. 172, 312–319 (2012).
Trikalinos, T. A., Alsheikh-Ali, A. A., Tatsioni, A., Nallamothu, B. K. & Kent, D. M. Percutaneous coronary interventions for non-acute coronary artery disease: a quantitative 20-year synopsis and a network meta-analysis. Lancet 373, 911–918 (2009).
Stergiopoulos, K. 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. 174, 232–240 (2014).
Goff, S. L., Mazor, K. M., Ting, H. H., Kleppel, R. & Rothberg, M. B. How cardiologists present the benefits of percutaneous coronary interventions to patients with stable angina: a qualitative analysis. JAMA Intern. Med. 174, 1614–1621 (2014).
Arbab-Zadeh, A. & Fuster, V. The myth of the “vulnerable plaque”: transitioning from a focus on individual lesions to atherosclerotic disease burden for coronary artery disease risk assessment. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 65, 846–855 (2015).
Gerber, Y. et al. Atherosclerotic burden and heart failure after myocardial infarction. JAMA Cardiol. 1, 156–162 (2016).
Mancini, G. B. et al. Predicting outcome in the COURAGE trial (Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation): coronary anatomy versus ischemia. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 7, 195–201 (2014).
Panza, J. A. et al. Extent of coronary and myocardial disease and benefit from surgical revascularization in ischemic LV dysfunction. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 64, 553–561 (2014).
Windecker, S. et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS): Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur. Heart J. 35, 2541–2619 (2014).
Fihn, S. D. et al. 2012 ACCF/AHA/ACP/AATS/PCNA/SCAI/STS Guideline for the diagnosis and management of patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines, and the American College of Physicians, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Preventive Cardiovascular Nurses Association, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 60, e44–e164 (2012).
Hillis, L. D. et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 124, e652–e735 (2011).
Brooks, M. M. et al. Clinical and angiographic risk stratification and differential impact on treatment outcomes in the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) trial. Circulation 126, 2115–2124 (2012).
Ikeno, F. et al. SYNTAX score and long-term outcomes: the BARI-2D trial. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 69, 395–403 (2017).
Mancini, G. B. et al. Medical treatment and revascularization options in patients with type 2 diabetes and coronary disease. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 68, 985–995 (2016).
Farooq, V., Brugaletta, S. & Serruys, P. W. Contemporary and evolving risk scoring algorithms for percutaneous coronary intervention. Heart 97, 1902–1913 (2011).
Hueb, W. et al. Ten-year follow-up survival of the Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS II): a randomized controlled clinical trial of 3 therapeutic strategies for multivessel coronary artery disease. Circulation 122, 949–957 (2010).
Hachamovitch, R. et al. Impact of ischaemia and scar on the therapeutic benefit derived from myocardial revascularization versus medical therapy among patients undergoing stress-rest myocardial perfusion scintigraphy. Eur. Heart J. 32, 1012–1024 (2011).
Hachamovitch, R., Hayes, S. W., Friedman, J. D., Cohen, I. & Berman, D. S. 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 107, 2900–2907 (2003).
Mahmarian, J. J. et al. An initial strategy of intensive medical therapy is comparable to that of coronary revascularization for suppression of scintigraphic ischemia in high-risk but stable survivors of acute myocardial infarction. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 48, 2458–2467 (2006).
Panza, J. A. et al. Inducible myocardial ischemia and outcomes in patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 61, 1860–1870 (2013).
Nishigaki, K. et al. 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. 1, 469–479 (2008).
Boden, W. E. et al. Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 356, 1503–1516 (2007).
Sedlis, S. P. et al. Effect of PCI on long-term survival in patients with stable ischemic heart disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 373, 1937–1946 (2015).
Shaw, L. J. et al. 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 117, 1283–1291 (2008).
Shaw, L. J. et al. Baseline stress myocardial perfusion imaging results and outcomes in patients with stable ischemic heart disease randomized to optimal medical therapy with or without percutaneous coronary intervention. Am. Heart J. 164, 243–250 (2012).
Al-Lamee, R. et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention in stable angina (ORBITA): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 391, 31–40 (2017).
Stone, G. W. et al. Medical therapy with versus without revascularization in stable patients with moderate and severe ischemia: the case for community equipoise. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 67, 81–99 (2016).
De Bruyne, B. et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI for stable coronary artery disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 371, 1208–1217 (2014).
Li, J. et al. Long-term outcomes of fractional flow reserve-guided versus angiography-guided percutaneous coronary intervention in contemporary practice. Eur. Heart J. 34, 1375–1383 (2013).
Adjedj, J. et al. Significance of intermediate values of fractional flow reserve in patients with coronary artery disease. Circulation 133, 502–508 (2016).
Zimmermann, F. M. et al. Deferral versus performance of percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally non-significant coronary stenosis: 15-year follow-up of the DEFER trial. Eur. Heart J. 36, 3182–3188 (2015).
Curzen, N. et al. Does routine pressure wire assessment influence management strategy at coronary angiography for diagnosis of chest pain?: the RIPCORD study. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 7, 248–255 (2014).
Van Belle, E. et al. 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 129, 173–185 (2014).
Johnson, N. P. et al. Prognostic value of fractional flow reserve: linking physiologic severity to clinical outcomes. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 64, 1641–1654 (2014).
Arbab-Zadeh, A. Fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention is not a valid concept. Circulation 129, 1871–1878 (2014).
Rioufol, G. et al. FUTURE: FFR-guided revascularization vs. angioplasty in CAD patients [abstract]. Presented at the American Heart Association Scientific Sessions (2016).
Kennedy, M. W., Fabris, E., Suryapranata, H. & Kedhi, E. Is ischemia the only factor predicting cardiovascular outcomes in all diabetes mellitus patients? Cardiovasc. Diabetol. 16, 51 (2017).
Ahmadi, A. et al. Lesion-specific and vessel-related determinants of fractional flow reserve beyond coronary artery stenosis. JACC Cardiovasc. Imaging https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jcmg.2017.11.020 (2018).
Cook, C. M. et al. Fractional flow reserve/instantaneous wave-free ratio discordance in angiographically intermediate coronary stenoses: an analysis using doppler-derived coronary flow measurements. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 10, 2514–2524 (2017).
Davies, J. E. et al. Use of the instantaneous wave-free ratio or fractional flow reserve in PCI. N. Engl. J. Med. 376, 1824–1834 (2017).
Gotberg, M. et al. Instantaneous wave-free ratio versus fractional flow reserve to guide PCI. N. Engl. J. Med. 376, 1813–1823 (2017).
Kobayashi, Y. et al. Agreement of the resting distal to aortic coronary pressure with the instantaneous wave-free ratio. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 70, 2105–2113 (2017).
Mancini, G. B. et al. Angiographic disease progression and residual risk of cardiovascular events while on optimal medical therapy: observations from the COURAGE Trial. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 4, 545–552 (2011).
Cleland, J. G. et al. The Heart Failure Revascularisation Trial (HEART). Eur. J. Heart Fail. 13, 227–233 (2011).
Velazquez, E. J. et al. Coronary-artery bypass surgery in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. N. Engl. J. Med. 364, 1607–1616 (2011).
Velazquez, E. J. et al. Coronary-artery bypass surgery in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. N. Engl. J. Med. 374, 1511–1520 (2016).
Wolff, G. 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. 10, e003255 (2017).
Petrie, M. C. et al. 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 134, 1314–1324 (2016).
Bonow, R. O. et al. Myocardial viability and survival in ischemic left ventricular dysfunction. N. Engl. J. Med. 364, 1617–1625 (2011).
Mc Ardle, B. et al. Long-term follow-up of outcomes with F-18-fluorodeoxyglucose positron emission tomography imaging-assisted management of patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction secondary to coronary disease. Circ. Cardiovasc. Imaging 9, e004331 (2016).
Anavekar, N. S., Chareonthaitawee, P., Narula, J. & Gersh, B. J. Revascularization in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction: is the assessment of viability still viable? J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 67, 2874–2887 (2016).
Mark, D. B. Assessing quality-of-life outcomes in cardiovascular clinical research. Nat. Rev. Cardiol. 13, 286–308 (2016).
Windecker, S. et al. Revascularisation versus medical treatment in patients with stable coronary artery disease: network meta-analysis. BMJ 348, g3859 (2014).
Bangalore, S., Toklu, B. & Feit, F. Outcomes with coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with diabetes mellitus: can newer generation drug-eluting stents bridge the gap? Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 7, 518–525 (2014).
The Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) Investigators. Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with angioplasty in patients with multivessel disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 335, 217–225 (1996).
Chaitman, B. R. et al. 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 120, 2529–2540 (2009).
Farkouh, M. E. et al. Strategies for multivessel revascularization in patients with diabetes. N. Engl. J. Med. 367, 2375–2384 (2012).
Dangas, G. D. et al. Long-term outcome of PCI versus CABG in insulin and non-insulin-treated diabetic patients: results from the FREEDOM trial. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 64, 1189–1197 (2014).
Baber, U. et al. Comparative efficacy of coronary artery bypass surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease with or without chronic kidney disease. Eur. Heart J. 37, 3440–3447 (2016).
Head, S. 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 391, 939–948 (2018).
Mohr, F. W. 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. Lancet 381, 629–638 (2013).
Milojevic, M. et al. Causes of death following PCI versus CABG in complex CAD: 5-year follow-up of SYNTAX. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 67, 42–55 (2016).
Holmes, D. R. Jr & Taggart, D. P. Revascularization in stable coronary artery disease: a combined perspective from an interventional cardiologist and a cardiac surgeon. Eur. Heart J. 37, 1873–1882 (2016).
Park, S. J. et al. Trial of everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for coronary disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 372, 1204–1212 (2015).
Yamaji, K. et al. Effects of age and sex on clinical outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention relative to coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with triple-vessel coronary artery disease. Circulation 133, 1878–1891 (2016).
Bangalore, S. et al. Everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for multivessel coronary disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 372, 1213–1222 (2015).
Stone, G. W. et al. Everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 375, 2223–2235 (2016).
Makikallio, T. et al. 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 388, 2743–2752 (2016).
Ahn, J. M. 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. 65, 2198–2206 (2015).
Buszman, P. E. et al. Left main stenting in comparison with surgical revascularization: 10-year outcomes of the (Left Main Coronary Artery Stenting) LE MANS trial. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 9, 318–327 (2016).
Nerlekar, N. et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention using drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 9, e004729 (2016).
Giacoppo, D. et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with left main coronary artery stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Cardiol. 2, 1079–1088 (2017).
Garg, A. et al. Meta-Analysis of randomized controlled trials of percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in left main coronary artery disease. Am. J. Cardiol. 119, 1942–1948 (2017).
Bangalore, S., Guo, Y., Samadashvili, Z., Blecker, S. & Hannan, E. L. Revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction: everolimus-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Circulation 133, 2132–2140 (2016).
Nagendran, J. et al. Coronary artery bypass surgery improves outcomes in patients with diabetes and left ventricular dysfunction. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 71, 819–827 (2018).
Hannan, E. L. et al. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus drug-eluting stents for patients with isolated proximal left anterior descending disease. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 64, 2717–2726 (2014).
Kapoor, J. 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. 1, 483–491 (2008).
Thiele, H. 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. 53, 2324–2331 (2009).
Blazek, S. 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. 8, 30–38 (2015).
Hannan, E. L. et al. Patients with chronic total occlusions undergoing percutaneous coronary interventions: characteristics, success, and outcomes. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 9, e003586 (2016).
Huqi, A., Morrone, D., Guarini, G. & Marzilli, M. Long-term follow-up of elective chronic total coronary occlusion angioplasty: analysis from the UK Central Cardiac Audit Database. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 64, 2707–2708 (2014).
Lee, P. H. et al. Successful recanalization of native coronary chronic total occlusion is not associated with improved long-term survival. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 9, 530–538 (2016).
Park, S.-J. et al. Drug-eluting stent implantation versus optimal medical treatment in patients with chronic total occlusion (DECISION-CTO) [abstract]. Presented at the American College of Cardiology Scientific Sessions (2017).
Henriques, J. P. et al. Percutaneous intervention for concurrent chronic total occlusions in patients With STEMI: the EXPLORE trial. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 68, 1622–1632 (2016).
Ioannidis, J. P. & Katritsis, D. G. Percutaneous coronary intervention for late reperfusion after myocardial infarction in stable patients. Am. Heart J. 154, 1065–1071 (2007).
Menon, V. et al. Lack of benefit from percutaneous intervention of persistently occluded infarct arteries after the acute phase of myocardial infarction is time independent: insights from Occluded Artery Trial. Eur. Heart J. 30, 183–191 (2009).
Gossl, M., Faxon, D. P., Bell, M. R., Holmes, D. R. & Gersh, B. J. Complete versus incomplete revascularization with coronary artery bypass graft or percutaneous intervention in stable coronary artery disease. Circ. Cardiovasc. Interv. 5, 597–604 (2012).
Garcia, S. 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. 62, 1421–1431 (2013).
Kleisli, T. et al. In the current era, complete revascularization improves survival after coronary artery bypass surgery. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 129, 1283–1291 (2005).
Vander Salm, T. J. et al. What constitutes optimal surgical revascularization? Answers from the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI). J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 39, 565–572 (2002).
Hannan, E. L. et al. Incomplete revascularization in the era of drug-eluting stents: impact on adverse outcomes. JACC Cardiovasc. Interv. 2, 17–25 (2009).
Kim, Y. H. et al. Impact of angiographic complete revascularization after drug-eluting stent implantation or coronary artery bypass graft surgery for multivessel coronary artery disease. Circulation 123, 2373–2381 (2011).
van den Brand, M. J. et al. The effect of completeness of revascularization on event-free survival at one year in the ARTS trial. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 39, 559–564 (2002).
Aldweib, N. et al. Impact of repeat myocardial revascularization on outcome in patients with silent ischemia after previous revascularization. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 61, 1616–1623 (2013).
Toth, G. et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided versus angiography-guided coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Circulation 128, 1405–1411 (2013).
Farooq, V. 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 128, 141–151 (2013).
Gersh, B. J., Stone, G. W. & Bhatt, D. L. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with left main and multivessel coronary artery disease: do we have the evidence? Circulation 135, 819–821 (2017).
Iqbal, J. et al. Optimal medical therapy improves clinical outcomes in patients undergoing revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting: insights from the Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial at the 5-year follow-up. Circulation 131, 1269–1277 (2015).
Lipinski, M. J. et al. The impact of proprotein convertase subtilisin-kexin type 9 serine protease inhibitors on lipid levels and outcomes in patients with primary hypercholesterolaemia: a network meta-analysis. Eur. Heart J. 37, 536–545 (2016).
Nicholls, S. J. et al. Effect of evolocumab on progression of coronary disease in statin-treated patients: the GLAGOV randomized clinical trial. JAMA 316, 2373–2384 (2016).
Sabatine, M. S. et al. Evolocumab and clinical outcomes in patients with cardiovascular disease. N. Engl. J. Med. 376, 1713–1722 (2017).
Marx, N. & McGuire, D. K. Sodium-glucose cotransporter-2 inhibition for the reduction of cardiovascular events in high-risk patients with diabetes mellitus. Eur. Heart J. 37, 3192–3200 (2016).
Wanner, C. et al. Empagliflozin and progression of kidney disease in type 2 diabetes. N. Engl. J. Med. 375, 323–334 (2016).
Escaned, J. 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. 38, 3124–3134 (2017).
Ruttmann, E. et al. Second internal thoracic artery versus radial artery in coronary artery bypass grafting: a long-term, propensity score-matched follow-up study. Circulation 124, 1321–1329 (2011).
Sabik, J. F. 3rd, Lytle, B. W., Blackstone, E. H., Houghtaling, P. L. & Cosgrove, D. M. Comparison of saphenous vein and internal thoracic artery graft patency by coronary system. Ann. Thorac. Surg. 79, 544–551 (2005).
Medalion, B. et al. Should bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting be used in elderly patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting? Circulation 127, 2186–2193 (2013).
Yi, G., Shine, B., Rehman, S. M., Altman, D. G. & Taggart, D. P. Effect of bilateral internal mammary artery grafts on long-term survival: a meta-analysis approach. Circulation 130, 539–545 (2014).
Taggart, D. P. et al. Randomized trial to compare bilateral versus single internal mammary coronary artery bypass grafting: 1-year results of the Arterial Revascularisation Trial (ART). Eur. Heart J. 31, 2470–2481 (2010).
Taggart, D. P. et al. Randomized trial of bilateral versus single internal-thoracic-artery grafts. N. Engl. J. Med. 375, 2540–2549 (2016).
Brown, M. L., Gersh, B. J., Holmes, D. R., Bailey, K. R. & Sundt, T. M. 3rd. From randomized trials to registry studies: translating data into clinical information. Nat. Clin. Pract. Cardiovasc. Med. 5, 613–620 (2008).
Farooq, V. 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 381, 639–650 (2013).
Patel, M. R. et al. ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/STS 2017 appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization in patients with stable ischemic heart disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology Appropriate Use Criteria Task Force, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, American Society of Echocardiography, American Society of Nuclear Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 69, 2212–2241 (2017).
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
D.G.K. researched data for the article, and all authors discussed its content. D.G.K. and B.J.G. wrote the manuscript, which was critically reviewed by D.B.M. All authors reviewed and edited the manuscript before submission.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Competing interests
The authors declare no competing interests.
Additional information
Publisher’s note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Reviewer information
Nature Reviews Cardiology thanks D. Maron, B. Chaitman, and the other anonymous reviewer for their contribution to the peer review of this work.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Katritsis, D.G., Mark, D.B. & Gersh, B.J. Revascularization in stable coronary disease: evidence and uncertainties. Nat Rev Cardiol 15, 408–419 (2018). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41569-018-0006-z
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41569-018-0006-z
- Springer Nature Limited
This article is cited by
-
The myth of ‘stable’ coronary artery disease
Nature Reviews Cardiology (2020)
-
Enduring FAME of FFR-guided PCI
Nature Reviews Cardiology (2018)