1 / 12

Cardiology Morning Report: Revascularization in Stable Ischemic Heart Disease

Cardiology Morning Report: Revascularization in Stable Ischemic Heart Disease. Bobby Mathew, MD LSU Internal Medicine, HO-II. Definitions.

taariq
Download Presentation

Cardiology Morning Report: Revascularization in Stable Ischemic Heart Disease

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Cardiology Morning Report:Revascularization in Stable Ischemic Heart Disease Bobby Mathew, MD LSU Internal Medicine, HO-II

  2. Definitions • Recommendations for revascularization in the setting of symptomatic, stable ischemic heart disease; does not include revascularization in the setting of acute MI • Significant Stenosis: • Left Main Disease • Fractional Flow Reserve • “Protected” vs “Unprotected” LM disease • STS Score/SYNTAX score

  3. STS Score

  4. SYNTAX Score

  5. Approach Considerations • Class I • Heart Team Approach • Class IIa • STS/SYNTAX Scores

  6. Left Main Disease • Class I • CABG for LMD ≥ 50% • Class IIa • PCI is reasonable in: • SYNTAX ≤ 22 & STS Mortality ≥ 5% • UA/NSTEMI with unprotected LM & not CABG candidate • STEMI with unprotected LM as the culprit lesion with TIMI 3 flow and time constraints • Class IIb • PCI may be reasonable in: • SYNTAX < 33, STS > 2%, previous surgery, mod-severe COPD

  7. Non-LM Disease • Class I • CABG for significant 3VD (w w/o prox LAD) or prox LAD + 1 other major coronary artery • CABG or PCI for SCD 2/2 significant stenosis (PCI LOE C) • Class IIa • CABG for significant 2VD with extensive myocardial ischemia or target vessels supply large area of viable myocardium • CABG for significant MVD or Prox LAD w/ mild-moderate LV systolic dysfunction w/ viable myocardium • CABG w/ LIMA for significant proximal LAD and extensive ischemia • CABG > PCI w/ SYNTAX > 22 if good candidates • CABG probably recommended > PCI with DM and MVD

  8. Non-LM Disease Cont’d • Class IIb • CABG uncertain w/ 2VD (w/o prox LAD) and w/o extensive ischemia • PCI to improve survival uncertain in 2VD/3VD (w/ w/o prox LAD) or isolated prox LAD disease • CABG for sole intent of survival benefit in SIHD w/ EF < 35% regardless of viable myocardium • CABG or PCI uncertain w/ previous CABG and extensive anterior wall ischemia

  9. Symptom Relief • Class I • CABG/PCI is beneficial w/ ≥ 1 significant lesions amenable to revascularization and unacceptable angina w/ GDMT • Class IIa • CABG/PCI for above when GDMT can’t be implemented • PCI reasonable in previous CABG w/ 1 or more significant lesions • CABG reasonable w/ SYNTAX > 22 and good candidate • Class IIb • CABG might be reasonable w/ previous CABG and 1 or more significant lesions not amenable to PCI • Transmyocardial laser revascularization for non-graftable vessels

  10. CABG vs MT • 3 RCTs in 1970s and 80s show CABG > Medical therapy • VA Cooperative Study • European Coronary Surgery Study • Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS) • 1994 Meta-analysis showed CABG > MT in LM/3VD • CABG > MT for angina • Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study II (MASS II) in early 2000s; CABG with less subsequent MI, revascularization, cardiac death at 10 years

  11. PCI vs MT • Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) & Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes (BARI 2D) • No survival advantage for PCI • PCI reduces angina • PCI may increase short-term risk of MI • PCI does not reduce long-term risk of MI

  12. References • L. David Hillis 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 2011; 124 • Morice MC, Serruys PW, Kappetein AP, et al. Outcomes in patients with de novo left main disease treated with either percutaneous coronary intervention using paclitaxel-eluting stents or coronary artery bypass graft treatment in the Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial. Circulation. 2010;121:2645–53. • White AJ, Kedia G, Mirocha JM, et al. Comparison of coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous drug-eluting stent implantation for treatment of left main coronary artery stenosis. J Am CollCardiolIntv. 2008;1:236–45. • Makikallio TH, Niemela M, Kervinen K, et al. Coronary angioplasty in drug eluting stent era for the treatment of unprotected left main stenosis compared to coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Med. 2008;40: 437–43.

More Related