Coronary artery bypass (CABG) has evolved over the decades, supported by scientific evidence from robust studies. The downgrade of the recommendation for CABG in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease proposed by the 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization and the 2023 ACC/AHA Chronic Coronary Disease Guidelines has brought this discussion to the fore, with prestigious cardiothoracic surgery societies such as AATS and STS not supporting these recommendations. The purpose of this article is to broaden this discussion in light of published studies.

Liver transplantation (LT) is the second most performed solid organ transplant. Coronary artery disease (CAD) is a critical consideration for LT candidacy, particularly in patients with known CAD or risk factors, including metabolic dysfunction associated with steatotic liver disease. The presence of severe CAD may exclude patients from LT; therefore, precise preoperative evaluation and interventions are necessary to achieve transplant candidacy. Cardiovascular complications represent the earliest nongraft-related cause of death post-transplantation. Timely intervention to reduce cardiovascular events depends on adequate CAD screening. Coronary disease screening in end-stage liver disease is challenging because standard noninvasive CAD screening tests have low sensitivity due to hyperdynamic state and vasodilatation. As a result, there is overuse of invasive coronary angiography to exclude severe CAD. Coronary artery calcium scoring using a computed tomography scan is a tool for the prediction of cardiovascular events, and can be used to achieve risk stratification in LT candidates. Recent literature shows that qualitative assessment on both noncontrast- and contrast-enhanced chest computed tomography can be used instead of calcium score to assess the presence of coronary calcium. With increasing prevalence, protocols to address CAD in LT candidates must be reconsidered. Percutaneous coronary intervention could allow a shorter duration of dual-antiplatelet therapy in simple lesions, with safer perioperative outcomes. Hybrid coronary revascularization is an option for high-risk LT candidates with multivessel disease nonamenable to percutaneous coronary intervention. The objective of this review is to evaluate existing methods for preoperative cardiovascular risk stratification, and to describe interventions before surgery to optimize patient outcomes and reduce cardiovascular event risk.

The burden of coronary artery disease (CAD) is large and growing, commonly presenting with comorbidities and older age. Patients may benefit from coronary revascularisation with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), yet half of patients with CAD who would benefit from revascularisation fall outside the eligibility criteria of trials to date. As such, the choice of revascularisation procedures varies depending on the CAD anatomy and complexity, surgical risk and comorbidities, the patient\'s preferences and values, and the treating team\'s expertise. The recent American guidelines on coronary revascularisation are comprehensive in describing recommendations for PCI, CABG, or conservative management in patients with CAD. However, individual challenging patient presentations cannot be fully captured in guidelines. The aim of this narrative review is to summarise common clinical scenarios that are not sufficiently described by contemporary clinical guidelines and trials in order to inform heart team members and trainees about the nuanced considerations and available evidence to manage such cases. We discuss clinical cases that fall beyond the current guidelines and summarise the relevant evidence evaluating coronary revascularisation for these patients. In addition, we highlight gaps in knowledge based on a lack of research (eg, ineligibility of certain patient populations), underrepresentation in research (eg, underenrollment of female and non-White patients), and the surge in newer minimally invasive and hybrid techniques. We argue that ultimately, evidence-based medicine, patient preference, shared decision making, and effective heart team communications are necessary to best manage complex CAD presentations potentially benefitting from revascularisation with CABG or PCI.

暂无摘要。

Coronary CT angiography (CCTA) demonstrated high diagnostic accuracy for detecting coronary artery disease (CAD) and a key role in the management of patients with low-to-intermediate pretest likelihood of CAD. However, the clinical information provided by this noninvasive method is still regarded insufficient in patients with diffuse and complex CAD and for planning percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and surgical revascularization procedures. On the other hand, technology advancements have recently shown to improve CCTA diagnostic accuracy in patients with diffuse and calcific stenoses. Moreover, stress CT myocardial perfusion imaging (CT-MPI) and fractional flow reserve derived from CCTA (CT-FFR) have been introduced in clinical practice as new tools for evaluating the functional relevance of coronary stenoses, with the possibility to overcome the main CCTA drawback, i.e. anatomical assessment only. The potential value of CCTA to plan and guide interventional procedures lies in the wide range of information it can provide: a) detailed evaluation of plaque extension, volume and composition; b) prediction of procedural success of CTO PCI using scores derived from CCTA; c) identification of coronary lesions requiring additional techniques (e.g., atherectomy and lithotripsy) to improve stent implantation success by assessing calcium score and calcific plaque distribution; d) assessment of CCTA-derived Syntax Score and Syntax Score II, which allows to select the mode of revascularization (PCI or CABG) in patients with complex and multivessel CAD. The aim of this Consensus Document is to review and discuss the available data supporting the role of CCTA, CT-FFR and stress CT-MPI in the preprocedural and possibly intraprocedural planning and guidance of myocardial revascularization interventions.

In diabetes patients with chronic ≥3 vessel disease, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) holds a class I recommendation in the American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) 2011 guidelines, and this classification has not changed to date. Much of the literature has focused upon whether CABG or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) produces better outcomes; there is a paucity of data comparing the odds of receiving these procedures. A secondary analysis was conducted in a de-identified database comprised of 30,482 patients satisfying the entry criteria. Odds of occurrence (CABG, PCI) were determined as the binary dependent variable in period 1, (17 October 2009 through 31 December 2011), and period 2 (1 January 2013 through 16 March 2015), before and after the 2011 guidelines, while controlling for gender, ethnicity/race, and ischemic heart disease as covariates. The odds of performing CABG rather than PCI in period 2 were not statistically significantly different than in period 1 (p = 0.400). The logistic regression model chi-square statistic was statistically significant, with χ2 (7) = 308.850, p < 0.0001. The Wald statistic showed that ethnicity/race (African American, Caucasian, Hispanic and Other), gender, and heart disease contributed significantly to the prediction model with p < 0.05, but ethnicity \'Unknown\' did not. The odds of CABG versus PCI in period 2 were 0.98 times those in period 1 95% confidence interval (CI) = (0.925, 1.032), statistically controlling for covariates. There was no significant rise in the odds of undergoing a CABG among this dataset of high-risk patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary heart disease. Modern practice has evolved regarding patient choice and additional variables that impact the final revascularization method employed. The degree to which odds of occurrence of procedures are a reliable surrogate for provider compliance with guidelines remains uncertain.

Although optimal pharmacological therapy for heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) is carefully scripted by treatment guidelines, many eligible patients are not treated with guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) in clinical practice. We designed a strategy for remote optimization of GDMT on a population scale in patients with HFrEF leveraging nonphysician providers. An electronic health record-based algorithm was used to identify a cohort of patients with a diagnosis of heart failure (HF) and ejection fraction (EF) ≤ 40% receiving longitudinal follow-up at our center. Those with end-stage HF requiring inotropic support, mechanical circulatory support, or transplantation and those enrolled in hospice or palliative care were excluded. Treating providers were approached for consent to adjust medical therapy according to a sequential, stepped titration algorithm modeled on the current American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) HF Guidelines within a collaborative care agreement. The program was approved by the institutional review board at Brigham and Women\'s Hospital with a waiver of written informed consent. All patients provided verbal consent to participate. A navigator then facilitated medication adjustments by telephone and conducted longitudinal surveillance of laboratories, blood pressure, and symptoms. Each titration step was reviewed by a pharmacist with supervision as needed from a nurse practitioner and HF cardiologist. Patients were discharged from the program to their primary cardiologist after achievement of an optimal or maximally tolerated regimen. A navigator-led remote management strategy for optimization of GDMT may represent a scalable population-level strategy for closing the gap between guidelines and clinical practice in patients with HFrEF.

Numerous definitions have been proposed for the diagnosis of myocardial infarction (MI) after coronary revascularization. The universal definition for MI designates post procedural biomarker thresholds for defining percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-related MI (type 4a) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)-related MI (type 5), which are of uncertain prognostic importance. In addition, for both the MI types, cTn is recommended as the biomarker of choice, the prognostic significance of which is less well validated than CK-MB. Widespread adoption of a MI definition not clearly linked to subsequent adverse events such as mortality or heart failure may have serious consequences for the appropriate assessment of devices and therapies, may affect clinical care pathways, and may result in misinterpretation of physician competence. Rather than using an MI definition sensitive for small degrees of myonecrosis (the occurrence of which, based on contemporary large-scale studies, are unlikely to have important clinical consequences), it is instead recommended that a threshold level of biomarker elevation which has been strongly linked to subsequent adverse events in clinical studies be used to define a \"clinically relevant MI.\" The present document introduces a new definition for \"clinically relevant MI\" after coronary revascularization (PCI or CABG), which is applicable for use in clinical trials, patient care, and quality outcomes assessment.

暂无摘要。

Numerous definitions have been proposed for the diagnosis of myocardial infarction (MI) after coronary revascularization. The universal definition for MI designates post procedural biomarker thresholds for defining percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI)-related MI (type 4a) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)-related MI (type 5) which are of uncertain prognostic importance. In addition, for both MI types cTn is recommended as the biomarker of choice, the prognostic significance of which is less well validated than CK-MB. Widespread adoption of a MI definition not clearly linked to subsequent adverse events such as mortality or heart failure may have serious consequences for the appropriate assessment of devices and therapies, may affect clinical care pathways, and may result in misinterpretation of physician competence. Rather than employing an MI definition sensitive for small degrees of myonecrosis (the occurrence of which, based on contemporary large-scale studies, are unlikely to have important clinical consequences), it is instead recommended that a threshold level of biomarker elevation which has been strongly linked to subsequent adverse events in clinical studies be used to define a \"clinically relevant MI.\" The present document introduces a new definition for \"clinically relevant MI\" after coronary revascularization (PCI or CABG) which is applicable for use in clinical trials, patient care, and quality outcomes assessment.