Why the study?
Does coronary artery bypass grafting compared to percutaneous coronary intervention improve outcomes in patients with significant coronary artery disease and low left ventricular ejection fraction?
Does coronary artery bypass grafting compared to percutaneous coronary intervention improve outcomes in patients with significant coronary artery disease and low left ventricular ejection fraction?
This review synthesizes evidence on the challenging decision-making process between CABG and PCI for patients with coronary artery disease and reduced left ventricular function.
Surgical myocardial revascularization in patients with reduced left ventricular function has been a matter of debate for decades. A recently-published 10-year extension follow-up of the STICH trial has conclusively demonstrated the benefit of surgical myocardial revascularization in patients with significant coronary artery disease and low left ventricular ejection fraction. However, patient selection for surgery remains challenging, and so does the decision to perform percutaneous rather than surgical revascularization in this class of patients. New evidence helped to clarify the role of preoperative patients' characteristics as risk factors for surgery and to identify those patients who may benefit the most from surgery. Focus of this review is to review epidemiology and results of observational and investigational studies on revascularization in patients with reduced left ventricular function with a particular emphasis on relative indication of coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Bruno et al. (2018) conducted a review in Reduced left ventricular function and significant coronary artery disease. Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) vs. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) was evaluated.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: