Key result
The STICH trial's conclusion that adding SVR to CABG does not improve symptoms or mortality is misleading due to flawed execution, protocol deviations, and improper patient selection.
Why the study?
Does adding surgical ventricular reconstruction to CABG improve outcomes in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and anterior LV dysfunction?
Population
Patients with left ventricular dysfunction, NYHA Class II–IV CHF, coronary artery disease amenable to CABG…
Comparison
Coronary artery bypass grafting plus surgical… vs Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) alone
Design
Editorial
Authors
Loading...
This editorial argues that the negative results of the STICH trial regarding surgical ventricular reconstruction are invalid due to severe methodological, patient selection, and surgical execution flaws.
Does adding surgical ventricular reconstruction to CABG improve outcomes in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and anterior LV dysfunction?
This editorial argues that the negative results of the STICH trial regarding surgical ventricular reconstruction are invalid due to severe methodological, patient selection, and surgical execution flaws.
Buckberg et al. (2010) conducted an editorial in Left ventricular dysfunction and akinetic or dyskinetic LV segments from prior anterior wall myocardial infarction. Coronary bypass (CABG) plus surgical ventricular reconstruction (SVR) vs. CABG alone was evaluated on Improvement in symptoms, exercise tolerance, or reduced intermediate mortality. The STICH trial's conclusion that adding SVR to CABG does not improve symptoms or mortality is misleading due to flawed execution, protocol deviations, and improper patient selection.
Synapse has enriched 3 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: