Why the study?
Does complete revascularization improve clinical outcomes compared to incomplete revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease?
Does complete revascularization improve clinical outcomes compared to incomplete revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease?
Complete revascularization is desirable but not mandatory in multivessel CAD, and treatment strategies should be individualized based on patient comorbidities, anatomy, and clinical presentation.
Supports individualized revascularization decisions in multivessel CAD; leaves open need for prospective trials to refine thresholds.
The completeness of revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) remains an unanswered question. Despite 20 years of investigation there are still major doubts in this topic, reaching as far as to the lack of a standardized definition. The employment of different definition and the multiplicity of confounding variables that in general favor patients who receive a complete revascularization (CR) are the reason of difficult comparisons between studies. The complexity of coronary anatomy diseases and the clinical features play important role in the revascularization strategy. However, the clinical impact of CR is different in particular clinical subsets, such as diabetes, ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction, cardiogenic shock, ischemic heart failure. The CR is a desirable objective, but it is not mandatory and sometimes a reasonable incomplete revascularization (IR) offers comparable results. Clinical variables, including patient's age, life expectancy, the severity of symptoms at presentation, comorbidities (particularly diabetes mellitus), left ventricular function and myocardial viability, as well as coronary anatomy should be considered in the decision making whether to attempt CR or to follow a reasonable IR strategy, for both percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery, in patients with multivessel CAD.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Aurigemma et al. (2018) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: