Key result
Assessment of myocardial viability does not identify patients with coronary artery disease and significant left ventricular dysfunction who will have the greatest survival benefit from adding CABG to aggressive medical therapy.
Why the study?
Does myocardial viability testing identify patients who will have the greatest survival benefit from adding CABG to aggressive medical therapy in patients with stable coronary artery disease and significant left ventricular systolic dysfunction?
Does myocardial viability testing identify patients who will have the greatest survival benefit from adding CABG to aggressive medical therapy in patients with stable coronary artery disease and significant left ventricular systolic dysfunction?
In patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, myocardial viability testing does not reliably identify those who will derive a survival benefit from CABG over medical therapy alone.
Viability testing should not guide CABG decisions in ischemic cardiomyopathy; leaves open better selection criteria for revascularization benefit.
Patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy constitute a heterogeneous group of patients with an extremely complex condition in which many factors play an important prognostic role. So it is difficult and probably unrealistic to expect that a single feature like presence of viable myocardium would provide an unequivocal answer to a critical question of revasculrization or not for all patients. Opposite to the hopes of investigators and physicians involved in the care of these patients, the findings of prospective studies with the use of different viability testing methods did not help in the decision-making process regarding CABG in ischemic cardiomyopathy. Instead, they left us with the same dilemma. The implication of most of these trials is that in patients with CAD and significant LV dysfunction, assessment of myocardial viability does not identify patients who will have the greatest survival benefit from adding CABG to aggressive medical therapy. In the clinical practice, these observations remind physicians to consider the multiplicity of factors involved in the decision-making process for patients with such a complex disease.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Albackr et al. (2014) conducted a review in Stable Coronary Artery Disease and Significant Left Ventricular Systolic Dysfunction. Myocardial viability testing vs. Standard care without viability testing was evaluated on Survival benefit or mortality. Assessment of myocardial viability does not identify patients with coronary artery disease and significant left ventricular dysfunction who will have the greatest survival benefit from adding CABG to aggressive medical therapy.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: