Coronary revascularization
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Editor-In-Chief: C. Michael Gibson, M.S., M.D. [1] Associate Editor(s)-in-Chief: Anahita Deylamsalehi, M.D.[2]
Overview
Coronary revascularization is one of the most commonly used surgical procedures worldwide. Currently, coronary revascularization has three techniques including, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG), and hybrid coronary revascularization. CABG is one of the most common techniques with an overall of more than 20 million operations performed. Treatment decisions regarding coronary revascularization should be done regardless of sex, race, and ethnicity. Decision regarding coronary revascularization must be affected by coronary anatomy of patient, and the percentage of stenosis. Based on ACC 2021 guideline, coronary angiography is still the default method to determine coronary anatomy and stenosis degree. Furthermore, significant stenosis could be described as a estimated diameter stenosis more than 70% for non-left main disease, or more than 50% for left main disease. It is recommended to consider more investigations for stenosis more than 40% but less than 69%. Although the lesion's length can affect the ischemia severity, there are no standard cutoffs for the length of the lesions when severe stenosis is determined. Furthermore, the presence of other comorbidities can affect decision-making. Although many indications are the same for performing either PCI or CABG, these two procedures have inherently different mechanisms. While PCI mitigates an obstruction, it can not prevent plaque progression or rupture in other involved segments of the artery, on the other hand, CABG is able to prevent future ischemic insults caused by plaque progression or rupture in other involved segments of the artery. Most studies report the same outcome with PCI and CABG, but there is a number of reports that favor CABG over PCI. 2021 ACA revascularization guideline published many recommendation for coronary revascularization among specific patients, such as those with diabetes, or chronic kidney disease, and elderlies, pregnants.
Historical Perspective
- In 1948, Radner issued one of the first descriptions of transradial central arterial catheterization. Despite these early findings, limitations of present-day equipment were the reason behind the use of larger vessels such as the brachial, carotid, and femoral systems and not the radial artery.[1]
- One of the coronary revascularization methods, CABG, was first introduced in the 1960s and rapidly became one of the most common surgical procedures around the world.[2]
- In the late 1970s, PCI was introduced by mostly using 9-F guiding catheters.[3]
- In the mid-80s Loop and Lytle introduced the internal thoracic artery (LIMA) as the best performing bypass graft conduit. They also announced the superiority of LAD with LIMA as opposed to saphenous vein graft (SVG).[2]
Classification
Coronary revascularization may refer to;
Indications
- Treatment decisions regarding coronary revascularization should be done regardless of sex, race, and ethnicity.[4]
- Decision regarding coronary revascularization should be patient-centered, meaning that physicians should consider patient's wishes, health literacy, and cultural believes.[4]
- Based on ACC/AHA/SCAI 2021 guideline, for patients with unclear optimal treatment strategy a Heart Team including an interventional cardiologist, cardiac surgeon, and clinical cardiologist is recommended to assess the patient's outcome. The following table demonstrates factors that can be considered by the Heart Team:[4]
| Coronary Anatomy | *Left main disease *Multivessel disease *Complicated anatomy (such as bifurcation disease, and high SYNTAX score |
|---|---|
| Comorbidities | *Coagulopathy *Frailty *Diabetes *Valvular heart disease *Cancer *Systolic dysfunction *End-stage renal disease *Aortic aneurysm *Calcified aorta *Immunosuppression *Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease *History of cerebral stroke *Debilitating neurological disorders *Cirrhosis/liver disease |
| Procedure | *Access site for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) *Risk of surgery *Local and regional clinical outcomes *Risk of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) |
| Patient | *Patient preferences, religion believes, education, and knowledge *Incompliant to dual antiplatelet therapy *Patient social supports *Unstable presentation or shock |
Coronary Anatomy
- Based on ACC 2021 guideline, coronary angiography is still the default method to determine coronary anatomy and stenosis degree.[4]
- Significant stenosis is one of the indications for the revascularization procedure, which has been defined as the following observations in coronary angiography:[4]
- The fact that whether visually estimated diameter stenosis or quantitative coronary angiography can better predict the functional significance of a coronary stenosis is controversial. [5]
- Although the lesion's length can affect the ischemia severity, there are no standard cutoffs for the length of the lesions when severe stenosis is determined.
Coronary Revascularization Comparison to Medical Therapy
- Based on MASS II (Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study), CABG or PCI cohorts had lower 10-year mortality rate compared to those who received medical therapy.[6] This was further supported by a meta-analysis of 25 studies with overall 19,806 participants.[7]
- In contarst, there are some other studies that did not report any differences between the mortality rate of patients who was treated with medications to those who received a revascularization procedure.[4]
- While coronary revascularization could be related to the increased incidence of procedural type 4a or type 5 MIs, it was able to decrease the incidence of late MI (spontaneous MI [type 1], demand-induced MI [type 2], or MIs associated with stent thrombosis [type 4b] or with restenosis [type 4c]) when compared to medical therapy alone.[4][7]
- In contrast, a meta-analysis done on patients with stable ischemic heart disease did not report reduction in incidence of MI after coronary revascularization, while another study demonstrated reduction in the rate of MI with CABG, but not with PCI. [8][9]
- Although medical therapy is effective in reduction of patients' symptoms, numerous studies demonstrated that coronary revascularization is more effective in improving angina and quality of life compared to medical therapy alone.[10][11][12][13][14][15]
What Procedure to Choose?
- Although many indications are the same for performing either PCI or CABG, these two procedures have inherently different mechanisms.[4]
- Most studies report the same outcome with PCI and CABG, but there are some reports that favor CABG over PCI:
- The SYNTAX trial with 705 patients demonstrated a significantly higher rate of major adverse cardiovascular events and mortality rate among those who received PCI than the CABG cohort.[16]
- Two Studies reported that CABG is more effective in prevention of late spontaneous MI when compared to PCI.[17][18]
- ACA 2021 revascularization guideline recommends to consider the following factors to decide whether to chose PCI or CABG:[4]
- SYNTAX Score[19]
- SYNTAX score derived from a clinical trial with the same name which predicts the grade of the anatomic complexity and can be used as a decision-making tool.
- This score is a guide for selection of a revascularization procedure in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease.
- All cause mortality rate among patients with a coronary artery disease-associated SYNTAX score equal or greater than 33 were significantly lower when undergone CABG than PCI
- For patients with SYNTAX score lower than 33, no differences have been report in mortality rate of CABG and PCI
- Compliance to medications
- Preferences of patient
- Individual factors, such as anatomic complexity, which is discussed in the following table:[4]
- SYNTAX Score[19]
| Multivessel disease |
|---|
| Left main or proximal left anterior descending artery lesion |
| Chronic total occlusion |
| Trifurcation lesion |
| Complex bifurcation lesion |
| Heavy calcification |
| Severe tortuosity |
| Aorto-ostial stenosis |
| Diffusely diseased and narrowed segments distal to the lesion |
| Thrombotic lesion |
| Lesion length >20 mm |
- PCI would help patients with STEMI and ischemic symptoms for less than 12 hours.[4]
- Rescue PCI is recommended for STEMI patients who failed re-perfusion after fibrinolytic therapy to improve the survival.[20][21][22]
- PCI has been related to improved survival rate when done in STEMI patients who are stable and presented 12 to 24 hours after symptom onset.[23]
- Regardless of time from MI, PCI can increase survival in STEMI patients who developed complications such as ongoing ischemia, acute sever heart failure, or life-threatening cardiac arrhythmia.[4]
- Performing the PCI is not beneficial in stable and asymptomatic STEMI patients who have a totally occluded infarct artery >24 hours after symptom onset with no evidence for sever ischemia.[4]
- The role of PCI in asymptomatic STEMI patients who are presenting after 12 to 24 hours after symptom onset is not well studied.[4]
- Both PCI and CABG are indicated in patients with STEMI, cardiogenic shock, and hemodynamic instability.[25]
- CABG is recommended for patients with STEMI who have mechanical complications such as ventricular septal rupture, mitral regurgitation because of papillary muscle infarction or rupture, or free wall rupture.[4]
- Emergent or urgent CABG is recommended in STEMI patients whose PCI is not feasible with a large area of myocardial involvement. On the other hand, emergent or urgent CABG should be avoided in these patients in the absence of ischemia or large myocardial involvement. Furthermore, CABG is usually avoided if patients' distal targets are poor.[4][26]
- The following algorithm demonstrates the proper revascularization in STEMI patients.[4]
| STEMI/Ischemia symptoms | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Symptoms started started less than 12 hours | Symptoms started equal or more than 12 hours | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Is PCI feasible? | Cardiogenic shock or heart failure | Ongoing ischemia? Heart failure? Electrolyte disturbance? | Onset of symptoms within 12-24 hours? | Totally occluded artery for longer than 24 hours without symptoms or ischemia | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Yes | No | Is PCI feasible? | Yes | Yes | Yes | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Primary PCI | CABG (if large area of myocardium is involved) | Primary PCI | PCI | No benefit in PCI | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Yes | No | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| Primary PCI | CABG | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
- The sole condition that fibrinolytic therapies are superior to PCI is when the duration from hospital presentation to PCI is anticipated to be more than 120 minutes.
- An early revascularization strategy could increase the survival rate in patients with STEMI complicated by cardiogenic shock.
Fractional flow reserve and instantaneous wave-Free Ratio
- Fractional flow reserve (FFR) and instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR) are commonly used to assess the lesion significant. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) compares the maximal blood flow distal to the lesion to the normal maximal blood flow. On the other hand iFR compares the instantaneous wave-free ratio of the coronary pressure distal to the lesion during the diastole with the aortic pressure.[4]
- Reported in numbers of trials which used FFR, FFR-guided PCI was successful in lowering the revascularization rate, procedure-related chest pain in patients with stable coronary artery disease and functionally significant stenosis.[27][28][29]
- In one of these trials patients with abnormal FFR significantly benefited from PCI over medical therapy with lower rate of ischemia-driven revascularization and shorter procedural time. [30]
- FFR-guided revascularization with CABG was more off-pump with fewer anastomosis and simpler procedure compared to CABG with angiogram-guided revascularization in one of the clinical trials.[31][4][32] Although other studies reported similar outcomes in both.[33][34]
- iFR measure does not require the administration of adenosine has been also studied in clinical trials. Results supported that this measure is not inferior to FFR and also showed less adverse outcome related to the procedure.[35]
- Lower rate of long-term major adverse cardiac events has been reported when PCI was deferred with FFR greater than 0.80 or iFR that is >0.89. One of the trials named DEFER (Deferral of Percutaneous Intervention) reported that the rate of adverse outcome cardiac outcomes is similar in both group of patients whose PCI has been deferred either with a FFR greater than 0.75 or intermediate angiographic measures.[36][37][38]
ACA 2021 Guidline Recommendations for Specific Patients
Diabetics
| Class 1 Recommendation, Level of Evidence: A[4] |
| CABG with a LIMA to the LAD can reduce mortality and repeat revascularizations compared with PCI in diabetic patients who have multivessel coronary artery disease with LAD involvement and are appropriate candidates. |
| Class 2a Recommendation, Level of Evidence: B-NR [4] |
| PCI can be chosen to reduce long-term ischemic outcomes in diabetic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and poor surgery candidacy (only when there is an indication for revascularization and patient preferences are considered. |
| Class 2b Recommendation, Level of Evidence: B-R [4] |
| PCI can decrease major adverse cardiovascular outcomes as an alternative to CABG in diabetic patients who have LAD stenosis and low to intermediate CAD complexity in other arteries. |
- The following should be considered when making revascularization decision for diabetic patient:[4]
- Using Heart Team approach
- Patient preferences
- Left ventricular function
- Other comorbidities
- Ongoing symptoms
- Expected survival
- Diabetic patients experience a higher rate of mortality and repeat revascularization when undergone revascularization.[39]
- PCI has been associated with a higher five-year-mortality rate compared to CABG. [40]
- Two years after CABG the survival advantages become edivent and it will decrease after 8 years.[41]
- CABG is related to an overall increase in likelihood of stroke for five years.[42]
- Need of repeated revascularization is higher in PCA compared to CABG regardless of the use of the new generation of drug eluting stent.[4]
Patients with Previous CABG
| Class 2a Recommendation, Level of Evidence: B-NR[4] |
| PCI is preferred over CABG in a patient with a previous CABG history and a patent internal thoracic artery (LIMA) to LAD who requires revascularization again (only if feasible). |
| Class 2a Recommendation, Level of Evidence: C-LD[4] |
| CABG is preferred in a patient with a previous CABG history and refractory angina that is attributable to LAD disease when the internal mammary artery can be used. |
| Class 2b Recommendation, Level of Evidence: B-NR[4] |
| CABG is preferred in a patient with a previous CABG history and complex coronary artery disease when the internal mammary artery can be used. |
- The following factors should be considered when repeated revascularization is required:[4]
- Internal mammary artery accessibilty
- A patent graft to the LAD
- Other comorbidities
- Patient's preferences
- The quality of the target vessel
- Anatomic complexity
- Feasibilty of the revascularization procedure
- Risks of the revascularization procedure
Non Adherence to Dual Antiplatelet Therapy
| Class 2a Recommendation, Level of Evidence: B-NR[4] |
| CABG is preferred over PCI in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease who are not able to be adherent to dual antiplatelet therapy. |
- Being adherent to dual antiplatelet therapy is vital after PCI and non-adherence is related to stent thrombosis, poor outcomes and high mortality rate. Therefore, PCA is not recommended in patients who can not access, tolerate, or adhere to dual antiplatelet therapy.[43][44][45]
Pregnant Patients
| Class 2a Recommendation, Level of Evidence: C-LD[4] |
|
- An expanded Heart Team approach is recommended for identifying the appropriate coronary revascularization strategy with consideration of patient preferences. [4]
- There are not sufficient data about the effect of antiplatelet drugs in pregnant patients, especially on third trimester (due to high risk of performing such studies).[4]
- Low dose aspirin is known to be safe during pregnancy.[4]
- If clopidogrel is indicated then it should be prescribed for a short duration throughout pregnancy with close monitoring.[46]
- CABG is recommended only when medication or PCI is not effective or safe. [47][48]
Elderlies
| Class 1 Recommendation, Level of Evidence: B-NR[4] |
| For choosing the appropriate vascularization strategy for elderies (older than 75) is it essential to consider their preferences, life expendency, cognitive function. |
- Based on studies, CABG can be more successful at delivering a complete revascularization, while PCI can minimize the risk of periprocedural events in fragile patients.[49][50]
Patients with Chronic Kidney Disease
| Class 1 Recommendation, Level of Evidence: C-LD[4] |
| Consider the risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury in patients with chronic kidney disease who require contrast media injection for coronary angiography and minimize it. |
| Class 1 Recommendation, Level of Evidence: C-EO[4] |
| Coronary angiography and revascularization are recommended for chronic kidney disease patients with ST elevation myocardial infarction (consider and minimize acute kidney injury). |
| Class 2a Recommendation, Level of Evidence: B-NR[4] |
| Coronary angiography and revascularization are recommended for chronic kidney disease patients with high risk non-ST elevation myocardial infarction (consider and minimize acute kidney injury). |
| Class 2a Recommendation, Level of Evidence: B-NR[4] |
| Weigh the risk of coronary angiography and revascularization against the benefits of them for chronic kidney disease patients with low risk non-ST elevation myocardial infarction. |
| Class 2a Recommendation, Level of Evidence: B-NR[4] |
| Coronary angiography and revascularization are not recommended as a routine for chronic kidney disease patients with non-ST elevation myocardial infarction who are stable and asymptomatic. |
- Cardiac mortality rate is inversely associated with estimated glomerular filtration rate in patients with chronic kidney disease.[51][52]
- Chronic kidney disease is known to be on of the strongest risk factors of acute kidney injury, which is more common in higher stages of chronic kidney disease.[53][54]
- The main strategies to prevent acute kidney injury are hydration and minimization of the contrast dose.[55][56][57][58][59][60]
- The incidence of Contrast-induced acute kidney injury (AKI) before diagnostic catheterization can be reduced with high-dose statins.[58][61][62][63][64]
- Statins decrease systemic inflammation due to their pleiotropic effects.
- They do it by decreasing endothelin-1 production and hindering tissue factor expression in macrophages.
- It has been reported that the risk of AKI is lower when radial access is used compared with femoral access. This could be due to the possible role of atheroembolism in the development of AKI after PCI since femoral access may increase the risk of atheroembolism in proximity to renal arteries.[65][66]
- The following table represents the best practices for angiography in chronic kidney disease patients in catherization labs:[67][68][69][59]
| Evaluate the risk of AKI due to contrast before performing the procedure |
| Keep the patient hydrated |
| Minimize contrast exposure |
| Pretreat with high-intensity statins |
| Choose radical access if it is feasible |
| Avoid using N-acetyl-L-cysteine for contrast-induced AKI prevention |
| If it is feasible delay CABG over 24 hours after angiography |
| Avoid prophylactic renal replacement therapy |
Before Non-Cardiac Surgery
| Class of Recommendation: No Benefit, Level of Evidence: B-R[4] |
| Routine prophylactic revascularization is not recommended in patients with non–left main or noncomplex coronary artery disease who need a non-cardiac surgery in order to only reduce the risk of death or cardiovascular events. |
- The incidence of peri-operative cardiovascular events is higher among patients with coronary artery disease who are undergoing a high-risk surgery, such as solid organ transplantation or vascular surgery.[70][71]
- The necessity of performing revascularization should be evaluated based on patient's conditions and circumstances, nevertheless not as a routine prophylactic method to reduce the risk of death or cardiovascular events.[4]
Ventricular Arrythmia
| Class 1 Recommendation, Level of Evidence: B-NR[4] |
| Revascularization of significant coronary artery disease is recommended to increase survival in patients with ventricular fibrillation, polymorphic ventricular tachycardia, and cardiac arrest. |
| Class of Recommendation: No Benefit, Level of Evidence: C-LD[4] |
| If a coronary artery disease patient is suspected to suffer from scar-mediated sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia, revascularization is not recommended in order to prevent recurrent ventricular tachycardia. |
- Monomorphic ventricular tachycardia is often caused by reentrant rhythms due scars and not ischemia hence revascularization alone is not associated with any improvement in patients' outcomes.[72]
Spontaneous Coronary Artery Dissection
| Class 2b Recommendation, Level of Evidence: C-LD[4] |
| Revascularization can be considered in patients with spontaneous coronary artery dissection who are either hemodynamically unstable or still experiencing ischemia in spite of conservative therapy. |
| Class 3 Recommendation: HARM, Level of Evidence: C-LD[4] |
| Avoid routine revascularization in patients with spontaneous coronary artery dissection. |
Patients With Cardiac Allografts
| Class 2a Recommendation, Level of Evidence: C-LD[4] |
| PCI is reasonable to be performed in patients with cardiac allograft vasculopathy who has severe, proximal, and discrete coronary lesions. |
- Although cardiac allograft vasculopathy patients have been not included in most clinical trials which compared drug eluting stent (DES) versus bare metal stents (BMS), there are clues suggesting a better outcome with drug eluting stent (DES).[73][74][75]
Outcome
- After controlling baseline comorbidities and treatment strategies, outcome of coronary revascularization were same among different races as well as males and females.[4][76][77]
References
- ↑ RADNER S (1948). "Thoracal aortography by catheterization from the radial artery; preliminary report of a new technique". Acta radiol. 29 (2): 178–80. doi:10.3109/00016924809132437. PMID 18908938.
- ↑ 2.0 2.1 Mack MJ, Squiers JJ, Lytle BW, DiMaio JM, Mohr FW (2021). "Myocardial Revascularization Surgery: JACC Historical Breakthroughs in Perspective". J Am Coll Cardiol. 78 (4): 365–383. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2021.04.099. PMID 34294272 Check
|pmid=value (help). - ↑ Gruntzig A (1978). "Transluminal dilatation of coronary-artery stenosis". Lancet. 1 (8058): 263. doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(78)90500-7. PMID 74678.
- ↑ 4.00 4.01 4.02 4.03 4.04 4.05 4.06 4.07 4.08 4.09 4.10 4.11 4.12 4.13 4.14 4.15 4.16 4.17 4.18 4.19 4.20 4.21 4.22 4.23 4.24 4.25 4.26 4.27 4.28 4.29 4.30 4.31 4.32 4.33 4.34 4.35 4.36 4.37 4.38 4.39 4.40 4.41 4.42 4.43 4.44 4.45 4.46 Writing Committee Members. Lawton JS, Tamis-Holland JE, Bangalore S, Bates ER, Beckie TM; et al. (2022). "2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines". J Am Coll Cardiol. 79 (2): e21–e129. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2021.09.006. PMID 34895950 Check
|pmid=value (help). - ↑ Adjedj J, Xaplanteris P, Toth G, Ferrara A, Pellicano M, Ciccarelli G; et al. (2017). "Visual and Quantitative Assessment of Coronary Stenoses at Angiography Versus Fractional Flow Reserve: The Impact of Risk Factors". Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 10 (7). doi:10.1161/CIRCIMAGING.117.006243. PMID 28687539.
- ↑ Hueb W, Lopes N, Gersh BJ, Soares PR, Ribeiro EE, Pereira AC; et al. (2010). "Ten-year follow-up survival of the Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS II): a randomized controlled clinical trial of 3 therapeutic strategies for multivessel coronary artery disease". Circulation. 122 (10): 949–57. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.911669. PMID 20733102. Review in: Evid Based Med. 2011 Apr;16(2):50-1
- ↑ 7.0 7.1 Navarese EP, Lansky AJ, Kereiakes DJ, Kubica J, Gurbel PA, Gorog DA; et al. (2021). "Cardiac mortality in patients randomised to elective coronary revascularisation plus medical therapy or medical therapy alone: a systematic review and meta-analysis". Eur Heart J. 42 (45): 4638–4651. doi:10.1093/eurheartj/ehab246. PMC 8669551 Check
|pmc=value (help). PMID 34002203 Check|pmid=value (help). - ↑ Windecker S, Stortecky S, Stefanini GG, da Costa BR, daCosta BR, Rutjes AW; et al. (2014). "Revascularisation versus medical treatment in patients with stable coronary artery disease: network meta-analysis". BMJ. 348: g3859. doi:10.1136/bmj.g3859. PMC 4066935. PMID 24958153. Review in: Ann Intern Med. 2014 Oct 21;161(8):JC10
- ↑ Chacko L, P Howard J, Rajkumar C, Nowbar AN, Kane C, Mahdi D; et al. (2020). "Effects of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention on Death and Myocardial Infarction Stratified by Stable and Unstable Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials". Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 13 (2): e006363. doi:10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.119.006363. PMC 7034389 Check
|pmc=value (help). PMID 32063040 Check|pmid=value (help). - ↑ Spertus JA, Jones PG, Maron DJ, O'Brien SM, Reynolds HR, Rosenberg Y; et al. (2020). "Health-Status Outcomes with Invasive or Conservative Care in Coronary Disease". N Engl J Med. 382 (15): 1408–1419. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1916370. PMC 7261489 Check
|pmc=value (help). PMID 32227753 Check|pmid=value (help). Review in: Ann Intern Med. 2020 Aug 18;173(4):JC15 - ↑ Nishigaki K, Yamazaki T, Kitabatake A, Yamaguchi T, Kanmatsuse K, Kodama I; et al. (2008). "Percutaneous coronary intervention plus medical therapy reduces the incidence of acute coronary syndrome more effectively than initial medical therapy only among patients with low-risk coronary artery disease a randomized, comparative, multicenter study". JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 1 (5): 469–79. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2008.08.002. PMID 19463347.
- ↑ Fearon WF, Nishi T, De Bruyne B, Boothroyd DB, Barbato E, Tonino P; et al. (2018). "Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease: Three-Year Follow-Up of the FAME 2 Trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation)". Circulation. 137 (5): 480–487. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.117.031907. PMID 29097450.
- ↑ Abdallah MS, Wang K, Magnuson EA, Spertus JA, Farkouh ME, Fuster V; et al. (2013). "Quality of life after PCI vs CABG among patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease: a randomized clinical trial". JAMA. 310 (15): 1581–90. doi:10.1001/jama.2013.279208. PMC 4370776. PMID 24129463.
- ↑ Baron SJ, Chinnakondepalli K, Magnuson EA, Kandzari DE, Puskas JD, Ben-Yehuda O; et al. (2017). "Quality-of-Life After Everolimus-Eluting Stents or Bypass Surgery for Left-Main Disease: Results From the EXCEL Trial". J Am Coll Cardiol. 70 (25): 3113–3122. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2017.10.036. PMID 29097293.
- ↑ Brooks MM, Chung SC, Helmy T, Hillegass WB, Escobedo J, Melsop KA; et al. (2010). "Health status after treatment for coronary artery disease and type 2 diabetes mellitus in the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation 2 Diabetes trial". Circulation. 122 (17): 1690–9. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.109.912642. PMC 2964421. PMID 20937978.
- ↑ Morice MC, Serruys PW, Kappetein AP, Feldman TE, Ståhle E, Colombo A; et al. (2014). "Five-year outcomes in patients with left main disease treated with either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting in the synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with taxus and cardiac surgery trial". Circulation. 129 (23): 2388–94. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.006689. PMID 24700706.
- ↑ Gallo M, Blitzer D, Laforgia PL, Doulamis IP, Perrin N, Bortolussi G; et al. (2022). "Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft for left main coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis". J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 163 (1): 94–105.e15. doi:10.1016/j.jtcvs.2020.04.010. PMID 32499076 Check
|pmid=value (help). - ↑ Boudriot E, Thiele H, Walther T, Liebetrau C, Boeckstegers P, Pohl T; et al. (2011). "Randomized comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention with sirolimus-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in unprotected left main stem stenosis". J Am Coll Cardiol. 57 (5): 538–45. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2010.09.038. PMID 21272743.
- ↑ Garg S, Serruys PW, Silber S, Wykrzykowska J, van Geuns RJ, Richardt G; et al. (2011). "The prognostic utility of the SYNTAX score on 1-year outcomes after revascularization with zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting stents: a substudy of the RESOLUTE All Comers Trial". JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 4 (4): 432–41. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2011.01.008. PMID 21511223.
- ↑ Sutton AG, Campbell PG, Graham R, Price DJ, Gray JC, Grech ED; et al. (2004). "A randomized trial of rescue angioplasty versus a conservative approach for failed fibrinolysis in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the Middlesbrough Early Revascularization to Limit INfarction (MERLIN) trial". J Am Coll Cardiol. 44 (2): 287–96. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2003.12.059. PMID 15261920.
- ↑ Collet JP, Montalescot G, Le May M, Borentain M, Gershlick A (2006). "Percutaneous coronary intervention after fibrinolysis: a multiple meta-analyses approach according to the type of strategy". J Am Coll Cardiol. 48 (7): 1326–35. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2006.03.064. PMID 17010790.
- ↑ Madan M, Halvorsen S, Di Mario C, Tan M, Westerhout CM, Cantor WJ; et al. (2015). "Relationship between time to invasive assessment and clinical outcomes of patients undergoing an early invasive strategy after fibrinolysis for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a patient-level analysis of the randomized early routine invasive clinical trials". JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 8 (1 Pt B): 166–174. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2014.09.005. PMID 25616922.
- ↑ Schömig A, Mehilli J, Antoniucci D, Ndrepepa G, Markwardt C, Di Pede F; et al. (2005). "Mechanical reperfusion in patients with acute myocardial infarction presenting more than 12 hours from symptom onset: a randomized controlled trial". JAMA. 293 (23): 2865–72. doi:10.1001/jama.293.23.2865. PMID 15956631.
- ↑ Fox KA, Clayton TC, Damman P, Pocock SJ, de Winter RJ, Tijssen JG; et al. (2010). "Long-term outcome of a routine versus selective invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome a meta-analysis of individual patient data". J Am Coll Cardiol. 55 (22): 2435–45. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2010.03.007. PMID 20359842.
- ↑ Mehta RH, Lopes RD, Ballotta A, Frigiola A, Sketch MH, Bossone E; et al. (2010). "Percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass surgery for cardiogenic shock and multivessel coronary artery disease?". Am Heart J. 159 (1): 141–7. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2009.10.035. PMID 20102880.
- ↑ Pi Y, Roe MT, Holmes DN, Chiswell K, Garvey JL, Fonarow GC; et al. (2017). "Utilization, Characteristics, and In-Hospital Outcomes of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With ST-Segment-Elevation Myocardial Infarction: Results From the National Cardiovascular Data Registry Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry-Get With The Guidelines". Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 10 (8). doi:10.1161/CIRCOUTCOMES.116.003490. PMID 28794118.
- ↑ De Bruyne B, Pijls NH, Kalesan B, Barbato E, Tonino PA, Piroth Z; et al. (2012). "Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease". N Engl J Med. 367 (11): 991–1001. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1205361. PMID 22924638.
- ↑ De Bruyne B, Fearon WF, Pijls NH, Barbato E, Tonino P, Piroth Z; et al. (2014). "Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI for stable coronary artery disease". N Engl J Med. 371 (13): 1208–17. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1408758. PMID 25176289.
- ↑ Xaplanteris P, Fournier S, Pijls NHJ, Fearon WF, Barbato E, Tonino PAL; et al. (2018). "Five-Year Outcomes with PCI Guided by Fractional Flow Reserve". N Engl J Med. 379 (3): 250–259. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1803538. PMID 29785878.
- ↑ Kang SJ, Lee JY, Ahn JM, Song HG, Kim WJ, Park DW; et al. (2011). "Intravascular ultrasound-derived predictors for fractional flow reserve in intermediate left main disease". JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 4 (11): 1168–74. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2011.08.009. PMID 22115656.
- ↑ Bruno F, D'Ascenzo F, Marengo G, Manfredi R, Saglietto A, Gallone G; et al. (2021). "Fractional flow reserve guided versus angiographic guided surgical revascularization: A meta-analysis". Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 98 (1): E18–E23. doi:10.1002/ccd.29427. PMID 33315297 Check
|pmid=value (help). - ↑ Toth GG, De Bruyne B, Kala P, Ribichini FL, Casselman F, Ramos R; et al. (2019). "Graft patency after FFR-guided versus angiography-guided coronary artery bypass grafting: the GRAFFITI trial". EuroIntervention. 15 (11): e999–e1005. doi:10.4244/EIJ-D-19-00463. PMID 31270037.
- ↑ Timbadia D, Ler A, Sazzad F, Alexiou C, Kofidis T (2020). "FFR-guided versus coronary angiogram-guided CABG: A review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials". J Card Surg. 35 (10): 2785–2793. doi:10.1111/jocs.14880. PMID 32697006 Check
|pmid=value (help). - ↑ Thuesen AL, Riber LP, Veien KT, Christiansen EH, Jensen SE, Modrau I; et al. (2018). "Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiographically-Guided Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting". J Am Coll Cardiol. 72 (22): 2732–2743. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2018.09.043. PMID 30497559.
- ↑ Bruner CA, Webb RC (1990). "Increased vascular reactivity to Bay K 8644 in genetic hypertension". Pharmacology. 41 (1): 24–35. doi:10.1159/000138696. PMID 0.1056/NEJMoa1700445 Check
|pmid=value (help). - ↑ Pijls NH, van Schaardenburgh P, Manoharan G, Boersma E, Bech JW, van't Veer M; et al. (2007). "Percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally nonsignificant stenosis: 5-year follow-up of the DEFER Study". J Am Coll Cardiol. 49 (21): 2105–11. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2007.01.087. PMID 17531660.
- ↑ Pijls NH, Fearon WF, Tonino PA, Siebert U, Ikeno F, Bornschein B; et al. (2010). "Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: 2-year follow-up of the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study". J Am Coll Cardiol. 56 (3): 177–84. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2010.04.012. PMID 20537493.
- ↑ Escaned J, Ryan N, Mejía-Rentería H, Cook CM, Dehbi HM, Alegria-Barrero E; et al. (2018). "Safety of the Deferral of Coronary Revascularization on the Basis of Instantaneous Wave-Free Ratio and Fractional Flow Reserve Measurements in Stable Coronary Artery Disease and Acute Coronary Syndromes". JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 11 (15): 1437–1449. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2018.05.029. PMID 30093050.
- ↑ Armstrong EJ, Rutledge JC, Rogers JH (2013). "Coronary artery revascularization in patients with diabetes mellitus". Circulation. 128 (15): 1675–85. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.113.002114. PMC 3901842. PMID 24100481.
- ↑ Thuijs DJFM, Kappetein AP, Serruys PW, Mohr FW, Morice MC, Mack MJ; et al. (2019). "Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with three-vessel or left main coronary artery disease: 10-year follow-up of the multicentre randomised controlled SYNTAX trial". Lancet. 394 (10206): 1325–1334. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(19)31997-X. PMID 31488373.
- ↑ Farkouh ME, Domanski M, Dangas GD, Godoy LC, Mack MJ, Siami FS; et al. (2019). "Long-Term Survival Following Multivessel Revascularization in Patients With Diabetes: The FREEDOM Follow-On Study". J Am Coll Cardiol. 73 (6): 629–638. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2018.11.001. PMC 6839829 Check
|pmc=value (help). PMID 30428398. - ↑ Head SJ, Milojevic M, Daemen J, Ahn JM, Boersma E, Christiansen EH; et al. (2018). "Stroke Rates Following Surgical Versus Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization". J Am Coll Cardiol. 72 (4): 386–398. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2018.04.071. PMID 30025574. Review in: Ann Intern Med. 2018 Nov 20;169(10):JC55
- ↑ Almalla M, Schröder J, Hennings V, Marx N, Hoffmann R (2013). "Long-term outcome after angiographically proven coronary stent thrombosis". Am J Cardiol. 111 (9): 1289–94. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2013.01.268. PMID 23415513.
- ↑ Brodie BR, Garg A, Stuckey TD, Kirtane AJ, Witzenbichler B, Maehara A; et al. (2015). "Fixed and Modifiable Correlates of Drug-Eluting Stent Thrombosis From a Large All-Comers Registry: Insights From ADAPT-DES". Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 8 (10). doi:10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.114.002568. PMID 26415600.
- ↑ Cutlip DE, Kereiakes DJ, Mauri L, Stoler R, Dauerman HL, EDUCATE Investigators (2015). "Thrombotic complications associated with early and late nonadherence to dual antiplatelet therapy". JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 8 (3): 404–410. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2014.10.017. PMID 25703885.
- ↑ Mehta LS, Warnes CA, Bradley E, Burton T, Economy K, Mehran R; et al. (2020). "Cardiovascular Considerations in Caring for Pregnant Patients: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association". Circulation. 141 (23): e884–e903. doi:10.1161/CIR.0000000000000772. PMID 32362133 Check
|pmid=value (help). - ↑ Baris L, Hakeem A, Moe T, Cornette J, Taha N, Farook F; et al. (2020). "Acute Coronary Syndrome and Ischemic Heart Disease in Pregnancy: Data From the EURObservational Research Programme-European Society of Cardiology Registry of Pregnancy and Cardiac Disease". J Am Heart Assoc. 9 (15): e015490. doi:10.1161/JAHA.119.015490. PMC 7792249 Check
|pmc=value (help). PMID 32750301 Check|pmid=value (help). - ↑ Smilowitz NR, Gupta N, Guo Y, Zhong J, Weinberg CR, Reynolds HR; et al. (2018). "Acute Myocardial Infarction During Pregnancy and the Puerperium in the United States". Mayo Clin Proc. 93 (10): 1404–1414. doi:10.1016/j.mayocp.2018.04.019. PMC 6173614. PMID 30031555.
- ↑ Stone GW, Sabik JF, Serruys PW, Simonton CA, Généreux P, Puskas J; et al. (2016). "Everolimus-Eluting Stents or Bypass Surgery for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease". N Engl J Med. 375 (23): 2223–2235. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1610227. PMID 27797291. Review in: Ann Intern Med. 2017 Feb 21;166(4):JC21
- ↑ Madhavan MV, Gersh BJ, Alexander KP, Granger CB, Stone GW (2018). "Coronary Artery Disease in Patients ≥80 Years of Age". J Am Coll Cardiol. 71 (18): 2015–2040. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2017.12.068. PMID 29724356.
- ↑ Fox CS, Matsushita K, Woodward M, Bilo HJ, Chalmers J, Heerspink HJ; et al. (2012). "Associations of kidney disease measures with mortality and end-stage renal disease in individuals with and without diabetes: a meta-analysis". Lancet. 380 (9854): 1662–73. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61350-6. PMC 3771350. PMID 23013602.
- ↑ Chronic Kidney Disease Prognosis Consortium. Matsushita K, van der Velde M, Astor BC, Woodward M, Levey AS; et al. (2010). "Association of estimated glomerular filtration rate and albuminuria with all-cause and cardiovascular mortality in general population cohorts: a collaborative meta-analysis". Lancet. 375 (9731): 2073–81. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(10)60674-5. PMC 3993088. PMID 20483451.
- ↑ Bangalore S, Maron DJ, Fleg JL, O'Brien SM, Herzog CA, Stone GW; et al. (2018). "International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches-Chronic Kidney Disease (ISCHEMIA-CKD): Rationale and design". Am Heart J. 205: 42–52. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2018.07.023. PMC 6283671. PMID 30172098.
- ↑ Collins AJ, Foley RN, Gilbertson DT, Chen SC (2015). "United States Renal Data System public health surveillance of chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease". Kidney Int Suppl (2011). 5 (1): 2–7. doi:10.1038/kisup.2015.2. PMC 4455192. PMID 26097778.
- ↑ Marenzi G, Assanelli E, Campodonico J, Lauri G, Marana I, De Metrio M; et al. (2009). "Contrast volume during primary percutaneous coronary intervention and subsequent contrast-induced nephropathy and mortality". Ann Intern Med. 150 (3): 170–7. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-150-3-200902030-00006. PMID 19189906.
- ↑ Merten GJ, Burgess WP, Gray LV, Holleman JH, Roush TS, Kowalchuk GJ; et al. (2004). "Prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy with sodium bicarbonate: a randomized controlled trial". JAMA. 291 (19): 2328–34. doi:10.1001/jama.291.19.2328. PMID 15150204.
- ↑ Mueller C, Buerkle G, Buettner HJ, Petersen J, Perruchoud AP, Eriksson U; et al. (2002). "Prevention of contrast media-associated nephropathy: randomized comparison of 2 hydration regimens in 1620 patients undergoing coronary angioplasty". Arch Intern Med. 162 (3): 329–36. doi:10.1001/archinte.162.3.329. PMID 11822926. Review in: ACP J Club. 2002 Sep-Oct;137(2):44
- ↑ 58.0 58.1 Giacoppo D, Gargiulo G, Buccheri S, Aruta P, Byrne RA, Cassese S; et al. (2017). "Preventive Strategies for Contrast-Induced Acute Kidney Injury in Patients Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Procedures: Evidence From a Hierarchical Bayesian Network Meta-Analysis of 124 Trials and 28 240 Patients". Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 10 (5). doi:10.1161/CIRCINTERVENTIONS.116.004383. PMID 28487354.
- ↑ 59.0 59.1 Laskey WK, Jenkins C, Selzer F, Marroquin OC, Wilensky RL, Glaser R; et al. (2007). "Volume-to-creatinine clearance ratio: a pharmacokinetically based risk factor for prediction of early creatinine increase after percutaneous coronary intervention". J Am Coll Cardiol. 50 (7): 584–90. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2007.03.058. PMID 17692741.
- ↑ McCullough PA, Wolyn R, Rocher LL, Levin RN, O'Neill WW (1997). "Acute renal failure after coronary intervention: incidence, risk factors, and relationship to mortality". Am J Med. 103 (5): 368–75. doi:10.1016/s0002-9343(97)00150-2. PMID 9375704.
- ↑ Li Y, Liu Y, Fu L, Mei C, Dai B (2012). "Efficacy of short-term high-dose statin in preventing contrast-induced nephropathy: a meta-analysis of seven randomized controlled trials". PLoS One. 7 (4): e34450. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0034450. PMC 3325242. PMID 22511942.
- ↑ Leoncini M, Toso A, Maioli M, Tropeano F, Villani S, Bellandi F (2014). "Early high-dose rosuvastatin for contrast-induced nephropathy prevention in acute coronary syndrome: Results from the PRATO-ACS Study (Protective Effect of Rosuvastatin and Antiplatelet Therapy On contrast-induced acute kidney injury and myocardial damage in patients with Acute Coronary Syndrome)". J Am Coll Cardiol. 63 (1): 71–9. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2013.04.105. PMID 24076283. Review in: Ann Intern Med. 2014 May 20;160(10):JC9
- ↑ Davignon J (2004). "Beneficial cardiovascular pleiotropic effects of statins". Circulation. 109 (23 Suppl 1): III39–43. doi:10.1161/01.CIR.0000131517.20177.5a. PMID 15198965.
- ↑ Bonetti PO, Lerman LO, Napoli C, Lerman A (2003). "Statin effects beyond lipid lowering--are they clinically relevant?". Eur Heart J. 24 (3): 225–48. doi:10.1016/s0195-668x(02)00419-0. PMID 12590901.
- ↑ Stratta P, Bozzola C, Quaglia M (2012). "Pitfall in nephrology: contrast nephropathy has to be differentiated from renal damage due to atheroembolic disease". J Nephrol. 25 (3): 282–9. doi:10.5301/jn.5000093. PMID 22419233.
- ↑ Cortese B, Sciahbasi A, Sebik R, Rigattieri S, Alonzo A, Silva-Orrego P; et al. (2014). "Comparison of risk of acute kidney injury after primary percutaneous coronary interventions with the transradial approach versus the transfemoral approach (from the PRIPITENA urban registry)". Am J Cardiol. 114 (6): 820–5. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2014.06.010. PMID 25073568.
- ↑ Mehran R, Aymong ED, Nikolsky E, Lasic Z, Iakovou I, Fahy M; et al. (2004). "A simple risk score for prediction of contrast-induced nephropathy after percutaneous coronary intervention: development and initial validation". J Am Coll Cardiol. 44 (7): 1393–9. doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2004.06.068. PMID 15464318.
- ↑ Moscucci M, Rogers EK, Montoye C, Smith DE, Share D, O'Donnell M; et al. (2006). "Association of a continuous quality improvement initiative with practice and outcome variations of contemporary percutaneous coronary interventions". Circulation. 113 (6): 814–22. doi:10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.105.541995. PMID 16461821.
- ↑ Mehran R, Dangas GD, Weisbord SD (2019). "Contrast-Associated Acute Kidney Injury". N Engl J Med. 380 (22): 2146–2155. doi:10.1056/NEJMra1805256. PMID 31141635.
- ↑ Smilowitz NR, Guo Y, Rao S, Gelb B, Berger JS, Bangalore S (2019). "Perioperative cardiovascular outcomes of non-cardiac solid organ transplant surgery". Eur Heart J Qual Care Clin Outcomes. 5 (1): 72–78. doi:10.1093/ehjqcco/qcy028. PMC 6307464. PMID 29961872.
- ↑ Garcia S, Moritz TE, Ward HB, Pierpont G, Goldman S, Larsen GC; et al. (2008). "Usefulness of revascularization of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease before elective vascular surgery for abdominal aortic and peripheral occlusive disease". Am J Cardiol. 102 (7): 809–13. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2008.05.022. PMID 18805102.
- ↑ Kalarus Z, Svendsen JH, Capodanno D, Dan GA, De Maria E, Gorenek B; et al. (2019). "Cardiac arrhythmias in the emergency settings of acute coronary syndrome and revascularization: an European Heart Rhythm Association (EHRA) consensus document, endorsed by the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI), and European Acute Cardiovascular Care Association (ACCA)". Europace. 21 (10): 1603–1604. doi:10.1093/europace/euz163. PMID 31353412.
- ↑ Dasari TW, Hennebry TA, Hanna EB, Saucedo JF (2011). "Drug eluting versus bare metal stents in cardiac allograft vasculopathy: a systematic review of literature". Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 77 (7): 962–9. doi:10.1002/ccd.22975. PMID 21413135.
- ↑ Tremmel JA, Ng MK, Ikeno F, Hunt SA, Lee DP, Yeung AC; et al. (2011). "Comparison of drug-eluting versus bare metal stents in cardiac allograft vasculopathy". Am J Cardiol. 108 (5): 665–8. doi:10.1016/j.amjcard.2011.04.014. PMID 21684511.
- ↑ Lee MS, Kobashigawa J, Tobis J (2008). "Comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention with bare-metal and drug-eluting stents for cardiac allograft vasculopathy". JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 1 (6): 710–5. doi:10.1016/j.jcin.2008.10.001. PMID 19463388.
- ↑ O'Donoghue M, Boden WE, Braunwald E, Cannon CP, Clayton TC, de Winter RJ; et al. (2008). "Early invasive vs conservative treatment strategies in women and men with unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis". JAMA. 300 (1): 71–80. doi:10.1001/jama.300.1.71. PMID 18594042. Review in: ACP J Club. 2008 Nov 18;149(5):7 Review in: Evid Based Med. 2009 Feb;14(1):19
- ↑ Tamis-Holland JE, Palazzo A, Stebbins AL, Slater JN, Boland J, Ellis SG; et al. (2004). "Benefits of direct angioplasty for women and men with acute myocardial infarction: results of the Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Arteries in Acute Coronary Syndromes Angioplasty (GUSTO II-B) Angioplasty Substudy". Am Heart J. 147 (1): 133–9. doi:10.1016/j.ahj.2003.06.002. PMID 14691431.