Herz

, Volume 36, Issue 8, pp 669–676 | Cite as

Moderne Koronarchirurgie in Zusammenhang mit der SYNTAX-Studie und aktuellen Leitlinien

Schwerpunkt/CME

Zusammenfassung

Die koronare Bypass-Operation ist ein modernes und sicheres Revaskularisationsverfahren und mehr denn je als Goldstandard bei fortgeschrittener koronarer Dreigefäßerkrankung anzusehen. In den Dreijahresergebnissen der SYNTAX-Studie zeigen sich neben der Überlegenheit bezüglich der Notwendigkeit einer erneuten Koronarrevaskularisation ein signifikanter Überlebensvorteil sowie ein niedrigerer Anteil an Myokardinfarkten für die chirurgisch behandelten Patienten im Vergleich zur PCI-Behandlung. Differenzierte Analysen zeigen deutliche Nachteile für die PCI bei zunehmender Komplexität der Koronarpathologie. Lediglich die anatomisch günstigen Formen von Hauptstammstenose oder koronarer Dreigefäßerkrankung scheinen mit interventionellen Methoden gleichermaßen behandelbar zu sein. Die Erkenntnisse aus der SYNTAX-Studie leiten eine neue Epoche in der Behandlung der KHK ein, in der, wie in den im Jahr 2010 aktualisierten Leitlinien der EACTS/ESC empfohlen wird, Interventionalist und Chirurg möglichst gemeinsam zu einem fundierten Therapievorschlag im Sinne eines „Heart-Team“-Konzepts für den betroffenen Patienten kommen.

Schlüsselwörter

Bypass-Operation Interventionelle Koronarrevaskularisation SYNTAX-Studie Hauptstammstenose Koronare Dreigefäßerkrankung 

Modern coronary surgery, the SYNTAX trial and updated guidelines

Abstract

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), a modern and safe procedure, is considered the therapy of choice in the care of patients with multi-vessel disease. The 3-year results of the SYNTAX trial not only showed surgical advantages in terms of repeat revascularisation, but the results also demonstrated significant surgical benefit for myocardial infarction and survival rates. More differentiated analyses showed distinct disadvantages in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) associated with the greater complexity of coronary pathology. PCI tends to be a comparable therapeutic option only in certain cases of left main stem lesions or multi-vessel disease. The findings from the SYNTAX study herald a new era in the treatment of coronary heart disease in which, as recommended in the updated guidelines issued by the EACTS/ESC in 2010, the interventionalist and the surgeon, working closely together as a“heart team”, provide a sound therapy plan for affected patients.

Keywords

Coronary artery bypass Percutaneous coronary intervention SYNTAX study Left main stenosis Multivessel disease 

Notes

Interessenkonflikt

Der korrespondierende Autor gibt an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Cremer J (2008) Einige Anmerkungen aus chirurgischem Blickwinkel zur SYNTAX-Diskussion. Z Herz Thorax Gefaesschir 22:342–345CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Kolesov VI, Potashov LV (1965) Surgery of coronary arteries. Eksp Khir Anesteziol 10(2):3–8PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Glenn WW (1972) Some reflections on the coronary bypass operation. Circulation 45(4):869–877PubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Loop FD, Lytle BW, Cosgrove DM et al (1986) Influence of the internal-mammary-artery graft on 10-year survival and other cardiac events. N Engl J Med 314(1):1–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Leistungsstatistik DGTHG 2010 AbteilungsleiterGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Lytle BW, Blackstone EH, Sabik JF et al (2004) The effect of bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting on survival during 20 postoperative years. Ann Thorac Surg 78(6):2005–2012PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Loop FD, Lytle BW, Cosgrove DM et al (1986) Influence of the internal-mammary-artery graft on 10-year survival and other cardiac events. N Engl J Med 314(1):1–6PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Shroyer AL, Grover FL, Hattler B et al (2009) Veterans Affairs Randomized On/Off Bypass (ROOBY) Study Group. On-pump versus off-pump coronary-artery bypass surgery. N Engl J Med 361(19):1827–1837PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Hannan EL, Wu C, Smith CR et al (2007) Off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery: differences in short-term outcomes and in long-term mortality and need for subsequent revascularization. Circulation 116(10):1145–1152PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Wijeysundera DN, Beattie WS, Djaiani G et al (2005) Off-pump coronary artery surgery for reducing mortality and morbidity: meta-analysis of randomized and observational studies. J Am Coll Cardiol 46(5):872–882PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Cremer J (2011) OPCAB-Revaskularisation: Cool down nach heißem Start? Z Herz Thorax Gefaesschir 25:13–14CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Serruys PW, Onuma Y, Garg S et al (2010) 5-year clinical outcomes of the ARTS II (Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study II) of the sirolimus-eluting stent in the treatment of patients with multivessel de novo coronary artery lesions. J Am Coll Cardiol 55(11):1093–1101PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Javaid A, Steinberg DH, Buch AN et al (2007) Outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Circulation 116(Suppl 11):I200–I206PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Chieffo A, Morici N, Maisano F et al (2006) A percutaneous treatment with drug-eluting stent implantation versus bypass surgery for unprotected left main stenosis: a single-center experience. Circulation 113(21):2542–2547PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Daemen J, Boersma E, Flather M et al (2008) Long-term safety and efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting and coronary artery bypass surgery for multivessel coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis with 5-year patient-level data from the ARTS, ERACI-II, MASS-II, and SoS trials. Circulation 118(11):1146–1154PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP et al (2009) Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 360(10):961–972PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Capodanno D, Capranzano P, Di Salvo ME et al (2009) Usefulness of SYNTAX score to select patients with left main coronary artery disease to be treated with coronary artery bypass graft. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 2(8):731–738PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Sianos G, Morel MA, Kappetein AP et al (2005) The SYNTAX Score: an angiographic tool grading the complexity of coronary artery disease. EuroIntervention 1:219–227PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Mohr FW, Rastan AJ, Serruys PW et al (2011) Complex coronary anatomy in coronary artery bypass graft surgery: impact of complex coronary anatomy in modern bypass surgery? Lessons learned from the SYNTAX trial after two years. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 141(1):130–140PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Serruys PW, Onuma Y, Garg S et al (2009) Assessment of the SYNTAX Score in the SYNTAX study. EuroIntervention 5:50–56PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Valgimigli M, Serruys PW, Tsuchida K et al (2007) Cyphering the complexity of coronary artery disease using the syntax score to predict clinical outcome in patients with three-vessel lumen obstruction undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol 99(8):1072–1081PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Massoudy P, Thielmann M, Lehmann N et al (2009) Impact of prior percutaneous coronary intervention on the outcome of coronary artery bypass surgery: a multicenter analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 137(4):840–845PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Hannan EL, Racz MJ, Walford G et al (2005) Long-term outcomes of coronary-artery bypass grafting versus stent implantation. N Engl J Med 352(21):2174–2183PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Hannan EL, Wu C, Walford G et al (2008) Drug-eluting stents vs. coronary-artery bypass grafting in multivessel coronary disease. N Engl J Med 358(4):331–341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Serruys P (2010) Three-year Outcomes of the SYNTAX Trial: Left Main Subgroup. TCT 2010Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Kolh P, Wijns W, Danchin N et al; Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS); European Association for Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI) (2010) Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 38(Suppl):1–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Chandrasekharan DP, Taggart DP (2011) Informed consent for interventions in stable coronary artery disease: problems, etiologies, and solutions. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 39(6):912–917PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Ribichini F, Taggart D (2011) Implications of new ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularisation for patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 39(5):619–622PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Hannan EL, Racz MJ, Gold J et al (2010) Adherence of catheterization laboratory cardiologists to American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions and coronary artery bypass graft surgery: what happens in actual practice? Circulation 121(2):267–275PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Eagle KA, Guyton RA, Davidoff R et al; American College of Cardiology; American Heart Association (2004) ACC/AHA 2004 guideline update for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1999 Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery). Circulation 110(14):e340–437PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Silber S, Albertsson P, Avilés FF et al; The Task Force for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions of the European Society of Cardiology (2005) Guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions. Eur Heart J 26(8):804–847PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Fox K, Garcia MA, Ardissino D et al; The Task Force on the Management of Stable Angina Pectoris of the European Society of Cardiology; ESC Committee for Practice Guidelines (CPG) (2006) Guidelines on the management of stable angina pectoris: executive summary. Eur Heart J 27(11):1341–1381PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Patel MR, Dehmer GJ, Hirshfeld JW et al (2009) ACCF/SCAI/STS/AATS/AHA/ASNC 2009 Appropriateness Criteria for Coronary Revascularization: a report by the American College of Cardiology Foundation Appropriateness Criteria Task Force, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, American Heart Association, and the American Society of Nuclear Cardiology Endorsed by the American Society of Echocardiography, the Heart Failure Society of America, and the Society of Cardiovascular Computed Tomography. J Am Coll Cardiol 53(6):530–553PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Hlatky MA, Boothroyd DB, Bravata DM et al (2009) Coronary artery bypass surgery compared with percutaneous coronary interventions for multivessel disease: a collaborative analysis of individual patient data from ten randomised trials. Lancet 373(9670):1190–1197PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Booth J, Clayton T, Pepper J (2008) Randomized, controlled trial of coronary artery bypass surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: six-year follow-up from the Stent or Surgery Trial (SoS). Circulation 118(4):381–388PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Kappetein AP, Feldman TE, Mack MJ et al (2011) Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with drug-eluting stenting for the treatment of left main and/or three-vessel disease: 3-year follow-up of the SYNTAX trial. Eur Heart J 32(17):2125–2134PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Kappetein AP, Dawkins KD, Mohr FW et al (2006) Current percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting practices for three-vessel and left main coronary artery disease. Insights from the SYNTAX run-in phase. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 29(4):486–491PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Urban & Vogel, Muenchen 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Klinik für Herz- und GefäßchirurgieUniversitätsklinikum Schleswig-Holstein, Campus KielKielDeutschland

Personalised recommendations