Der Internist

, Volume 47, Issue 12, pp 1251–1257

Therapie der stabilen koronaren Herzkrankheit

Wann Stent, wann medikamentös und wann Operation?
Schwerpunkt: Was ist gesichert in der Therapie?


Modifikation des Lebensstils und Behandlung der Risikofaktoren sind Grundlage der Therapie der koronaren Herzkrankheit. Zur medikamentösen Basistherapie mit prognostischer Wirksamkeit gehören Thrombozytenaggregationshemmer, Statine, Betablocker und in der Regel ACE-Hemmer. Symptomatisch wird Angina pectoris mit Nitraten, ggf. auch Kalziumantagonisten behandelt. Eine prognostische Indikation zur koronaren Revaskularisierung ergibt sich bei ausgedehnter Ischämie im Belastungstest oder Hochrisikobefund in der Koronarangiographie, insbesondere bei eingeschränkter Ventrikelfunktion. Eine symptomatische Indikation besteht bei Beschwerdepersistenz unter medikamentöser Therapie. Eingefäßerkrankung und unkomplizierte Zweigefäßerkrankung werden meist interventionell revaskularisiert (Stent). Hauptstammstenose, Dreigefäß- und schwere Zweigefäßerkrankung insbesondere bei eingeschränkter Ventrikelfunktion bleiben Domäne der Bypasschirurgie. Bei Patienten mit Mehrgefäßerkrankung, bei denen beide Verfahren möglich sind, ist in kontrollierten Studien der Langzeitverlauf hinsichtlich Prognose identisch, bei allerdings höherer Reinterventionsrate bei den Stentpatienten. Im Einzelfall fließen neben Koronarstatus und Ventrikelfunktion eine Reihe weiterer Patientenfaktoren in die Entscheidung über die Revaskularisierungsstrategie ein.


Koronare Herzkrankheit Arteriosklerose Koronarintervention Stent Bypassoperation 

Therapy of chronic coronary artery disease

Medical treatment vs. bypass surgery vs. coronary intervention


The management of coronary artery disease should always include life style modification, control of cardiovascular risk factors and drugs with proven prognostic efficacy, i.e. antiplatelet drugs, statins, ß-blockers and, in most cases, ACE-inhibitors. Nitrates, sometimes also calcium antagonists, are used to control the symptoms of angina pectoris. Revascularisation by percutaneous treatment (stent implantation) or bypass surgery is indicated in patients with large areas of ischemia during stress testing or with high risk coronary anatomy during angiography, especially with reduced ventricular function, or when the angina cannot be adequately controlled by medicinal management. Single vessel and uncomplicated two vessel involvement are usually treated using a stent. Main stem stenosis, three vessel and severe two vessel involvement, particularly with reduced ventricular function, remain the domain of bypass surgery. Controlled studies show identical prognoses for patients with multiple vessel involvement for whom both treatment strategies are possible, although there is a higher reintervention rate for the stent patients. Coronary anatomy, ventricular function, as well as various patient-related factors have to be taken into account when deciding on the form of revascularisation therapy.


Coronary artery disease Arteriosclerosis Coronary intervention Stent Bypass surgery 


  1. 1.
    Abrams J (2005) Chronic stable angina. N Engl J Med 352: 2524–2533CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Antiplatelet Trialists‘ Collaboration (1994) Collaborative overview of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy Prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke by prolonged antiplatelet therapy in various categories of patients. BMJ 308: 81–106PubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Babapulle MN, Joseph L, Belisle P et al. (2004) A hierarchial Bayesian meta-analysis of randomised clinical trials of drug-eluting stents. Lancet 364: 583–591CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Bucher HC, Hengstler P, Schindler C et al. (2000) Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty versus medical therapy for non-acute coronary heart disease: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 321: 73–77CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Cannon CP, Weintraub WS, Demopoulos LA et al. (2001) Comparison of early invasive and conservative strategies in patients with unstable coronary syndromes treated with the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofiban. N Engl J Med 344: 1879–1887CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Davies RF, Goldberg AD, Forman S et al. (1997) Asymptomatic Cardiac Ischemia Pilot (ACIP) study two-year follow-up: outcomes of patients randomized to initial strategies of medical therapy versus revascularization. Circulation 95: 2037–2043PubMedGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Dietz R, Rauch B (2003) Leitlinie zur Diagnose und Behandlung der chronischen koronaren Herzerkrankung der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kardiologie – Herz- und Kreislaufforschung (DGK). Z Kardiol 92: 501–521PubMedGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Eagle KA, Guyton RA, Davidoff R et al. (2004) ACC/AHA 2004 guideline update for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation 110: 1168–1176CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Fox KM (2003) Efficacy of perindopril in reduction of cardiovascular events among patients with stable coronary artery disease: randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicentre trial (the EUROPA study). Lancet 362: 782–788CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    The Task Force on the Management of Stable Angina Pectoris of the European Society of Cardiology (2006) Guidelines on the management of stable angina pectoris: executive summary. Eur Heart J 27: 1341–1381CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hambrecht R, Walther C, Mobius-Winkler S et al. (2004) Percutaneous coronary angioplasty compared with exercise training in patients with stable coronary artery disease: a randomized trial. Circulation 109: 1371–1378CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Hachamovitch R, Hayes SW, Friedman JD et al. (2003) Comparison of the short-term survival benefit associated with revascularization compared with medical therapy in patients with no prior coronary artery disease undergoing stress myocardial perfusion single photon emission computed tomography. Circulation 107: 2900–2907CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Hamm CW, Arntz HR, Bode C et al. (2004) Leitlinien: Akutes Koronarsyndrom (ACS). Teil 1: ACS ohne persistierende ST-Hebung. Z Kardiol 93: 72–90CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Hamm CW, Arntz HR, Bode C et al. (2004) Leitlinien: Akutes Koronarsyndrom (ACS). Teil 2: ACS mit ST-Hebung. Z Kardiol 93:324–341CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Hannan EI, Racz MJ, Walford G et al. (2005) Long-term outcomes of coronary-artery bypass grafting versus stent implantation. New Engl J Med 352: 2174–2183CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group (2002) MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 360: 7–22CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Heidenreich PA, McDonald KM, Hastie T et al. (1999) Meta-analysis of trials comparing ß-blockers, calcium antagonists, and nitrates for stable angina. JAMA 281: 1927–1936CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Hermanson B, Omenn GS, Kronmal RA et al. (1988) Beneficial six-year outcome of smoking cessation in older men and women with coronary artery disease: results from the CASS registry. N Engl J Med 319: 1365–1369PubMedGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Hoffman SN, TenBrook JA, Wolf MP et al. (2003) A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing coronary artery bypass graft with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty: one- to eight-year outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol 41: 1293–1304CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Hordjik-Trion M, Lenzen M, Wijns W et al. (2006) Patients enrolled in coronary intervention trials are not representative of patients in clinical practice: results from the Euro Heart Survey on Coronary Revascularization. Eur Heart J 27: 671–678CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Jones RH, Kesler K, Phillips HR et al. (1996) Long-term survival benefits of coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous transluminal angioplasty in patients with coronary artery disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 111: 1013–1025CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Katritsis DG, Ioannidis JPA (2005) Percutaneous coronary intervention versus conservative therapy in nonacute coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis. Circulation 111: 2906–2912CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Keeley EC, Boura JA, Grines CL (2003) Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials. Lancet 361: 13–20CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Kernis SJ, Harjai KJ, Stone GW et al. (2004) Does beta-blocker therapy improve clinical outcomes of acute myocardial infarction after successful primary angioplasty? J Am Coll Cardiol 43: 1773–1779CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    LaRosa JC, He J, Vupputuri S (1999) Effect of statins on risk of coronary disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. JAMA 282: 2340–2346CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  26. 26.
    Lorgeril M de, Salen P, Martin JL et al. (1999) Mediterranean diet, traditional risk factors, and the rate of cardiovascular complications after myocardial infarction: final report of the Lyon Diet Heart Study. Circulation 99: 779–785PubMedGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Mercado N, Wijns W, Serruys PW et al. (2005) One-year outcomes of coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention with multiple stenting for multisystem disease: a meta-analysis of individual patient data from randomized clinical trials. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 130: 512–519CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Nissen SE, Tuzcu EM, Schoenhagen P et al. (2004) Effect of intensive compared with moderate lipid-lowering therapy on progression of coronary atherosclerosis: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 291: 1071–1080CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Pocock SJ, Henderson RA, Rickards AF et al. (1995) Meta-analysis of randomised trials comparing coronary angioplasty with bypass surgery. Lancet 346: 1184–1189CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Rihal CS, Raco DL, Gersh BJ et al. (2003) Indications for coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention in chronic stable angina: review of the evidence and methodological considerations. Circulation 108: 2439–2445CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Serruys PW, Ong AT, van Herwerden LA et al. (2005) Five year outcomes after coronary stenting versus bypass surgery for the treatment of multivessel disease: the final analysis of the Arterial Revascularization Therapies Study (ARTS) randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 46: 575–581CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    The Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) Investigators (1996) Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with angioplasty in patients with multivessel disease. N Engl J Med 335: 217–225CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    The Heart Outcomes Prevention Evaluation Study Investigators (2000) Effects of an angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibitor, ramipril, on cardiovascular events in high-risk patients. N Engl J Med 342: 145–153CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    The PEACE Trial Investigators (2004) Angiotensin-converting-enzyme inhibition in stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 351: 2058–2068CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    The Task Force for Percutaneous Coronary Interventions of the European Society of Cardiology (2005) ESC Guidelines for percutaneous coronary interventions. Eur Heart J 26: 804–847CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  36. 36.
    Thiele H, Oettel S, Jacobs S et al. (2005) Comparison of bare-metal stenting with minimally invasive bypass surgery for stenosis of the left anterior descending coronary artery: a five year follow-up. Circulation 112: 3445–3450CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  37. 37.
    Yusuf S, Zucker D, Peduzzi P et al. (1994) Effect of coronary artery bypass surgery on survival: overview of 10-year results from randomized trials by the Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Trialists Collaboration. Lancet 344: 563–570CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag 2006

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.III. Medizinische KlinikKlinikum PassauPassauDeutschland

Personalised recommendations