Adequacy and Extent of Myocardial Revascularization

  • Vincenzo Cicchitti
  • Marco Zimarino
  • Raffaele De Caterina


The extent of myocardial revascularization, accomplished by either CABG or PCI, is a major determinant of survival among patients with ischemic heart disease. Based on the available evidence, revascularization with either CABG or PCI has similar benefits in terms of survival, but should always be at least functionally complete among stable nondiabetic patients with MVCAD provided a thorough evaluation of clinical condition and of both lesion severity and myocardial viability. Diabetic patients benefit from a complete revascularization, better performed, as of now, with CABG. Conversely, in subjects presenting with ACS, an incomplete revascularization with stent-PCI of the culprit lesion is extremely effective if performed in a timely fashion. More extensive revascularization in acute settings may be cautiously considered, and it is prompted by hemodynamic impairment.


Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Fractional Flow Reserve Myocardial Viability Myocardial Revascularization 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.


  1. 1.
    Zimarino M et al (2005) Complete myocardial revascularization: between myth and reality. Eur Heart J 26:1824–1830PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    The Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investi­gation (BARI) Investigators. (1996) Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with angioplasty in patients with multivessel disease. N Engl J Med 335:217–225Google Scholar
  3. 3.
    van den Brand MJ et al (2002) The effect of completeness of revascularization on event-free survival at one year in the ARTS trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 39:559–564PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kim YH et al (2003) Impact of angiographic complete revascularization after drug-eluting stent implantation or coronary artery bypass graft surgery for multivessel coronary artery disease. Circulation 108(21):2373–2381Google Scholar
  5. 5.
    Boden WE et al (2007) Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 356:1503–1516PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Shaw LJ et al (2008) Optimal medical therapy with or without percutaneous coronary intervention to reduce ischemic burden: results from the clinical outcomes utilizing revascularization and aggressive drug evaluation (COURAGE) trial nuclear substudy. Circulation 117:1283–1291PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Wijns W, Kolh P (2009) Appropriate myocardial revascularization: a joint viewpoint from an interventional cardiologist and a cardiac surgeon. Eur Heart J 30: 2182–2185PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Wijns W et al (2010) Guidelines on myocardial ­revascularization: the task force on myocardial ­revascularization of the european society of cardiology (ESC) and the european association for cardio-thoracic surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J 31:2501–2555PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Malek LA et al (2009) Late coronary intervention for totally occluded left anterior descending coronary arteries in stable patients after myocardial infarction: results from the occluded artery trial (OAT). Am Heart J 157:724–732PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Jeremias A et al (2009) The impact of revascularization on mortality in patients with nonacute coronary artery disease. Am J Med 122:152–161PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Hannan EL et al (2008) Drug-eluting stents vs. coronary-artery bypass grafting in multivessel coronary disease. N Engl J Med 358:331–341PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Widimsky P, Holmes DR Jr (2011) How to treat patients with ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction and multi-vessel disease? Eur Heart J 32:396–403PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Patel MR 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 53:530–553PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Vlaar PJ et al (2011) Culprit vessel only versus multivessel and staged percutaneous coronary intervention for multivessel disease in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction a pairwise and network meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 58:692–703PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. 15.
    Kornowski R et al (2011) Prognostic impact of staged versus “One-time” multivessel percutaneous intervention in acute myocardial infarction analysis from the HORIZONS-AMI (harmonizing outcomes with revascularization and stents in acute myocardial infarction) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 58:704–711PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Velazquez EJ et al (2011) Coronary-artery bypass surgery in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. N Engl J Med 364:1607–1616PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Jones RH et al (2009) Coronary bypass surgery with or without surgical ventricular reconstruction. N Engl J Med 360:1705–1717PubMedCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer-Verlag Berlin Heidelberg 2013

Authors and Affiliations

  • Vincenzo Cicchitti
    • 1
  • Marco Zimarino
    • 1
  • Raffaele De Caterina
    • 1
  1. 1.Institute of Cardiology and Center of Excellence on Aging“G. d’Annunzio” University – Chieti (Italy)ChietiItaly

Personalised recommendations