Advertisement

Literaturübersicht 2018 zur Koronarchirurgie

  • S. Bargenda
  • H. Kirov
  • S. Freiburger
  • M. Diab
  • M. Richter
  • I. Valchanov
  • B. May
  • T. DoenstEmail author
Evidenzbasierte Medizin
  • 7 Downloads

Zusammenfassung

In den letzten Jahren hat sich im therapeutischen Bereich der stabilen koronaren Herzkrankheit (KHK) die folgende Erkenntnis kontinuierlich konsolidiert: Die Bypass-Chirurgie bleibt der Goldstandard bei komplexer KHK, insbesondere bei Dreigefäßerkrankung mit oder ohne Hauptstammbeteiligung. Sie ist die einzige Therapieform, die nach den aktuellen Daten das Potenzial birgt, das Leben des Patienten zu verlängern. Die Bypass-Operation kann damit eine prognostische Indikation haben. Die 2018 neu erschienenen Leitlinien zur Myokardrevaskularisation haben die Unterscheidung zur perkutanen Koronarintervention (PCI) jetzt genauer differenziert und geben erstmals Empfehlungen zu operativen Details der Revaskularisation. Der Fokus dieser Literaturübersicht liegt auf den chirurgisch relevanten Aspekten. Weitere therapierelevante Informationen zu Diagnostik und medikamentöser Therapie sind ebenfalls übersichtlich zusammengefasst. Die aus dem Jahr 2018 maßgebliche Literatur zur chirurgischen Revaskularisation lässt sich in folgende Punkte untergliedern: 1. PCI vs. Bypass-Chirurgie, 2. neue diagnostische Verfahren für die Bypass-Chirurgie, 3. Rolle der medikamentösen Therapie für die Bypass-Chirurgie und 4. technische Aspekte der Bypass-Chirurgie.

Schlüsselwörter

Koronare Herzkrankheit Minimalinvasive Bypass-Chirurgie Vollarterielle Revaskularisation Computertomographie Medikamentöse Therapie 

Literature review 2018 on coronary bypass surgery

Abstract

In recent years the following knowledge in the treatment of stable coronary artery disease (CAD) has been continuously consolidated: coronary bypass surgery remains the gold standard for treatment of complex stable CAD, especially for three-vessel disease with or without involvement of the main stem. According to current data it is the only treatment option with the potential to prolong life expectancy. Therefore, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) may be performed for prognostic reasons. The newly published 2018 guidelines on myocardial revascularization place more emphasis on the differentiation between CABG and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). For the first time the guidelines give recommendations for operative details of the revascularization procedure. This literature review focusses on the surgically relevant aspects and also briefly summarizes the relevant information on new diagnostic tools and the role of pharmaceutical treatment. The relevant publications in 2018 addressing surgical revascularization can be categorized as 1) PCI vs. CABG, 2) new diagnostic methods for CABG, 3) the role of drug treatment in CABG and 4) technical aspects of CABG.

Keywords

Coronary artery disease Minimally invasive coronary bypass grafting Full arterial revascularization Computed tomography Drug therapy 

Notes

Einhaltung ethischer Richtlinien

Interessenkonflikt

S. Bargenda, H. Kirov, S. Freiburger, M. Diab, M. Richter, I. Valchanov, B. May und T. Doenst geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht.

Für diesen Beitrag wurden von den Autoren keine Studien an Menschen oder Tieren durchgeführt. Für die aufgeführten Studien gelten die jeweils dort angegebenen ethischen Richtlinien.

Literatur

  1. 1.
    Head SJ, Milojevic M, Daemen J et al (2018) Mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting for coronary artery disease: a pooled analysis of individual patient data. Lancet 391:939–948CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. 2.
    Farkouh ME, Domanski M, Dangas GD et al (2019) Long-term survival following multivessel revascularization in patients with diabetes: the FREEDOM follow-on study. J Am Coll Cardiol 73:629–638CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. 3.
    Head SJ, Milojevic M, Daemen J et al (2018) Stroke rates following surgical versus percutaneous coronary revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol 72:386–398CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. 4.
    Kowalewski M, Pawliszak W, Malvindi PG et al (2016) Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting improves short-term outcomes in high-risk patients compared with on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: meta-analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 151(58):60–77.e1-58CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. 5.
    Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A et al (2019) 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J 40:87–165CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 6.
    Gershlick AH, Kandzari DE, Banning A et al (2018) Outcomes after left main percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting according to lesion site: results from the EXCEL trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 11:1224–1233CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. 7.
    Ruel M, Falk V, Farkouh ME et al (2018) Myocardial revascularization trials. Circulation 138:2943–2951CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 8.
    Ram E, Goldenberg I, Kassif Y et al (2018) Real-life characteristics and outcomes of patients who undergo percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease: data from the prospective Multi-vessel Coronary Artery Disease (MULTICAD) Israeli Registry. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 54:717–723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. 9.
    Velazquez EJ, Lee KL, Jones RH et al (2016) Coronary-artery bypass surgery in patients with Ischemic cardiomyopathy. N Engl J Med 374:1511–1520CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. 10.
    Iribarne A, Discipio AW, Leavitt BJ et al (2018) Comparative effectiveness of coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention in a real-world Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure trial population. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 156:1410–1421.e2CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 11.
    Shah S, Benedetto U, Caputo M et al (2019) Comparison of the survival between coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with poor left ventricular function (ejection fraction 〈30 %): a propensity-matched analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 55:238–246CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. 12.
    Cui K, Zhang D, Lyu S et al (2018) Meta-analysis comparing percutaneous coronary revascularization using drug-eluting stent versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Am J Cardiol 122:1670–1676CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. 13.
    Doenst T, Haverich A, Serruys P et al (2019) PCI and CABG for treating stable coronary artery disease: JACC review topic of the week. J Am Coll Cardiol 73:964–976CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. 14.
    Collet C, Onuma Y, Andreini D et al (2018) Coronary computed tomography angiography for heart team decision-making in multivessel coronary artery disease. Eur Heart J 39:3689–3698Google Scholar
  15. 15.
    Newby DE, Adamson PD, Berry C et al (2018) Coronary CT angiography and 5‑year risk of myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 379:924–933CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. 16.
    Fournier S, Toth GG, De Bruyne B et al (2018) Six-year follow-up of fractional flow reserve-guided versus angiography-guided coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 11:e6368CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 17.
    Thuesen AL, Riber LP, Veien KT et al (2018) Fractional flow reserve versus angiographically-guided coronary artery bypass grafting. J Am Coll Cardiol 72:2732–2743CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. 18.
    Pinho-Gomes AC, Azevedo L, Ahn JM et al (2018) Compliance with guideline-directed medical therapy in contemporary coronary revascularization trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 71:591–602CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. 19.
    Andersson B, She L, Tan RS et al (2018) The association between blood pressure and long-term outcomes of patients with ischaemic cardiomyopathy with and without surgical revascularization: an analysis of the STICH trial. Eur Heart J 39:3464–3471CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 20.
    Zhao Q, Zhu Y, Xu Z et al (2018) Effect of ticagrelor plus aspirin, ticagrelor alone, or aspirin alone on Saphenous vein graft patency 1 year after coronary artery bypass grafting: a randomized clinical trial. JAMA 319:1677–1686CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  21. 21.
    Cardoso R, Knijnik L, Whelton SP et al (2018) Dual versus single antiplatelet therapy after coronary artery bypass graft surgery: an updated meta-analysis. Int J Cardiol 269:80–88CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. 22.
    Giambruno V, Jones P, Khaliel F et al (2018) Hybrid coronary revascularization versus on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg 105:1330–1335CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. 23.
    Ueki C, Miyata H, Motomura N et al (2018) Off-pump technique reduces surgical mortality after elective coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with preoperative renal failure. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 156:976–983CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. 24.
    Chikwe J, Lee T, Itagaki S et al (2018) Long-term outcomes after off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting by experienced surgeons. J Am Coll Cardiol 72:1478–1486CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. 25.
    Gaudino M, Bakaeen F, Benedetto U et al (2018) Use rate and outcome in bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting: insights from a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Am Heart Assoc.  https://doi.org/10.1161/jaha.118.009361 Google Scholar
  26. 26.
    Gaudino M, Benedetto U, Fremes S et al (2018) Radial-artery or Saphenous-vein grafts in coronary-artery bypass surgery. N Engl J Med 378:2069–2077CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. 27.
    Gaudino M, Glieca F, Luciani N et al (2018) Systematic bilateral internal mammary artery grafting: lessons learned from the CATHolic University EXtensive BIMA Grafting Study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 54:702–707CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. 28.
    Rocha RV, Tam DY, Karkhanis R et al (2018) Multiple arterial grafting is associated with better outcomes for coronary artery bypass grafting patients. Circulation 138:2081–2090CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 29.
    Schwann TA, Yammine MB, El-Hage-Sleiman AM et al (2018) The effect of completeness of revascularization during CABG with single versus multiple arterial grafts. J Card Surg 33:620–628CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. 30.
    Zenati MA, Bhatt DL, Bakaeen FG et al (2019) Randomized trial of endoscopic or open vein-graft harvesting for coronary-artery bypass. N Engl J Med 380:132–141CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 31.
    Janiec M, Friberg O, Thelin S (2018) Long-term clinical outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting with pedicled saphenous vein grafts. J Cardiothorac Surg 13:122CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. 32.
    Kim YH, Oh HC, Choi JW et al (2017) No-touch saphenous vein harvesting may improve further the patency of saphenous vein composite grafts: early outcomes and 1‑year angiographic results. Ann Thorac Surg 103:1489–1497CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. 33.
    Taggart DP, Benedetto U, Gerry S et al (2019) Bilateral versus single internal-thoracic-artery grafts at 10 years. N Engl J Med 380:437–446CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. 34.
    Rubino AS, Gatti G, Reichart D et al (2018) Early outcome of bilateral versus single internal mammary artery grafting in the elderly. Ann Thorac Surg 105:1717–1723CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  35. 35.
    Diab M, Farber G, Sponholz C et al (2018) Coronary artery bypass grafting using bilateral internal thoracic arteries through a left-sided minithoracotomy: a single-center starting experience. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1670632 Google Scholar
  36. 36.
    Findeisen A, Arefian H, Doenst T et al (2018) Economic burden of surgical site infections in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg.  https://doi.org/10.1093/ejcts/ezy274 Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Medizin Verlag GmbH, ein Teil von Springer Nature 2019

Authors and Affiliations

  • S. Bargenda
    • 1
  • H. Kirov
    • 1
  • S. Freiburger
    • 1
  • M. Diab
    • 1
  • M. Richter
    • 1
  • I. Valchanov
    • 1
  • B. May
    • 1
  • T. Doenst
    • 1
    Email author
  1. 1.Klinik für Herz- und ThoraxchirurgieUniversitätsklinikum Jena, Friedrich-Schiller Universität JenaJenaDeutschland

Personalised recommendations