Koronarrevaskularisation: Interventionelle Therapie versus Bypassoperation

Die koronare Herzkrankheit bleibt die häufigste Todesursache und ist für Myokardinfarkt, Herzinsuffizienz und Angina pectoris verantwortlich. Die Therapie kombiniert eine optimale Kontrolle von kardiovaskulären Risikofaktoren und koronare Revaskularisation durch interventionelle Therapie oder Bypassoperation. Welche Therapie in welchem Fall am besten zum Einsatz kommt, fasst dieser Beitrag zu den aktuellen Studien zusammen.

Abstract

Coronary artery disease remains the leading cause of death and is responsible for myocardial infarction, heart failure and angina. Therapy combines optimal control of cardiovascular risk factors with coronary revascularization performed by interventional therapy or bypass surgery. While interventional therapy is preferred for single or two vessel disease, interdisciplinary heart team decision should be reached for complex lesion, three vessel or left main disease. Both revascularization strategies perform similar for low level complexity three vessel or left main disease while coronary bypass surgery proved superior for more complex coronary artery disease. Heart team decision should be based on vascular anatomy and expected revascularization success under consideration of operative risk and patient preference.

Schlüsselwörter

perkutane Koronarintervention - Bypasschirurgie - Revaskularisation

Key words

percutaneous coronary intervention - coronary bypass surgery - revascularization

Publikationsverlauf

Artikel online veröffentlicht:
20. August 2021

• Literatur

• 1 Shah PK. Mechanisms of plaque vulnerability and rupture. J Am Coll Cardiol 2003; 41 (04) 15S-22S
• 2 Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A. et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J 2019; 40 (02) 87-165
• 3 De Bruyne B, Pijls NHJ. et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 2009; 360 (03) 213-224
• 4 Bangalore S, Maron DJ, Stone GW. et al. Routine Revascularization Versus Initial Medical Therapy for Stable Ischemic Heart Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials. Circulation 2020; 142 (09) 841-857
• 5 Crea F, Camici PG, Bairey Merz CN. Coronary microvascular dysfunction: an update. Eur Heart J 2014; 35 (17) 1101-1111
• 6 Yusuf S, Zucker D, Peduzzi P. et al. Effect of coronary artery bypass graft surgery on survival: overview of 10-year results from randomised trials by the Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Trialists Collaboration. Lancet 1994; 344: 563-570
• 7 Maron DJ, Hochman JS, Reynolds HR. et al. Initial Invasive or Conservative Strategy for Stable Coronary Disease. N Engl J Med 2020; 382 (15) 1395-1407
• 8 Fearon WF, Nishi T, De Bruyne B. et al. 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 2018; 137 (05) 480-487
• 9 Zimmermann FM, Omerovic E, Fournier S. et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention vs. medical therapy for patients with stable coronary lesions: meta-analysis of individual patient data. Eur Heart J 2019; 40 (02) 180-186
• 10 Frye RL, August P. BARI 2D Study Group. et al. A randomized trial of therapies for type 2 diabetes and coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2009; 360 (24) 2503-2515
• 11 Windecker S, Stortecky S, Stefanini GG. et al. Revascularisation versus medical treatment in patients with stable coronary artery disease: network meta-analysis. BMJ 2014; 348: g3859
• 12 Doenst T, Haverich A, Serruys P. et al. PCI and CABG for Treating Stable Coronary Artery Disease: JACC Review Topic of the Week. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019; 73 (08) 964-976
• 13 Bainey KR, Alemayehu W, Welsh RC. et al. Long-Term Clinical Outcomes Following Revascularization in High-Risk Coronary Anatomy Patients With Stable Ischemic Heart Disease. J Am Heart Assoc 2021; 10 (01) e018104
• 14 Deutsche Gesellschaft für Kardiologie – Herz-und Kreislaufforschung e.V. ESC Pocket Guidelines. Myokardrevaskularisation. Grünwald: Börm Bruckmeier Verlag GmbH. 2019
• 15 Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP. et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 2009; 360 (10) 961-972
• 16 Thuijs DJFM, Kappetein AP, Serruys PW. et al. 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 2019; 394: 1325-1334
• 17 Mohr FW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP. et al. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial. Lancet 2013; 381: 629-638
• 18 Park SJ, Ahn JM, Kim YH. et al. Trial of everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for coronary disease. N Engl J Med 2015; 372 (13) 1204-1212
• 19 Morice MC, Serruys PW, Kappetein AP. et al. 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 2014; 129 (23) 2388-2394
• 20 Ahn JM, Roh JH, Kim YH. et al. Randomized Trial of Stents Versus Bypass Surgery for Left Main Coronary Artery Disease: 5-Year Outcomes of the PRECOMBAT Study. J Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 65 (20) 2198-2206
• 21 Holm NR, Mäkikallio T, Lindsay MM. et al. Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in the treatment of unprotected left main stenosis: updated 5-year outcomes from the randomised, non-inferiority NOBLE trial. Lancet 2020; 395: 191-199
• 22 Holm RH, Mäkikallio T, Lindsay MM. et al. Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in treatment of unprotected left main stenosis (NOBLE): a prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 2016; 388: 2743-2752
• 23 Stone GW, Kappetein AP, Sabik JF. et al. Five-Year Outcomes after PCI or CABG for Left Main Coronary Disease. N Engl J Med 2019; 381 (19) 1820-1830
• 24 Ahmad Y, Howard JP, Arnold AD. et al. Mortality after drug-eluting stents vs. coronary artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Eur Heart J 2020; 41 (34) 3228-3235
• 25 Lopes RD, Alexander KP, Stevens SR. et al. Initial Invasive Versus Conservative Management of Stable Ischemic Heart Disease in Patients With a History of Heart Failure or Left Ventricular Dysfunction: Insights From the ISCHEMIA Trial. Circulation 2020; 142 (18) 1725-1735
• 26 Velazquez EJ, Lee KL, Jones RH. et al. Coronary-Artery Bypass Surgery in Patients with Ischemic Cardiomyopathy. N Engl J Med 2016; 374 (16) 1511-1520
• 27 Wolff G, Dimitroulis D, Andreotti F. et al. Survival Benefits of Invasive Versus Conservative Strategies in Heart Failure in Patients With Reduced Ejection Fraction and Coronary Artery Disease: A Meta-Analysis. Circ Heart Fail 2017; 10 (01) e003255
• 28 Farkouh ME, Domanski M, Sleeper LA. et al. Strategies for multivessel revascularization in patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med 2012; 367 (25) 2375-2384
• 29 Ladwiniec A, Walsh SJ, Holm NR. et al. Intravascular ultrasound to guide left main stem intervention: a NOBLE trial substudy. EuroIntervention 2020; 16 (03) 201-209
• 30 Gaudino MFL, Spadaccio C, Taggart DP. State-of-the-Art Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Patient Selection, Graft Selection, and Optimizing Outcomes. Interv Cardiol Clin 2019; 8 (02) 173-198
• 31 Gaudino M, Alexander JH, Bakaeen FG. et al. Randomized comparison of the clinical outcome of single versus multiple arterial grafts: the ROMA trial-rationale and study protocol. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2017; 52 (06) 1031-1040
• 32 Diegeler A, Börgermann J, Kappert U. et al. Off-pump versus on-pump coronary-artery bypass grafting in elderly patients. N Engl J Med 2013; 368 (13) 1189-1198