View More View Less
  • 1 Gottsegen György Országos Kardiológiai Intézet Budapest Haller u. 29. 1096
Restricted access

A percutan coronariaintervenció a stabil coronariabetegség tüneti kezelésének régóta alkalmazott módszere. A szerző a közelmúlt szakirodalmának, különös tekintettel a FAME 2 vizsgálat eredményeit bemutató publikáció áttekintésével arra a kérdésre keres választ, hogy miért nem sikerült a percutan coronariaintervenció halálozást vagy a myocardialis infarctus előfordulását csökkentő hatását igazolni stabil coronariabetegségben, szemben a sebészi revascularisatióval. A FAME 2 vizsgálatban sikerült igazolni, hogy a csak gyógyszeres kezeléshez képest a fractional flow reserve vezérelte, második generációs gyógyszert kibocsátó stentimplantációval végzett percutan coronariaintervenció a halálozás, a myocardialis infarctus és a sürgős revascularisatióval járó nem tervezett kórházi felvétel előfordulását csökkenti, illetve a periproceduralis szak után a halálozás és myocardialis infarctus is szignifikánsan ritkább. A szerző kiemeli, hogy a fractional flow reserve meghatározásával és modern stent alkalmazásával a percutan coronariaintervenció nem csupán tüneti hatással bír a stabil coronariabetegség kezelésében. Orv. Hetil., 2014, 155(49), 1952–1959.

  • Caracciolo, E. A., Davis, K. B., Sopko, G., et al.: Comparison of surgical and medical group survival in patients with left main coronary artery disease. Long-term CASS experience. Circulation, 1995, 91(9), 2325–2334.

  • Boden, W. E., O’Rourke, R. A., Teo, K. K., et al.: Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary artery disease. N. Engl. J. Med., 2007, 356(15), 1503–1516.

  • Bonow, R. O., Mann, D. L., Zipes, D. P., et al.: Braunwald’s Heart Disease. A Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine. 7th edition. Elsevier, Philadelphia, 2011.

  • Pijls, N. H., van Schaardenburgh, P., Manoharan, G., et al.: Percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally nonsignificant stenosis: 5-year follow-up of the DEFER study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 2007, 49(21), 2105–2111.

  • Windecker, S., Kohl, P., Alfonso, F., et al.: 2014 ESC/EACTS 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). Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur. Heart J., 2014, 35(37), 2541–2619.

  • 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(8922), 563–570.

  • Long-term results of prospective randomised study of coronary artery bypass surgery in stable angina pectoris. European Coronary Surgery Study Group. Lancet, 1982, 320(8309), 1173–1180.

  • Eleven-year survival in the Veterans Administration randomized trial of coronary bypass surgery for stable angina. The Veterans Administration Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Cooperative Study Group. N. Engl. J. Med., 1984, 311(21), 1333–1339.

  • Coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass surgery: the Randomized Intervention Treatment of Angina (RITA) trial. Lancet, 1993, 341(8845), 573–580.

  • Hamm, C. W., Reimers, J., Ischinger, T., et al.: A randomized study of coronary angioplasty compared with bypass surgery in patients with symptomatic multivessel coronary disease. German Angioplasty Bypass Surgery Investigation (GABI). N. Engl. J. Med., 1994, 331(16), 1037–1043.

  • King, S. B. 3rd, Lembo, N. J., Weintraub, W. S., et al.: A randomized trial comparing coronary angioplasty with coronary bypass surgery. Emory Angioplasty vs. Surgery Trial (EAST). N. Engl. J. Med., 1994, 331(16), 1044–1050.

  • First-year results of CABRI (Coronary Angioplasty versus Bypass Revascularisation Investigation). CABRI Trial Participants. Lancet, 1995, 346(8984), 1179–1184.

  • Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with angioplasty in patients with multivessel diease. The Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI) Investigators. N. Engl. J. Med., 1996, 335(4), 217–225.

  • Morrison, D. A., Sethi, G., Sacks, J., et al.: Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass graft surgery for patients with medically refractory myocardial ischemia and risk factors for adverse outcomes with bypass: a multicenter, randomized trial. Investigators of the Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study 385, the Angina With Extremely Serious Operative Mortality Evaluation (AWSOME). J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 2001, 38(1), 143–149.

  • Rodriguez, A., Bernardi, V., Navia, J., et al.: Argentine randomized study: Coronary angioplasty with stenting versus coronary bypass surgery in patients with multiple-vessel disease (ERACI II): 30-day and one-year follow-up results. ERACI II investigators. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 2001, 37(1), 51–58.

  • Serruys, P. W., Unger, F., Sousa, J. E., et al.: Comparison of coronary-artery bypass surgery and stenting for the treatment of multivessel disease. N. Engl. J. Med., 2001, 344(15), 1117–1124.

  • Coronary artery bypass surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stent implantation in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (the stent or surgery trial): a randomized controlled trial. Lancet, 2002, 360(9338), 965–970.

  • Serruys, P. W., Morice, M. C., Kappetein, A. P., et al.: Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N. Engl. J. Med., 2009, 360(10), 961–972.

  • Park, S. J., Kim, Y. H., Park, D. W., et al.: Randomized trial of stents versus bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease. N. Engl. J. Med., 2011, 364(18), 1718–1727.

  • Mohr, F. W., Morice, M. C., Kappetein, A. P., 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(9867), 629–638.

  • Morice, M. C., Serruys, P. W., Kappetein, A. P., 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.

  • Dangas, G. D., Serruys, P. W., Kereiakes, D. J., et al.: Meta-analysis of everolimus-eluting versus paclitaxel-eluting stents in coronary artery disease: final 3-year results of the SPIRIT clinical trials program (Clinical evaluation of the Xience v everolimus eluting coronary stent system in the treatment of patients with de novo native coronary artery lesions). JACC Cardiovasc. Interv., 2013, 6(9), 914–922.

  • Pijls, N. H., Fearon, W. F., Tonino, P. A., et al.: Fractional glow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: 2-year follow-up of the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 2010, 56(3), 177–184.

  • Tonino, P. A., Fearon, W. F., De Bruyne, B., et al.: Angiographic versus functional severity of coronary artery stenoses in the FAME study: fractional flow reserve versus angiography in multivessel evaluation. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., 2010, 55(25), 2816–2821.

  • Shaw, L. J., Berman, D. S., Maron, D. J., et al.: 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, 2008, 117(10), 1283–1291.

  • Hachamovitch, R., Hayes, S. W., Friedman, J. D., et al.: 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, 2003, 107(23), 2900–2907.

  • Stefanini, G. G., Byrne, R. A., Serruys, P. W., et al.: Biodegradable polymer drug-eluting stents reduce the risk of stent thrombosis at 4 years in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a pooled analysis of individual patient data from the ISAR-TEST 3, ISAR-TEST 4 and LEADERS randomized trials. Eur. Heart. J., 2012, 33(10), 1214–1222.

  • De Bruyne, B., Pijls, N. H., Kalesan, B., et al.: Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N. Engl. J. Med., 2012, 367(11), 991–1001. Erratum, N. Engl. J. Med., 2012, 367(18), 1768.

  • De Bruyne, B., Fearon, W. F., Pijls, N. H., et al.: Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI for stable coronary artery disease. N. Engl. J. Med., 2014, 371(13), 1208–1217.

  • Lin, G. A., Dudley, R. A., Lucas, F. L., et al.: Frequency of stress testing to document ischemia prior to elective percutaneous coronary intervention. JAMA, 2008, 300(15), 1765–1773.

  • Toth, G., Hamilos, M., Pyxaras, S., et al.: Evolving concepts of angiogram: fractional flow reserve discordances in 4000 coronary stenoses. Eur. Heart J., 2014. Mar 18. [Epub ahead of print]

All Time Past Year Past 30 Days
Abstract Views 181 181 16
Full Text Views 15 9 0
PDF Downloads 10 9 0