Revascularization in left ventricular dysfunction: an update. (September 2019)

• Record Type: Journal Article
• Authors: Yanagawa, Bobby; Lee, Jessica; Puskas, John D.; Verma, Subodh
• Is Part Of: Current opinion in cardiology. Volume 34:Number 5(2019:Sep.)
• Publication Date: 2019-09
• Subjects: coronary artery bypass graft -- left ventricular dysfunction -- percutaneous coronary intervention; Cardiology -- Periodicals; Cardiology -- Periodicals; Heart Diseases -- Periodicals; Cardiology; Periodicals; 616.12
• DOI: 10.1097/HCO.0000000000000662
• Languages: English
• ISSNs: 0268-4705

Abstract

Abstract : Purpose of review: The purpose of this article is to provide an overview of revascularization in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and left ventricular dysfunction (LVD). Recent findings: Patients with significant CAD and LVD are a high-risk patient population. They make up a minority of the cases from the largest, prospective coronary revascularization trials. The Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) Trial and its substudies are the most important and well cited in this field. The 10-year data from STICH showed that surgical revascularization was associated with lower all-cause mortality compared with medical therapy. Several smaller studies have confirmed that surgical revascularization carries a significant risk of short-term mortality but overall improved long-term outcomes in patients with LVD. Data from multiple observational studies further confirm that coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) is superior to percutaneous coronary revascularization for long-term survival and freedom from repeat revascularization in patients with LVD. We suggest that patients with LVD undergoing CABG should be considered for multiarterial grafting and that some patients may benefit from an off-pump procedure. Summary: Surgical revascularization confers a long-term survival benefit in patients with significant CAD and LVD. Further studies will be needed to precisely determine the ideal candidate for surgical versus percutaneous revascularization.