When and why should we employ the surgeon? Biological and clinical rationale for early reperfusion

Raimondo Ascione, Gianni Angelini*

*Corresponding author for this work

    Research output: Contribution to journalArticle (Academic Journal)peer-review

    Abstract

    Revascularization in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) has changed over the last two decades, favoring the use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) over coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), even though there is no available hard evidence to support this change. Nevertheless, PCI stenting has been progressively expanding its indications to include multivessel coronary disease, diabetes mellitus, and left main stem coronary artery disease. Proponents of PCI justify its expansion with the improvement in restenosis achieved with drug-eluting stents. However, the established treatment of CAD is CABG, with proven long-term life expectancy benefit. The ongoing replacement of CABG with PCI would be therefore justified only if a critical scrutiny of the evidence clearly demonstrates similar or better life expectancy benefits.

    Original languageEnglish
    Pages (from-to)281-290
    Number of pages10
    JournalDialogues in Cardiovascular Medicine
    Volume11
    Issue number4
    Publication statusPublished - 2006

    Keywords

    • Coronary artery bypass grafting
    • Coronary artery disease
    • Drug-eluting stent
    • Percutaneous coronary intervention
    • Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty
    • Revascularization
    • Stent

    Fingerprint Dive into the research topics of 'When and why should we employ the surgeon? Biological and clinical rationale for early reperfusion'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

    Cite this