98%
921
2 minutes
20
The American College of Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, Society of Thoracic Surgeons, and American Association for Thoracic Surgery, along with key specialty and subspecialty societies, have completed a 2-part revision of the appropriate use criteria (AUC) for coronary revascularization. In prior coronary revascularization AUC documents, indications for revascularization in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and stable ischemic heart disease were combined into 1 document. To address the expanding clinical indications for coronary revascularization, and in an effort to align the subject matter with the most current American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, the new AUC for coronary artery revascularization were separated into 2 documents addressing ACS and stable ischemic heart disease individually. This document presents the AUC for ACS. Clinical scenarios were developed to mimic patient presentations encountered in everyday practice and included information on symptom status, presence of clinical instability or ongoing ischemic symptoms, prior reperfusion therapy, risk level as assessed by noninvasive testing, fractional flow reserve testing, and coronary anatomy. This update provides a reassessment of clinical scenarios that the writing group felt to be affected by significant changes in the medical literature or gaps from prior criteria. The methodology used in this update is similar to the initial document but employs the recent modifications in the methods for developing AUC, most notably, alterations in the nomenclature for appropriate use categorization. A separate, independent rating panel scored the clinical scenarios on a scale of 1 to 9. Scores of 7 to 9 indicate that revascularization is considered appropriate for the clinical scenario presented. Scores of 1 to 3 indicate that revascularization is considered rarely appropriate for the clinical scenario, whereas scores in the mid-range (4 to 6) indicate that coronary revascularization may be appropriate for the clinical scenario. Seventeen clinical scenarios were developed by a writing committee and scored by the rating panel: 10 were identified as appropriate, 6 as may be appropriate, and 1 as rarely appropriate. As seen with the prior coronary revascularization AUC, revascularization in clinical scenarios with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction were considered appropriate. Likewise, clinical scenarios with unstable angina and intermediate- or high-risk features were deemed appropriate. Additionally, the management of nonculprit artery disease and the timing of revascularization are now also rated. The primary objective of the AUC is to provide a framework for the assessment of practice patterns that will hopefully improve physician decision making.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s12350-017-0780-8 | DOI Listing |
Cardiovasc Interv Ther
September 2025
Division of Cardiovascular Medicine, Toyohashi Heart Center, Aichi, Japan.
The outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is still controversial for patients with left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease. This multicenter cohort study aimed to evaluate the clinical outcomes of LMCA disease patients who underwent PCI or CABG. We reviewed 875 consecutive patients diagnosed with LMCA disease between January 2009 and December 2020 who underwent coronary revascularization by PCI (n = 404) or CABG (n = 471).
View Article and Find Full Text PDFClin Res Cardiol
September 2025
Department of (Interventional) Cardiology, Thoraxcenter, Erasmus University Medical Center, Room Rg-628, P.O. Box 2040, 3000 CA, Rotterdam, the Netherlands.
Background: Fractional flow reserve (FFR) for non-culprit lesions (NCLs) in patients with ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) can be influenced by temporary changes in microvascular resistance. Angiography-derived vessel fractional flow reserve (vFFR) has been tested as a less-invasive alternative.
Aims: The FAST STEMI II study aimed to assess the diagnostic performance of acute-setting vFFR vs.
Catheter Cardiovasc Interv
September 2025
Escuela de Medicina, Universidad Peruana Unión, Lima, Peru.
Background: Current guidelines recommend clopidogrel in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), yet the comparative benefits are unclear.
Aims: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with CCS undergoing PCI.
Methods: We searched PubMed/MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL databases from inception to February 15, 2025.
Eur Heart J
September 2025
Medical Technology Education Center, School of Medicine, National Defense Medical Center, Taipei, Taiwan, ROC.
Vasc Health Risk Manag
September 2025
Department of Cardiology and Vascular Medicine, Universitas Padjadjaran/Dr. Hasan Sadikin General Hospital, Bandung, Indonesia.
Introduction: Ischemic cardiomyopathy is the leading cause of heart failure and associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The role of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in term of increasing survival and cardiovascular outcomes in ischemic cardiomyopathy remains unclear.
Purpose: To evaluate whether revascularization is associated with 30-day survival in ischemic cardiomyopathy in Dr.