Skip to main content
Advertisement
  • Home
  • JACC Journals
    • JACC: Basic to Translational Science
    • JACC: CardioOncology
    • JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging
    • JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
    • JACC: Case Reports
    • JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
    • JACC: Heart Failure
  • Issues
    • Current
    • Articles in Press
    • Archives
  • Topics
  • Multimedia
    • Cardiology Hour
  • Guidelines
    • Prevention Hub
    • Atrial Fibrillation Hub
    • Cholesterol Hub
    • Bradycardia Hub
    • ACHD Hub
    • VA/SCD Hub
    • High Blood Pressure Hub
  • International
    • Spanish
    • Portuguese
    • Chinese

Go to top of page

  • Home
  • JACC Journals
    • JACC: Basic to Translational Science
    • JACC: CardioOncology
    • JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging
    • JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
    • JACC: Case Reports
    • JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
    • JACC: Heart Failure
  • Issues
    • Current
    • Articles in Press
    • Archives
  • Topics
  • Multimedia
    • Cardiology Hour
  • Guidelines
    • Prevention Hub
    • Atrial Fibrillation Hub
    • Cholesterol Hub
    • Bradycardia Hub
    • ACHD Hub
    • VA/SCD Hub
    • High Blood Pressure Hub
  • International
    • Spanish
    • Portuguese
    • Chinese

User menu

  • ACC.org
  • Guidelines
  • CME/MOC/ECME
  • About
  • Login
  • Logout

  • ACC.org
  • Guidelines
  • CME/MOC/ECME
  • About
  • Login
  • Logout

Home
  • ACC.org
  • Guidelines
  • CME/MOC/ECME
  • About
  • Login
  • Logout
  • Home
  • JACC Journals
    • JACC: Basic to Translational Science
    • JACC: CardioOncology
    • JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging
    • JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
    • JACC: Case Reports
    • JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
    • JACC: Heart Failure
  • Issues
    • Current
    • Articles in Press
    • Archives
  • Topics
  • Multimedia
    • Cardiology Hour
  • Guidelines
    • Prevention Hub
    • Atrial Fibrillation Hub
    • Cholesterol Hub
    • Bradycardia Hub
    • ACHD Hub
    • VA/SCD Hub
    • High Blood Pressure Hub
  • International
    • Spanish
    • Portuguese
    • Chinese
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Volume 58, Issue 24, December 2011 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.08.006
PDF Article
Practice Guideline

2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention: Executive Summary
A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions

Glenn N. Levine, Eric R. Bates, James C. Blankenship, Steven R. Bailey, John A. Bittl, Bojan Cercek, Charles E. Chambers, Stephen G. Ellis, Robert A. Guyton, Steven M. Hollenberg, Umesh N. Khot, Richard A. Lange, Laura Mauri, Roxana Mehran, Issam D. Moussa, Debabrata Mukherjee, Brahmajee K. Nallamothu and Henry H. Ting

This article has a correction. Please see:

  • Correction - March 13, 2012

Author + information

vol. 58 no. 24 2550-2583
DOI: 
https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2011.08.006

Published By: 
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Print ISSN: 
0735-1097
Online ISSN: 
1558-3597
History: 
  • Published online December 6, 2011.

Copyright & Usage: 
American College of Cardiology Foundation and the American Heart Association, Inc.

Author Information

  1. Glenn N. Levine, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair, Writing Committee Member†,
  2. Eric R. Bates, MD, FACC, FAHA, Vice Chair, Writing Committee Member⁎,†,
  3. James C. Blankenship, MD, FACC, FSCAI, Vice Chair, Writing Committee Member⁎,‡,
  4. Steven R. Bailey, MD, FACC, FSCAI, Writing Committee Member⁎,‡,
  5. John A. Bittl, MD, FACC, Writing Committee Member†,§,
  6. Bojan Cercek, MD, FACC, FAHA, Writing Committee Member†,
  7. Charles E. Chambers, MD, FACC, FSCAI, Writing Committee Member‡,
  8. Stephen G. Ellis, MD, FACC, Writing Committee Member⁎,†,
  9. Robert A. Guyton, MD, FACC, Writing Committee Member⁎∥,
  10. Steven M. Hollenberg, MD, FACC, Writing Committee Member⁎,†,
  11. Umesh N. Khot, MD, FACC, Writing Committee Member⁎,†,
  12. Richard A. Lange, MD, FACC, FAHA, Writing Committee Member§,
  13. Laura Mauri, MD, MSc, FACC, FSCAI, Writing Committee Member⁎,†,
  14. Roxana Mehran, MD, FACC, FAHA, FSCAI, Writing Committee Member⁎,‡,
  15. Issam D. Moussa, MD, FACC, FAHA, FSCAI, Writing Committee Member‡,
  16. Debabrata Mukherjee, MD, FACC, FSCAI, Writing Committee Member†,
  17. Brahmajee K. Nallamothu, MD, FACC, Writing Committee Member¶ and
  18. Henry H. Ting, MD, FACC, FAHA, Writing Committee Member†
Key Words
  • ACCF/AHA Practice Guidelines
  • acute coronary syndromes
  • anticoagulants
  • antiplatelet agents
  • arrhythmias, cardiac
  • coronary angiography
  • coronary artery revascularization interventions: stents
  • drug therapy
  • heart diseases
  • myocardial revasularization
  • platelet aggregation inhibitor
  • ultrasound

ACCF/AHA Task Force Members

Alice K. Jacobs, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair

Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA, Chair-Elect

Nancy Albert, PhD, CCNS, CCRN, FAHA

Mark A. Creager, MD, FACC, FAHA

Steven M. Ettinger, MD, FACC

Robert A. Guyton, MD, FACC

Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA

Judith S. Hochman, MD, FACC, FAHA

Frederick G. Kushner, MD, FACC, FAHA

E. Magnus Ohman, MD, FACC

William Stevenson, MD, FACC, FAHA

Clyde W. Yancy, MD, FACC, FAHA

Table of Contents

  • Preamble......2551

  • 1. Introduction......2554

    • 1.1 Methodology and Evidence Review......2554

    • 1.2 Organization of the Writing Committee......2554

    • 1.3 Document Review and Approval......2554

    • 1.4 PCI Guideline Scope......2554

  • 2. CAD Revascularization: Recommendations......2555

    • 2.1 Heart Team Approach to Revascularization Decisions......2555

    • 2.2 Revascularization to Improve Survival......2555

    • 2.3 Revascularization to Improve Symptoms......2557

    • 2.4 Clinical Factors That May Influence the Choice of Revascularization......2557

      • 2.4.1 Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Compliance and Stent Thrombosis......2557

    • 2.5 Hybrid Coronary Revascularization......2558

  • 3. Preprocedural Considerations: Recommendations......2558

    • 3.1 Radiation Safety......2558

    • 3.2 Contrast-Induced Acute Kidney Injury......2558

    • 3.3 Anaphylactoid Reactions......2558

    • 3.4 Statin Treatment......2559

    • 3.5 Bleeding Risk......2559

    • 3.6 PCI in Hospitals Without On-Site Surgical Backup......2559

  • 4. Procedural Considerations: Recommendations......2559

    • 4.1 Vascular Access......2559

    • 4.2 PCI in Specific Clinical Situations......2559

      • 4.2.1 Unstable Angina/Non–ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction......2559

      • 4.2.2 ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction......2559

      • 4.2.3 Cardiogenic Shock......2560

      • 4.2.4 Revascularization Before Noncardiac Surgery......2560

    • 4.3 Coronary Stents......2561

    • 4.4 Adjunctive Diagnostic Devices......2561

      • 4.4.1 Fractional Flow Reserve......2561

      • 4.4.2 Intravascular Ultrasound......2561

    • 4.5 Adjunctive Therapeutic Devices......2561

      • 4.5.1 Coronary Atherectomy......2561

      • 4.5.2 Thrombectomy......2562

      • 4.5.3 Laser Angioplasty......2562

      • 4.5.4 Cutting Balloon Angioplasty......2562

      • 4.5.5 Embolic Protection Devices......2562

    • 4.6 Percutaneous Hemodynamic Support Devices......2562

      • 4.6.1 Oral Antiplatelet Therapy......2562

      • 4.6.2 Intravenous Antiplatelet Therapy......2562

      • 4.6.3 Anticoagulant Therapy......2563

      • 4.6.4 No-Reflow Pharmacological Therapies......2564

    • 4.7 PCI in Specific Anatomic Situations......2564

      • 4.7.1 Chronic Total Occlusions......2564

      • 4.7.2 Saphenous Vein Grafts......2564

      • 4.7.3 Bifurcation Lesions......2564

      • 4.7.4 Aorto-Ostial Stenoses......2564

      • 4.7.5 Calcified Lesions......2564

    • 4.8 PCI in Specific Patient Populations......2564

      • 4.8.1 Chronic Kidney Disease......2564

    • 4.9 Periprocedural Myocardial Infarction Assessment......2564

    • 4.10 Vascular Closure Devices......2565

  • 5. Postprocedural Considerations: Recommendations......2565

    • 5.1 Postprocedural Antiplatelet Therapy......2565

      • 5.1.1 Proton Pump Inhibitors and Antiplatelet Therapy......2565

      • 5.1.2 Clopidogrel Genetic Testing......2565

      • 5.1.3 Platelet Function Testing......2565

    • 5.2 Restenosis......2565

      • 5.2.1 Exercise Testing......2567

      • 5.2.2 Cardiac Rehabilitation......2567

  • 6. Quality and Performance Considerations: Recommendations......2567

    • 6.1 Quality and Performance......2567

    • 6.2 Certification and Maintenance of Certification......2567

    • 6.3 Operator and Institutional Competency and Volume......2567

  • References......2568

  • Appendix 1. Author Relationships With Industry and Other Entities (Relevant)......2579

  • Appendix 2. Reviewer Relationships With Industry and Other Entities (Relevant)......2581

Preamble

The medical profession should play a central role in evaluating the evidence related to drugs, devices, and procedures for the detection, management, and prevention of disease. When properly applied, expert analysis of available data on the benefits and risks of these therapies and procedures can improve the quality of care, optimize patient outcomes, and favorably affect costs by focusing resources on the most effective strategies. An organized and directed approach to a thorough review of evidence has resulted in the production of clinical practice guidelines that assist physicians in selecting the best management strategy for an individual patient. Moreover, clinical practice guidelines can provide a foundation for other applications, such as performance measures, appropriate use criteria, and both quality improvement and clinical decision support tools.

The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have jointly produced guidelines in the area of cardiovascular disease since 1980. The ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Task Force), charged with developing, updating, and revising practice guidelines for cardiovascular diseases and procedures, directs and oversees this effort. Writing committees are charged with regularly reviewing and evaluating all available evidence to develop balanced, patient-centric recommendations for clinical practice.

Experts in the subject under consideration are selected by the ACCF and AHA to examine subject-specific data and write guidelines in partnership with representatives from other medical organizations and specialty groups. Writing committees are asked to perform a formal literature review; weigh the strength of evidence for or against particular tests, treatments, or procedures; and include estimates of expected outcomes where such data exist. Patient-specific modifiers, comorbidities, and issues of patient preference that may influence the choice of tests or therapies are considered. When available, information from studies on cost is considered, but data on efficacy and outcomes constitute the primary basis for the recommendations contained herein.

In analyzing the data and developing recommendations and supporting text, the writing committee uses evidence-based methodologies developed by the Task Force (1). The Class of Recommendation (COR) is an estimate of the size of the treatment effect considering risks versus benefits in addition to evidence and/or agreement that a given treatment or procedure is or is not useful/effective or in some situations may cause harm. The Level of Evidence (LOE) is an estimate of the certainty or precision of the treatment effect. The writing committee reviews and ranks evidence supporting each recommendation with the weight of evidence ranked as LOE A, B, or C according to specific definitions that are included in Table 1. Studies are identified as observational, retrospective, prospective, or randomized where appropriate. For certain conditions for which inadequate data are available, recommendations are based on expert consensus and clinical experience and are ranked as LOE C. When recommendations at LOE C are supported by historical clinical data, appropriate references (including clinical reviews) are cited if available. For issues for which sparse data are available, a survey of current practice among the clinicians on the writing committee is the basis for LOE C recommendations and no references are cited. The schema for COR and LOE is summarized in Table 1, which also provides suggested phrases for writing recommendations within each COR. A new addition to this methodology is separation of the Class III recommendations to delineate if the recommendation is determined to be of “no benefit” or is associated with “harm” to the patient. In addition, in view of the increasing number of comparative effectiveness studies, comparator verbs and suggested phrases for writing recommendations for the comparative effectiveness of one treatment or strategy versus another have been added for COR I and IIa, LOE A or B only.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1

Applying Classification of Recommendations and Level of Evidence

In view of the advances in medical therapy across the spectrum of cardiovascular diseases, the Task Force has designated the term guideline-directed medical therapy (GDMT) to represent optimal medical therapy as defined by ACCF/AHA guideline recommended therapies (primarily Class I). This new term, GDMT, will be used herein and throughout all future guidelines.

Because the ACCF/AHA practice guidelines address patient populations (and healthcare providers) residing in North America, drugs that are not currently available in North America are discussed in the text without a specific COR. For studies performed in large numbers of subjects outside North America, each writing committee reviews the potential influence of different practice patterns and patient populations on the treatment effect and relevance to the ACCF/AHA target population to determine whether the findings should inform a specific recommendation.

The ACCF/AHA practice guidelines are intended to assist healthcare providers in clinical decision making by describing a range of generally acceptable approaches to the diagnosis, management, and prevention of specific diseases or conditions. The guidelines attempt to define practices that meet the needs of most patients in most circumstances. The ultimate judgment regarding care of a particular patient must be made by the healthcare provider and patient in light of all the circumstances presented by that patient. As a result, situations may arise for which deviations from these guidelines may be appropriate. Clinical decision making should involve consideration of the quality and availability of expertise in the area where care is provided. When these guidelines are used as the basis for regulatory or payer decisions, the goal should be improvement in quality of care. The Task Force recognizes that situations arise in which additional data are needed to inform patient care more effectively; these areas will be identified within each respective guideline when appropriate.

Prescribed courses of treatment in accordance with these recommendations are effective only if followed. Because lack of patient understanding and adherence may adversely affect outcomes, physicians and other healthcare providers should make every effort to engage the patient's active participation in prescribed medical regimens and lifestyles. In addition, patients should be informed of the risks, benefits, and alternatives to a particular treatment and be involved in shared decision making whenever feasible, particularly for COR IIa and IIb, where the benefit-to-risk ratio may be lower.

The Task Force makes every effort to avoid actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that may arise as a result of industry relationships or personal interests among the members of the writing committee. All writing committee members and peer reviewers of the guideline are required to disclose all such current relationships, as well as those existing 12 months previously. In December 2009, the ACCF and AHA implemented a new policy for relationships with industry and other entities (RWI) that requires the writing committee chair plus a minimum of 50% of the writing committee to have no relevant RWI (Appendix 1 for the ACCF/AHA definition of relevance). These statements are reviewed by the Task Force and all members during each conference call and/or meeting of the writing committee and are updated as changes occur. All guideline recommendations require a confidential vote by the writing committee and must be approved by a consensus of the voting members. Members are not permitted to write, and must recuse themselves from voting on, any recommendation or section to which their RWI apply. Members who recused themselves from voting are indicated in the list of writing committee members, and section recusals are noted in Appendix 1. Authors' and peer reviewers' RWI pertinent to this guideline are disclosed in Appendixes 1 and 2, respectively. Additionally, to ensure complete transparency, writing committee members' comprehensive disclosure information—including RWI not pertinent to this document—is available as an online supplement. Comprehensive disclosure information for the Task Force is also available online at www.cardiosource.org/ACC/About-ACC/Leadership/Guidelines-and-Documents-Task-Forces.aspx. The work of the writing committee was supported exclusively by the ACCF, AHA, and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (SCAI) without commercial support. Writing committee members volunteered their time for this activity.

In an effort to maintain relevance at the point of care for practicing physicians, the Task Force continues to oversee an ongoing process improvement initiative. As a result, in response to pilot projects, several changes to these guidelines will be apparent, including limited narrative text, a focus on summary and evidence tables (with references linked to abstracts in PubMed), and more liberal use of summary recommendation tables (with references that support LOE) to serve as a quick reference.

In April 2011 the Institute of Medicine released 2 reports: Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews and Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust (2,3). It is noteworthy that the ACCF/AHA guidelines are cited as being compliant with many of the proposed standards. A thorough review of these reports and of our current methodology is under way, with further enhancements anticipated.

The recommendations in this guideline are considered current until they are superseded by a focused update or the full-text guideline is revised. Guidelines are official policy of both the ACCF and AHA.

Alice K. Jacobs, MD, FACC, FAHA Chair, ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines

1 Introduction

1.1 Methodology and Evidence Review

The recommendations listed in this document are, whenever possible, evidence based. An extensive evidence review was conducted through November 2010, as well as selected other references through August 2011. Searches were limited to studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted in human subjects and that were published in English. Key search words included but were not limited to the following: ad hoc angioplasty, angioplasty, balloon angioplasty, clinical trial, coronary stenting, delayed angioplasty, meta-analysis, percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, randomized controlled trial, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and angina, angina reduction, antiplatelet therapy, bare-metal stents (BMS), cardiac rehabilitation, chronic stable angina, complication, coronary bifurcation lesion, coronary calcified lesion, coronary chronic total occlusion, coronary ostial lesions, coronary stent (BMS and drug-eluting stents [DES]; and BMS versus DES), diabetes, distal embolization, distal protection, elderly, ethics, late stent thrombosis, medical therapy, microembolization, mortality, multiple lesions, multivessel, myocardial infarction, non–ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), no-reflow, optical coherence tomography, proton pump inhibitor, return to work, same-day angioplasty and/or stenting, slow flow, stable ischemic heart disease (SIHD), staged angioplasty, STEMI, survival, and unstable angina (UA). Additional searches cross-referenced these topics with the following subtopics: anticoagulant therapy, contrast nephropathy, PCI-related vascular complications, unprotected left main PCI, multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD), adjunctive percutaneous interventional devices, percutaneous hemodynamic support devices, and secondary prevention. Additionally, the committee reviewed documents related to the subject matter previously published by the ACCF and AHA. References selected and published in this document are representative and not all-inclusive.

Because the executive summary contains only the recommendations, the reader is encouraged to consult the full-text guideline (4) for additional detail on the recommendations and guidance on the care of the patient undergoing PCI.

1.2 Organization of the Writing Committee

The committee was composed of physicians with expertise in interventional cardiology, general cardiology, critical care cardiology, cardiothoracic surgery, clinical trials, and health services research. The committee included representatives from the ACCF, AHA, and SCAI.

1.3 Document Review and Approval

This document was reviewed by 2 official reviewers nominated by the ACCF, AHA, and SCAI, as well as 21 individual content reviewers (including members of the ACCF Interventional Scientific Council and ACCF Surgeons' Scientific Council). All information on reviewers' RWI was distributed to the writing committee and is published in this document (Appendix 2). This document was approved for publication by the governing bodies of the ACCF, AHA, and SCAI.

1.4 PCI Guideline Scope

The evolution of the PCI guideline reflects the growth of knowledge in the field and parallels the many advances and innovations in the field of interventional cardiology, including primary PCI, BMS and DES, intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) and physiologic assessments of stenosis, and newer antiplatelet and anticoagulant therapies. The 2011 iteration of the guideline continues this process, addressing ethical aspects of PCI, vascular access considerations, CAD revascularization including hybrid revascularization, revascularization before noncardiac surgery, optical coherence tomography, advanced hemodynamic support devices, no-reflow therapies, and vascular closure devices. Most of this document is organized according to “patient flow,” consisting of preprocedural considerations, procedural considerations, and postprocedural considerations. The focus of this guideline is the safe, appropriate, and efficacious performance of PCI. The risks of PCI must be balanced against the likelihood of improved survival, symptoms, or functional status. This is especially important in patients with SIHD.

In a major undertaking, the STEMI, PCI, and coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery guidelines were written concurrently, with additional collaboration with the SIHD guideline writing committee, allowing greater collaboration between the different writing committees on topics such as PCI in STEMI and revascularization strategies in patients with CAD (including unprotected left main PCI, multivessel disease revascularization, and hybrid procedures).

In accordance with direction from the Task Force and feedback from readers, in this iteration of the guideline, the text has been shortened, with an emphasis on summary statements rather than detailed discussion of numerous individual trials. Online supplemental evidence and summary tables have been created to document the studies and data considered for new or changed guideline recommendations.

2 CAD Revascularization: Recommendations

Recommendations and text in this section are the result of extensive collaborative discussions between the PCI and CABG writing committees, as well as key members of the SIHD and UA/NSTEMI writing committees. Certain issues, such as older versus more contemporary studies, primary analyses versus subgroup analyses, and prospective versus post hoc analyses, have been carefully weighed in designating COR and LOE; they are addressed in the appropriate corresponding text (4). The goals of revascularization for patients with CAD are to 1) improve survival and/or 2) relieve symptoms. The following text contains recommendations for revascularization to improve survival and symptoms, and they are presented in Tables 2 and 3.⇓⇓

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 2

Revascularization to Improve Survival Compared With Medical Therapy

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 3

Revascularization to Improve Symptoms With Significant Anatomic (≥50% Left Main or ≥70% Non–Left Main CAD) or Physiological (FFR≤0.80) Coronary Artery Stenoses

Revascularization recommendations in this section are predominantly based on studies of patients with symptomatic SIHD and should be interpreted in this context. As discussed later in this section, recommendations on the type of revascularization are, in general, applicable to patients with UA/NSTEMI. In some cases (e.g., unprotected left main CAD), specific recommendations are made for patients with UA/NSTEMI or STEMI.

2.1 Heart Team Approach to Revascularization Decisions

CLASS I

  • 1. A Heart Team approach to revascularization is recommended in patients with unprotected left main or complex CAD (5–7). (Level of Evidence: C)

CLASS IIa

  • 1. Calculation of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and SYNTAX (Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery) scores is reasonable in patients with unprotected left main and complex CAD (7–14). (Level of Evidence: B)

2.2 Revascularization to Improve Survival

Left Main CAD Revascularization

CLASS I

  • 1. CABG to improve survival is recommended for patients with significant (≥50% diameter stenosis) left main coronary artery stenosis (15–21). (Level of Evidence: B)

CLASS IIa

  • 1. PCI to improve survival is reasonable as an alternative to CABG in selected stable patients with significant (≥50% diameter stenosis) unprotected left main CAD with: 1) anatomic conditions associated with a low risk of PCI procedural complications and a high likelihood of good long-term outcome (e.g., a low SYNTAX score [≤22], ostial or trunk left main CAD); and 2) clinical characteristics that predict a significantly increased risk of adverse surgical outcomes (e.g., Society of Thoracic Surgeons–predicted risk of operative mortality ≥5%) (8,10,11,22–40,106) (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 2. PCI to improve survival is reasonable in patients with UA/NSTEMI when an unprotected left main coronary artery is the culprit lesion and the patient is not a candidate for CABG (11,27,29–31,36,37,39–41). (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 3. PCI to improve survival is reasonable in patients with acute STEMI when an unprotected left main coronary artery is the culprit lesion, distal coronary flow is less than TIMI (Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction) grade 3, and PCI can be performed more rapidly and safely than CABG (24,42,43). (Level of Evidence: C)

CLASS IIb

  • 1. PCI to improve survival may be reasonable as an alternative to CABG in selected stable patients with significant (≥50% diameter stenosis) unprotected left main CAD with: 1) anatomic conditions associated with a low to intermediate risk of PCI procedural complications and an intermediate to high likelihood of good long-term outcome (e.g., low-intermediate SYNTAX score of <33, bifurcation left main CAD); and 2) clinical characteristics that predict an increased risk of adverse surgical outcomes (e.g., moderate-severe chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, disability from previous stroke, or previous cardiac surgery; Society of Thoracic Surgeons–predicted risk of operative mortality >2%) (8,10,11,22–40,44). (Level of Evidence: B)

CLASS III: HARM

  • 1. PCI to improve survival should not be performed in stable patients with significant (≥50% diameter stenosis) unprotected left main CAD who have unfavorable anatomy for PCI and who are good candidates for CABG (8,10,11,15–23). (Level of Evidence: B)

Non–Left Main CAD Revascularization

CLASS I

  • 1. CABG to improve survival is beneficial in patients with significant (≥70% diameter) stenoses in 3 major coronary arteries (with or without involvement of the proximal left anterior descending [LAD]) or in the proximal LAD plus 1 other major coronary artery (17,21,45–48). (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 2. CABG or PCI to improve survival is beneficial in survivors of sudden cardiac death with presumed ischemia-mediated ventricular tachycardia caused by significant (≥70% diameter) stenosis in a major coronary artery. (CABG Level of Evidence: B [49–51]; PCI Level of Evidence: C [49])

CLASS IIa

  • 1. CABG to improve survival is reasonable in patients with significant (≥70% diameter) stenoses in 2 major coronary arteries with severe or extensive myocardial ischemia (e.g., high-risk criteria on stress testing, abnormal intracoronary hemodynamic evaluation, or >20% perfusion defect by myocardial perfusion stress imaging) or target vessels supplying a large area of viable myocardium (52–55). (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 2. CABG to improve survival is reasonable in patients with mild-moderate left ventricular systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction 35% to 50%) and significant (≥70% diameter stenosis) multivessel CAD or proximal LAD coronary artery stenosis, when viable myocardium is present in the region of intended revascularization (21,56–60). (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 3. CABG with a left internal mammary artery graft to improve survival is reasonable in patients with significant (≥70% diameter) stenosis in the proximal LAD artery and evidence of extensive ischemia (21,48,61,62). (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 4. It is reasonable to choose CABG over PCI to improve survival in patients with complex 3-vessel CAD (e.g., SYNTAX score >22) with or without involvement of the proximal LAD artery who are good candidates for CABG (23,38,48,63,64). (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 5. CABG is probably recommended in preference to PCI to improve survival in patients with multivessel CAD and diabetes mellitus, particularly if a left internal mammary artery graft can be anastomosed to the LAD artery (54,66–73). (Level of Evidence: B)

CLASS IIb

  • 1. The usefulness of CABG to improve survival is uncertain in patients with significant (≥70%) stenoses in 2 major coronary arteries not involving the proximal LAD artery and without extensive ischemia (48). (Level of Evidence: C)

  • 2. The usefulness of PCI to improve survival is uncertain in patients with 2- or 3-vessel CAD (with or without involvement of the proximal LAD artery) or 1-vessel proximal LAD disease (17,45,48,74). (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 3. CABG might be considered with the primary or sole intent of improving survival in patients with SIHD with severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction <35%) whether or not viable myocardium is present (21,56–60,75,76). (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 4. The usefulness of CABG or PCI to improve survival is uncertain in patients with previous CABG and extensive anterior wall ischemia on noninvasive testing (77–85). (Level of Evidence: B)

CLASS III: HARM

  • 1. CABG or PCI should not be performed with the primary or sole intent to improve survival in patients with SIHD with 1 or more coronary stenoses that are not anatomically or functionally significant (e.g., <70% diameter non–left main coronary artery stenosis, fractional flow reserve >0.80, no or only mild ischemia on noninvasive testing), involve only the left circumflex or right coronary artery, or subtend only a small area of viable myocardium (21,45,52,53,86–90). (Level of Evidence: B)

2.3 Revascularization to Improve Symptoms

Class I

  • 1. CABG or PCI to improve symptoms is beneficial in patients with 1 or more significant (≥70% diameter) coronary artery stenoses amenable to revascularization and unacceptable angina despite GDMT (74,91–100). (Level of Evidence: A)

CLASS IIa

  • 1. CABG or PCI to improve symptoms is reasonable in patients with 1 or more significant (≥70% diameter) coronary artery stenoses and unacceptable angina for whom GDMT cannot be implemented because of medication contraindications, adverse effects, or patient preferences. (Level of Evidence: C)

  • 2. PCI to improve symptoms is reasonable in patients with previous CABG, 1 or more significant (≥70% diameter) coronary artery stenoses associated with ischemia, and unacceptable angina despite GDMT (78,81,84). (Level of Evidence: C)

  • 3. It is reasonable to choose CABG over PCI to improve symptoms in patients with complex 3-vessel CAD (e.g., SYNTAX score >22), with or without involvement of the proximal LAD artery who are good candidates for CABG (23,38,48,63,64). (Level of Evidence: B)

CLASS IIb

  • 1. CABG to improve symptoms might be reasonable for patients with previous CABG, 1 or more significant (≥70% diameter) coronary artery stenoses not amenable to PCI, and unacceptable angina despite GDMT (85). (Level of Evidence: C)

  • 2. Transmyocardial laser revascularization performed as an adjunct to CABG to improve symptoms may be reasonable in patients with viable ischemic myocardium that is perfused by arteries that are not amenable to grafting (101–105). (Level of Evidence: B)

CLASS III: HARM

  • 1. CABG or PCI to improve symptoms should not be performed in patients who do not meet anatomic (≥50% left main or ≥70% non–left main stenosis) or physiological (e.g., abnormal fractional flow reserve) criteria for revascularization. (Level of Evidence: C)

2.4 Clinical Factors That May Influence the Choice of Revascularization

2.4.1 Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Compliance and Stent Thrombosis

CLASS III: HARM

  • 1. PCI with coronary stenting (BMS or DES) should not be performed if the patient is not likely to be able to tolerate and comply with dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) for the appropriate duration of treatment based on the type of stent implanted (107–110). (Level of Evidence: B)

2.5 Hybrid Coronary Revascularization

CLASS IIa

  • 1. Hybrid coronary revascularization (defined as the planned combination of left internal mammary artery-to-LAD artery grafting and PCI of ≥1 non-LAD coronary arteries) is reasonable in patients with 1 or more of the following (111–117) (Level of Evidence: B):

    • a. Limitations to traditional CABG, such as heavily calcified proximal aorta or poor target vessels for CABG (but amenable to PCI);

    • b. Lack of suitable graft conduits;

    • c. Unfavorable LAD artery or PCI (i.e., excessive vessel tortuosity or chronic total occlusion).

CLASS IIb

  • 1. Hybrid coronary revascularization (defined as the planned combination of left internal mammary artery-to-LAD artery grafting and PCI of ≥1 non-LAD coronary arteries) may be reasonable as an alternative to multivessel PCI or CABG in an attempt to improve the overall risk-benefit ratio of the procedures. (Level of Evidence: C)

3 Preprocedural Considerations: Recommendations

Table 4 contains recommendations for preprocedural considerations and interventions in patients undergoing PCI.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 4

Summary of Recommendations for Preprocedural Considerations and Interventions in Patients Undergoing PCI

3.1 Radiation Safety

CLASS I

  • 1. Cardiac catheterization laboratories should routinely record relevant available patient procedural radiation dose data (e.g., total air kerma at the international reference point [Ka,r], air kerma air product [PKA], fluoroscopy time, number of cine images), and should define thresholds with corresponding follow-up protocols for patients who receive a high procedural radiation dose. (Level of Evidence: C)

3.2 Contrast-Induced Acute Kidney Injury

CLASS I

  • 1. Patients should be assessed for risk of contrast-induced acute kidney injury before PCI (118,119). (Level of Evidence: C)

  • 2. Patients undergoing cardiac catheterization with contrast media should receive adequate preparatory hydration (120–123). (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 3. In patients with CKD (creatinine clearance <60 mL/min), the volume of contrast media should be minimized (124–126). (Level of Evidence: B)

CLASS III: NO BENEFIT

  • 1. Administration of N-acetyl-L-cysteine is not useful for the prevention of contrast-induced acute kidney injury (127–131). (Level of Evidence: A)

3.3 Anaphylactoid Reactions

CLASS I

  • 1. Patients with prior evidence of an anaphylactoid reaction to contrast media should receive appropriate steroid and antihistamine prophylaxis before repeat contrast administration (132–135). (Level of Evidence: B)

CLASS III: NO BENEFIT

  • 1. In patients with a prior history of allergic reactions to shellfish or seafood, anaphylactoid prophylaxis for contrast reaction is not beneficial (136–138). (Level of Evidence: C)

3.4 Statin Treatment

CLASS IIa

  • 1. Administration of a high-dose statin is reasonable before PCI to reduce the risk of periprocedural myocardial infarction. (Level of Evidence: A for statin-naïve patients [139–145]; Level of Evidence: B for those on chronic statin therapy [146])

3.5 Bleeding Risk

CLASS I

  • 1. All patients should be evaluated for risk of bleeding before PCI. (Level of Evidence: C)

3.6 PCI in Hospitals Without On-Site Surgical Backup

CLASS IIa

  • 1. Primary PCI is reasonable in hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery, provided that appropriate planning for program development has been accomplished (155,156). (Level of Evidence: B)

CLASS IIb

  • 1. Elective PCI might be considered in hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery, provided that appropriate planning for program development has been accomplished and rigorous clinical and angiographic criteria are used for proper patient selection (156–158). (Level of Evidence: B)

CLASS III: HARM

  • 1. Primary or elective PCI should not be performed in hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery capabilities without a proven plan for rapid transport to a cardiac surgery operating room in a nearby hospital or without appropriate hemodynamic support capability for transfer. (Level of Evidence: C)

4 Procedural Considerations: Recommendations

4.1 Vascular Access

CLASS IIa

  • 1. The use of radial artery access can be useful to decrease access site complications (159–167). (Level of Evidence: A)

4.2 PCI in Specific Clinical Situations

4.2.1 Unstable Angina/Non–ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

CLASS I

  • 1. An early invasive strategy (i.e., diagnostic angiography with intent to perform revascularization) is indicated in UA/NSTEMI patients who have refractory angina or hemodynamic or electrical instability (without serious comorbidities or contraindications to such procedures) (168–170). (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 2. An early invasive strategy (i.e., diagnostic angiography with intent to perform revascularization) is indicated in initially stabilized UA/NSTEMI patients (without serious comorbidities or contraindications to such procedures) who have an elevated risk for clinical events (169–172). (Level of Evidence: A)

  • 3. The selection of PCI or CABG as the means of revascularization in the patient with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) should generally be based on the same considerations as those without ACS (45,170,173,174). (Level of Evidence: B)

CLASS III: NO BENEFIT

  • 1. An early invasive strategy (i.e., diagnostic angiography with intent to perform revascularization) is not recommended in patients with extensive comorbidities (e.g., liver or pulmonary failure, cancer) in whom (Level of Evidence: C)

    • a. The risks of revascularization and comorbid conditions are likely to outweigh the benefits of revascularization,

    • b. There is a low likelihood of ACS despite acute chest pain, or

    • c. Consent to revascularization will not be granted regardless of the findings.

4.2.2 ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction

Table 5 contains indications for coronary angiography in STEMI.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 5

Indications for Coronary Angiography in STEMI

4.2.2.1 Coronary Angiography Strategies in STEMI

CLASS I

  • 1. A strategy of immediate coronary angiography with intent to perform PCI (or emergency CABG) in patients with STEMI is recommended for:

    • a. Patients who are candidates for primary PCI (155,175–178). (Level of Evidence: A)

    • b. Patients with severe heart failure or cardiogenic shock who are suitable candidates for revascularization (179,180). (Level of Evidence: B)

CLASS IIa

  • 1. A strategy of immediate coronary angiography (or transfer for immediate coronary angiography) with intent to perform PCI is reasonable for patients with STEMI, a moderate to large area of myocardium at risk, and evidence of failed fibrinolysis (181,182). (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 2. A strategy of coronary angiography (or transfer for coronary angiography) 3 to 24 hours after initiating fibrinolytic therapy with intent to perform PCI is reasonable for hemodynamically stable patients with STEMI and evidence for successful fibrinolysis when angiography and revascularization can be performed as soon as logistically feasible in this time frame (183–187). (Level of Evidence: A)

CLASS IIb

  • 1. A strategy of coronary angiography performed before hospital discharge might be reasonable in stable patients with STEMI who did not undergo cardiac catheterization within 24 hours of STEMI onset. (Level of Evidence: C)

CLASS III: NO BENEFIT

  • 1. A strategy of coronary angiography with intent to perform PCI is not recommended in patients with STEMI in whom the risks of revascularization are likely to outweigh the benefits or when the patient or designee does not want invasive care. (Level of Evidence: C)

4.2.2.2 Primary PCI of the Infarct Artery

CLASS I

  • 1. Primary PCI should be performed in patients within 12 hours of onset of STEMI (175–178). (Level of Evidence: A)

  • 2. Primary PCI should be performed in patients with STEMI presenting to a hospital with PCI capability within 90 minutes of first medical contact as a systems goal (188,189). (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 3. Primary PCI should be performed in patients with STEMI presenting to a hospital without PCI capability within 120 minutes of first medical contact as a systems goal (190–192). (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 4. Primary PCI should be performed in patients with STEMI who develop severe heart failure or cardiogenic shock and are suitable candidates for revascularization as soon as possible, irrespective of time delay (179,180). (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 5. Primary PCI should be performed as soon as possible in patients with STEMI and contraindications to fibrinolytic therapy with ischemic symptoms for less than 12 hours (193,194). (Level of Evidence: B)

CLASS IIa

  • 1. Primary PCI is reasonable in patients with STEMI if there is clinical and/or electrocardiographic evidence of ongoing ischemia between 12 and 24 hours after symptom onset (195–197). (Level of Evidence: B)

CLASS IIb

  • 1. Primary PCI might be considered in asymptomatic patients with STEMI and higher risk presenting between 12 and 24 hours after symptom onset. (Level of Evidence: C)

CLASS III: HARM

  • 1. PCI should not be performed in a noninfarct artery at the time of primary PCI in patients with STEMI without hemodynamic compromise (198–202). (Level of Evidence: B)

4.2.2.3 Delayed or Elective PCI in Patients With STEMI

CLASS IIa

  • 1. PCI is reasonable in patients with STEMI and clinical evidence for fibrinolytic failure or infarct artery reocclusion (181,182). (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 2. PCI is reasonable in patients with STEMI and a patent infarct artery 3 to 24 hours after fibrinolytic therapy (186,187). (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 3. PCI is reasonable in patients with STEMI who demonstrate ischemia on noninvasive testing (203,204). (Level of Evidence: B)

CLASS IIb

  • 1. PCI of a hemodynamically significant stenosis in a patent infarct artery greater than 24 hours after STEMI may be considered as part of an invasive strategy (205–209). (Level of Evidence: B)

CLASS III: NO BENEFIT

  • 1. PCI of a totally occluded infarct artery greater than 24 hours after STEMI should not be performed in asymptomatic patients with 1- or 2-vessel disease if patients are hemodynamically and electrically stable and do not have evidence of severe ischemia (210–212). (Level of Evidence: B)

Table 6 contains indications for PCI in STEMI.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 6

Indications for PCI in STEMI

4.2.3 Cardiogenic Shock

CLASS I

  • 1. PCI is recommended for patients with acute myocardial infarction who develop cardiogenic shock and are suitable candidates (180,213–215). (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 2. A hemodynamic support device is recommended for patients with cardiogenic shock after STEMI who do not quickly stabilize with pharmacological therapy (180,216–219). (Level of Evidence: B)

4.2.4 Revascularization Before Noncardiac Surgery

CLASS IIa

  • 1. For patients who require PCI and are scheduled for elective noncardiac surgery in the subsequent 12 months, a strategy of balloon angioplasty, or BMS implantation followed by 4 to 6 weeks of DAPT, is reasonable (220–226). (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 2. For patients with DES who must undergo urgent surgical procedures that mandate the discontinuation of DAPT, it is reasonable to continue aspirin if possible and restart the P2Y12 inhibitor as soon as possible in the immediate postoperative period (222,227). (Level of Evidence: C)

CLASS III: HARM

  • 1. Routine prophylactic coronary revascularization should not be performed in patients with stable CAD before noncardiac surgery (228,229). (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 2. Elective noncardiac surgery should not be performed in the 4 to 6 weeks after balloon angioplasty or BMS implantation or the 12 months after DES implantation in patients in whom the P2Y12 inhibitor will need to be discontinued perioperatively (107,225,230,231). (Level of Evidence: B)

4.3 Coronary Stents

CLASS I

  • 1. Before implantation of DES, the interventional cardiologist should discuss with the patient the need for and duration of DAPT and the ability of the patient to comply with and tolerate DAPT (232). (Level of Evidence: C)

  • 2. DES are useful as an alternative to BMS to reduce the risk of restenosis in cases in which the risk of restenosis is increased and the patient is likely to be able to tolerate and comply with prolonged DAPT (Level of Evidence: A for elective PCI [233–237]; Level of Evidence: C for UA/NSTEMI [235]; Level of Evidence: A for STEMI [235,236,238–240]).

  • 3. Balloon angioplasty or BMS should be used in patients with high bleeding risk, inability to comply with 12 months of DAPT, or anticipated invasive or surgical procedures within the next 12 months, during which time DAPT may be interrupted (107,241–243). (Level of Evidence: B)

CLASS III: HARM

  • 1. PCI with coronary stenting should not be performed if the patient is not likely to be able to tolerate and comply with DAPT (107–110). (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 2. DES should not be implanted if the patient is not likely to be able to tolerate and comply with prolonged DAPT or this cannot be determined before stent implantation (107,241–243). (Level of Evidence: B)

4.4 Adjunctive Diagnostic Devices

4.4.1 Fractional Flow Reserve

CLASS IIa

  • 1. Fractional flow reserve is reasonable to assess angiographic intermediate coronary lesions (50% to 70% diameter stenosis) and can be useful for guiding revascularization decisions in patients with SIHD (89,244–247). (Level of Evidence: A)

4.4.2 Intravascular Ultrasound

CLASS IIa

  • 1. IVUS is reasonable for the assessment of angiographically indeterminant left main CAD (248–250). (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 2. IVUS and coronary angiography are reasonable 4 to 6 weeks and 1 year after cardiac transplantation to exclude donor CAD, detect rapidly progressive cardiac allograft vasculopathy, and provide prognostic information (251–253). (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 3. IVUS is reasonable to determine the mechanism of stent restenosis (254). (Level of Evidence: C)

CLASS IIb

  • 1. IVUS may be reasonable for the assessment of non–left main coronary arteries with angiographically intermediate coronary stenoses (50% to 70% diameter stenosis) (248,255,256). (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 2. IVUS may be considered for guidance of coronary stent implantation, particularly in cases of left main coronary artery stenting (249,254,257). (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 3. IVUS may be reasonable to determine the mechanism of stent thrombosis (254). (Level of Evidence: C)

CLASS III: NO BENEFIT

  • 1. IVUS for routine lesion assessment is not recommended when revascularization with PCI or CABG is not being contemplated. (Level of Evidence: C)

4.5 Adjunctive Therapeutic Devices

4.5.1 Coronary Atherectomy

CLASS IIa

  • 1. Rotational atherectomy is reasonable for fibrotic or heavily calcified lesions that might not be crossed by a balloon catheter or adequately dilated before stent implantation (258,259). (Level of Evidence: C)

CLASS III: NO BENEFIT

  • 1. Rotational atherectomy should not be performed routinely for de novo lesions or in-stent restenosis (260–263). (Level of Evidence: A)

4.5.2 Thrombectomy

CLASS IIa

  • 1. Aspiration thrombectomy is reasonable for patients undergoing primary PCI (264–266). (Level of Evidence: B)

4.5.3 Laser Angioplasty

CLASS IIb

  • 1. Laser angioplasty might be considered for fibrotic or moderately calcified lesions that cannot be crossed or dilated with conventional balloon angioplasty (267). (Level of Evidence: C)

CLASS III: NO BENEFIT

  • 1. Laser angioplasty should not be used routinely during PCI (260,262,268). (Level of Evidence: A)

4.5.4 Cutting Balloon Angioplasty

CLASS IIb

  • 1. Cutting balloon angioplasty might be considered to avoid slippage-induced coronary artery trauma during PCI for in-stent restenosis or ostial lesions in side branches (269). (Level of Evidence: C)

CLASS III: NO BENEFIT

  • 1. Cutting balloon angioplasty should not be performed routinely during PCI (260,269,270). (Level of Evidence: A)

4.5.5 Embolic Protection Devices

CLASS I

  • 1. Embolic protection devices should be used during saphenous vein graft PCI when technically feasible (271–274). (Level of Evidence: B)

4.6 Percutaneous Hemodynamic Support Devices

Table 7 contains recommendations for antiplatelet and antithrombin pharmacotherapy at the time of PCI.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 7

Recommendations for Antiplatelet and Antithrombin Pharmacotherapy at the Time of PCI

CLASS IIb

  • 1. Elective insertion of an appropriate hemodynamic support device as an adjunct to PCI may be reasonable in carefully selected high-risk patients. (Level of Evidence: C)

4.6.1 Oral Antiplatelet Therapy

CLASS I

  • 1. Patients already taking daily aspirin therapy should take 81 mg to 325 mg before PCI (150–153). (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 2. Patients not on aspirin therapy should be given nonenteric aspirin 325 mg before PCI (150,152,153). (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 3. After PCI, use of aspirin should be continued indefinitely (275-278). (Level of Evidence: A)

  • 4. A loading dose of a P2Y12 receptor inhibitor should be given to patients undergoing PCI with stenting (279–283) (Level of Evidence: A). Options include

    • a. Clopidogrel 600 mg (ACS and non-ACS patients) (279–281). (Level of Evidence: B)

    • b. Prasugrel 60 mg (ACS patients) (282). (Level of Evidence: B)

    • c. Ticagrelor 180 mg (ACS patients) (283). (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 5. The loading dose of clopidogrel for patients undergoing PCI after fibrinolytic therapy should be 300 mg within 24 hours and 600 mg more than 24 hours after receiving fibrinolytic therapy (280,284). (Level of Evidence: C)

  • 6. Patients should be counseled on the need for and risks of DAPT before placement of intracoronary stents, especially DES, and alternative therapies should be pursued if patients are unwilling or unable to comply with the recommended duration of DAPT (107). (Level of Evidence: C)

  • 7. The duration of P2Y12 inhibitor therapy after stent implantation should generally be as follows:

    • a. In patients receiving a stent (BMS or DES) during PCI for ACS, P2Y12 inhibitor therapy should be given for at least 12 months. Options include clopidogrel 75 mg daily (285), prasugrel 10 mg daily (282), and ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily (283). (Level of Evidence: B)

    • b. In patients receiving DES for a non-ACS indication, clopidogrel 75 mg daily should be given for at least 12 months if patients are not at high risk of bleeding (107,232,286). (Level of Evidence: B)

    • c. In patients receiving BMS for a non-ACS indication, clopidogrel should be given for a minimum of 1 month and ideally up to 12 months (unless the patient is at increased risk of bleeding; then it should be given for a minimum of 2 weeks) (107,287). (Level of Evidence: B)

CLASS IIa

  • 1. After PCI, it is reasonable to use aspirin 81 mg per day in preference to higher maintenance doses (151,288–291). (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 2. If the risk of morbidity from bleeding outweighs the anticipated benefit afforded by a recommended duration of P2Y12 inhibitor therapy after stent implantation, earlier discontinuation (e.g., <12 months) of P2Y12 inhibitor therapy is reasonable. (Level of Evidence: C)

CLASS IIb

  • 1. Continuation of DAPT beyond 12 months may be considered in patients undergoing DES implantation (282,283). (Level of Evidence: C)

CLASS III: HARM

  • 1. Prasugrel should not be administered to patients with a prior history of stroke or transient ischemic attack (282). (Level of Evidence: B)

4.6.2 Intravenous Antiplatelet Therapy

STEMI

CLASS IIa

  • 1. In patients undergoing primary PCI treated with unfractionated heparin (UFH), it is reasonable to administer a glycoprotein (GP) IIb/IIIa inhibitor (abciximab, double-bolus eptifibatide, or high-bolus dose tirofiban), whether or not patients were pretreated with clopidogrel (292–298). (For GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor administration in patients not pretreated with clopidogrel, Level of Evidence: A; for GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor administration in patients pretreated with clopidogrel, Level of Evidence: C)

CLASS IIb

  • 1. In patients undergoing primary PCI with abciximab, it may be reasonable to administer intracoronary abciximab (297,299–312). (Level of Evidence: B)

CLASS III: NO BENEFIT

  • 1. Routine precatheterization laboratory (e.g., ambulance or emergency room) administration of GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors as part of an upstream strategy for patients with STEMI undergoing PCI is not beneficial (313–320). (Level of Evidence: B)

UA/NSTEMI

CLASS I

  • 1. In UA/NSTEMI patients with high-risk features (e.g., elevated troponin level) not treated with bivalirudin and not adequately pretreated with clopidogrel, it is useful at the time of PCI to administer a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor (abciximab, double-bolus eptifibatide, or high-bolus dose tirofiban) in patients treated with UFH (321–326). (Level of Evidence: A)

CLASS IIa

  • 1. In UA/NSTEMI patients with high-risk features (e.g., elevated troponin level) treated with UFH and adequately pretreated with clopidogrel, it is reasonable at the time of PCI to administer a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor (abciximab, double-bolus eptifibatide, or high-bolus dose tirofiban) (324,327). (Level of Evidence: B)

SIHD

CLASS IIa

  • 1. In patients undergoing elective PCI treated with UFH and not pretreated with clopidogrel, it is reasonable to administer a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor (abciximab, double-bolus eptifibatide, or high-bolus dose tirofiban) (327–329). (Level of Evidence: B)

CLASS IIb

  • 1. In patients undergoing elective PCI with stent implantation treated with UFH and adequately pretreated with clopidogrel, it might be reasonable to administer a GP IIb/IIIa inhibitor (abciximab, double-bolus eptifibatide, or high-bolus dose tirofiban) (327,330–332). (Level of Evidence: B)

4.6.3 Anticoagulant Therapy

4.6.3.1 Use of Parenteral Anticoagulants During PCI

CLASS I

  • 1. An anticoagulant should be administered to patients undergoing PCI. (Level of Evidence: C)

4.6.3.2 Unfractionated Heparin

CLASS I

  • 1. Administration of IV UFH is useful in patients undergoing PCI. (Level of Evidence: C)

4.6.3.3 Enoxaparin

CLASS I

  • 1. An additional dose of 0.3 mg/kg IV enoxaparin should be administered at the time of PCI to patients who have received fewer than 2 therapeutic subcutaneous doses (e.g., 1 mg/kg) or received the last subcutaneous enoxaparin dose 8 to 12 hours before PCI (346,350–353). (Level of Evidence: B)

CLASS IIb

  • 1. Performance of PCI with enoxaparin may be reasonable in patients either treated with “upstream” subcutaneous enoxaparin for UA/NSTEMI or who have not received prior antithrombin therapy and are administered IV enoxaparin at the time of PCI (343–347). (Level of Evidence: B)

CLASS III: HARM

  • 1. UFH should not be given to patients already receiving therapeutic subcutaneous enoxaparin (346,354). (Level of Evidence: B)

4.6.3.4 Bivalirudin and Argatroban

CLASS I

  • 1. For patients undergoing PCI, bivalirudin is useful as an anticoagulant with or without prior treatment with UFH (333–342). (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 2. For patients with heparin-induced thrombocytopenia, it is recommended that bivalirudin or argatroban be used to replace UFH (355,356). (Level of Evidence: B)

4.6.3.5 Fondaparinux

CLASS III: HARM

  • 1. Fondaparinux should not be used as the sole anticoagulant to support PCI. An additional anticoagulant with anti-IIa activity should be administered because of the risk of catheter thrombosis (348,349). (Level of Evidence: C)

4.6.4 No-Reflow Pharmacological Therapies

CLASS IIa

  • 1. Administration of an intracoronary vasodilator (adenosine, calcium channel blocker, or nitroprusside) is reasonable to treat PCI-related no-reflow that occurs during primary or elective PCI (357–372). (Level of Evidence: B)

4.7 PCI in Specific Anatomic Situations

4.7.1 Chronic Total Occlusions

CLASS IIa

  • 1. PCI of a chronic total occlusion in patients with appropriate clinical indications and suitable anatomy is reasonable when performed by operators with appropriate expertise (373–377). (Level of Evidence: B)

4.7.2 Saphenous Vein Grafts

CLASS I

  • 1. Embolic protection devices should be used during saphenous vein graft PCI when technically feasible (271–274). (Level of Evidence: B)

CLASS III: NO BENEFIT

  • 1. Platelet GP IIb/IIIa inhibitors are not beneficial as adjunctive therapy during saphenous vein graft PCI (232,286,378,379). (Level of Evidence: B)

CLASS III: HARM

  • 1. PCI is not recommended for chronic saphenous vein graft occlusions (380–382). (Level of Evidence: C)

4.7.3 Bifurcation Lesions

CLASS I

  • 1. Provisional side-branch stenting should be the initial approach in patients with bifurcation lesions when the side branch is not large and has only mild or moderate focal disease at the ostium (383–386). (Level of Evidence: A)

CLASS IIa

  • 1. It is reasonable to use elective double stenting in patients with complex bifurcation morphology involving a large side branch where the risk of side-branch occlusion is high and the likelihood of successful side-branch reaccess is low (387–390). (Level of Evidence: B)

4.7.4 Aorto-Ostial Stenoses

CLASS IIa

  • 1. IVUS is reasonable for the assessment of angiographically indeterminant left main CAD (391,392). (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 2. Use of DES is reasonable when PCI is indicated in patients with an aorto-ostial stenosis (393,394). (Level of Evidence: B)

4.7.5 Calcified Lesions

CLASS IIa

  • 1. Rotational atherectomy is reasonable for fibrotic or heavily calcified lesions that might not be crossed by a balloon catheter or adequately dilated before stent implantation (258,259,395). (Level of Evidence: C)

4.8 PCI in Specific Patient Populations

4.8.1 Chronic Kidney Disease

CLASS I

In patients undergoing PCI, the glomerular filtration rate should be estimated and the dosage of renally cleared medications should be adjusted (147–149). (Level of Evidence: B)

4.9 Periprocedural Myocardial Infarction Assessment

CLASS I

  • 1. In patients who have signs or symptoms suggestive of myocardial infarction during or after PCI or in asymptomatic patients with significant persistent angiographic complications (e.g., large side-branch occlusion, flow-limiting dissection, no-reflow phenomenon, or coronary thrombosis), creatinine kinase-MB and troponin I or T should be measured. (Level of Evidence: C)

CLASS IIb

  • 1. Routine measurement of cardiac biomarkers (creatinine kinase-MB and/or troponin I or T) in all patients after PCI may be reasonable. (Level of Evidence: C)

4.10 Vascular Closure Devices

CLASS I

  • 1. Patients considered for vascular closure devices should undergo a femoral angiogram to ensure their anatomic suitability for deployment. (Level of Evidence: C)

CLASS IIa

  • 1. The use of vascular closure devices is reasonable for the purposes of achieving faster hemostasis and earlier ambulation compared with the use of manual compression (396–399). (Level of Evidence: B)

CLASS III: NO BENEFIT

  • 1. The routine use of vascular closure devices is not recommended for the purpose of decreasing vascular complications, including bleeding (396–401). (Level of Evidence: B)

5 Postprocedural Considerations: Recommendations

Postprocedural considerations in patients undergoing PCI are discussed below and summarized in Table 8. Some recommendations and text regarding DAPT in Section 5.7.2 of the full-text guideline (4) are intentionally repeated in this section for reader ease of use.

View this table:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 8

Postprocedural Recommendations for Patients Undergoing PCI

5.1 Postprocedural Antiplatelet Therapy

CLASS I

  • 1. After PCI, use of aspirin should be continued indefinitely (275–278). (Level of Evidence: A)

  • 2. The duration of P2Y12 inhibitor therapy after stent implantation should generally be as follows:

    • a. In patients receiving a stent (BMS or DES) during PCI for ACS, P2Y12 inhibitor therapy should be given for at least 12 months. Options include clopidogrel 75 mg daily (285), prasugrel 10 mg daily (282), and ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily (283). (Level of Evidence: B)

    • b. In patients receiving DES for a non-ACS indication, clopidogrel 75 mg daily should be given for at least 12 months if the patient is not at high risk of bleeding (107,232,286). (Level of Evidence: B)

    • c. In patients receiving BMS for a non-ACS indication, clopidogrel should be given for a minimum of 1 month and ideally up to 12 months (unless the patient is at increased risk of bleeding; then it should be given for a minimum of 2 weeks) (287). (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 3. Patients should be counseled on the importance of compliance with DAPT and that therapy should not be discontinued before discussion with their cardiologist (107). (Level of Evidence: C)

CLASS IIa

  • 1. After PCI, it is reasonable to use aspirin 81 mg per day in preference to higher maintenance doses (151,288–291). (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 2. If the risk of morbidity from bleeding outweighs the anticipated benefit afforded by a recommended duration of P2Y12 inhibitor therapy after stent implantation, earlier discontinuation (e.g., <12 months) of P2Y12 inhibitor therapy is reasonable. (Level of Evidence: C)

CLASS IIb

  • 1. Continuation of clopidogrel, prasugrel or ticagrelor beyond 12 months may be considered in patients undergoing placement of DES (282,283). (Level of Evidence: C)

5.1.1 Proton Pump Inhibitors and Antiplatelet Therapy

CLASS I

  • 1. Proton pump inhibitors should be used in patients with a history of prior gastrointestinal bleeding who require DAPT (402). (Level of Evidence: C)

CLASS IIa

  • 1. Use of proton pump inhibitors is reasonable in patients with an increased risk of gastrointestinal bleeding (e.g., advanced age, concomitant use of warfarin, steroids, nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, Helicobacter pylori infection) who require DAPT (402). (Level of Evidence: C)

CLASS III: NO BENEFIT

  • 1. Routine use of a proton pump inhibitor is not recommended for patients at low risk of gastrointestinal bleeding, who have much less potential to benefit from prophylactic therapy (402). (Level of Evidence: C)

5.1.2 Clopidogrel Genetic Testing

CLASS IIb

  • 1. Genetic testing might be considered to identify whether a patient at high risk for poor clinical outcomes is predisposed to inadequate platelet inhibition with clopidogrel (434). (Level of Evidence: C)

  • 2. When a patient predisposed to inadequate platelet inhibition with clopidogrel is identified by genetic testing, treatment with an alternate P2Y12 inhibitor (e.g., prasugrel or ticagrelor) might be considered (434). (Level of Evidence: C)

CLASS III: NO BENEFIT

  • 1. The routine clinical use of genetic testing to screen patients treated with clopidogrel who are undergoing PCI is not recommended (434). (Level of Evidence: C)

5.1.3 Platelet Function Testing

CLASS IIb

  • 1. Platelet function testing may be considered in patients at high risk for poor clinical outcomes (434). (Level of Evidence: C)

  • 2. In patients treated with clopidogrel with high platelet reactivity, alternative agents, such as prasugrel or ticagrelor, might be considered (434). (Level of Evidence: C)

CLASS III: NO BENEFIT

  • 1. The routine clinical use of platelet function testing to screen patients treated with clopidogrel who are undergoing PCI is not recommended (434). (Level of Evidence: C)

5.2 Restenosis

CLASS I

  • 1. Patients who develop clinical restenosis after balloon angioplasty should be treated with BMS or DES if anatomic factors are appropriate and if the patient is able to comply with and tolerate DAPT (435). (Level of Evidence: B)

  • 2. Patients who develop clinical restenosis after BMS should be treated with DES if anatomic factors are appropriate and the patient is able to comply with and tolerate DAPT (436–438). (Level of Evidence: A)

CLASS IIa

  • 1. IVUS is reasonable to determine the mechanism of stent restenosis (254). (Level of Evidence: C)

CLASS IIb

  • 1. Patients who develop clinical restenosis after DES may be considered for repeat PCI with balloon angioplasty, BMS, or DES containing the same drug or an alternative antiproliferative drug if anatomic factors are appropriate and the patient is able to comply with and tolerate DAPT (254). (Level of Evidence: C)

5.2.1 Exercise Testing

CLASS IIa

  • 1. In patients entering a formal cardiac rehabilitation program after PCI, treadmill exercise testing is reasonable. (Level of Evidence: C)

CLASS III: NO BENEFIT

  • 1. Routine periodic stress testing of asymptomatic patients after PCI without specific clinical indications should not be performed (403). (Level of Evidence: C)

5.2.2 Cardiac Rehabilitation

CLASS I

  • 1. Medically supervised exercise programs (cardiac rehabilitation) should be recommended to patients after PCI, particularly for moderate- to high-risk patients for whom supervised exercise training is warranted (404–412). (Level of Evidence: A)

6 Quality and Performance Considerations: Recommendations

6.1 Quality and Performance

CLASS I

  • 1. Every PCI program should operate a quality-improvement program that routinely 1) reviews quality and outcomes of the entire program; 2) reviews results of individual operators; 3) includes risk adjustment; 4) provides peer review of difficult or complicated cases; and 5) performs random case reviews. (Level of Evidence: C)

  • 2. Every PCI program should participate in a regional or national PCI registry for the purpose of benchmarking its outcomes against current national norms. (Level of Evidence: C)

6.2 Certification and Maintenance of Certification

CLASS IIa

  • 1. It is reasonable for all physicians who perform PCI to participate in the American Board of Internal Medicine interventional cardiology board certification and maintenance of certification program. (Level of Evidence: C)

6.3 Operator and Institutional Competency and Volume

CLASS I

  • 1. Elective/urgent PCI should be performed by operators with an acceptable annual volume (≥75 procedures) at high-volume centers (>400 procedures) with on-site cardiac surgery (439,440). (Level of Evidence: C)

  • 2. Elective/urgent PCI should be performed by operators and institutions whose current risk-adjusted outcomes statistics are comparable to those reported in contemporary national data registries. (Level of Evidence: C)

  • 3. Primary PCI for STEMI should be performed by experienced operators who perform more than 75 elective PCI procedures per year and, ideally, at least 11 PCI procedures for STEMI per year. Ideally, these procedures should be performed in institutions that perform more than 400 elective PCIs per year and more than 36 primary PCI procedures for STEMI per year (439,441–444). (Level of Evidence: C)

CLASS IIa

  • 1. It is reasonable that operators with acceptable volume (≥75 PCI procedures per year) perform elective/urgent PCI at low-volume centers (200 to 400 PCI procedures per year) with on-site cardiac surgery (439). (Level of Evidence: C)

  • 2. It is reasonable that low-volume operators (<75 PCI procedures per year) perform elective/urgent PCI at high-volume centers (>400 PCI procedures per year) with on-site cardiac surgery. Ideally, operators with an annual procedure volume of fewer than 75 procedures per year should only work at institutions with an activity level of more than 600 procedures per year. Operators who perform fewer than 75 procedures per year should develop a defined mentoring relationship with a highly experienced operator who has an annual procedural volume of at least 150 procedures. (Level of Evidence: C)

CLASS IIb

  • 1. The benefit of primary PCI for STEMI patients eligible for fibrinolysis when performed by an operator who performs fewer than 75 procedures per year (<11 PCIs for STEMI per year) is not well established. (Level of Evidence: C)

CLASS III: NO BENEFIT

  • 1. It is not recommended that elective/urgent PCI be performed by low-volume operators (<75 procedures per year) at low-volume centers (200 to 400 procedures per year) with or without on-site cardiac surgery. An institution with a volume of fewer than 200 procedures per year, unless in a region that is underserved because of geography, should carefully consider whether it should continue to offer this service (439). (Level of Evidence: C)

Staff

American College of Cardiology Foundation

David R. Holmes, Jr., MD, FACC, President

John C. Lewin, MD, Chief Executive Officer

Janet Wright, MD, FACC, Senior Vice President, Science and Quality

Charlene May, Senior Director, Science and Clinical Policy

Erin A. Barrett, MPS, Senior Specialist, Science and Clinical Policy

American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association

Lisa Bradfield, CAE, Director, Science and Clinical Policy

Sue Keller, BSN, MPH, Senior Specialist, Evidence-Based Medicine

Jesse M. Welsh, Specialist, Science and Clinical Policy

Debjani Mukherjee, MPH, Associate Director, Evidence-Based Medicine

American Heart Association

Ralph L. Sacco, MS, MD, FAAN, FAHA, President

Nancy Brown, Chief Executive Officer

Rose Marie Robertson, MD, FAHA, Chief Science Officer

Gayle R. Whitman, PhD, RN, FAHA, FAAN, Senior Vice President, Office of Science Operations

Mark D. Stewart, MPH, Science and Medicine Advisor, Office of Science and Medicine(154)

Appendix 1. Author Relationships With Industry and Other Entities (Relevant)—2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Committee MemberEmployer/TitleConsultantSpeaker's BureauOwnership/ Partnership/ PrincipalPersonal ResearchInstitutional, Organizational, or Other Financial BenefitExpert WitnessVoting Recusals by Section Number⁎
Glenn N. Levine (Chair)Baylor College of Medicine—Professor of Medicine; Director, Cardiac Care UnitNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
Eric R. Bates (Vice Chair)University of Michigan—Professor of Medicine
  • • Bristol-Myers Squibb

  • • Daiichi-Sankyo

  • • Datascope

  • • Eli Lilly

  • • Merck

  • • Sanofi-aventis

NoneNoneNoneNoneNone
  • 5.7.2

  • 5.7.3

  • 5.7.4.1

  • 5.7.4.2

  • 5.7.4.3

  • 5.7.4.4

  • 5.7.4.5

  • 6.1

  • 6.1.2

  • 6.1.3

James C. Blankenship (Vice Chair)Geisinger Medical Center—Director of Cardiology and Cardiac Catheterization LaboratoriesNoneNoneNone
  • • Abiomed

  • • AstraZeneca

  • • Boston Scientific

  • • Conor Medsystems

  • • Kai Pharmaceutical

  • • Schering-Plough

NoneNone
  • 2.1

  • 2.2

  • 2.3

  • 2.9.7

  • 2.11

  • 5.2.4

  • 5.3

  • 5.4.1

  • 5.4.2

  • 5.8.4

  • 6.3

Steven R. BaileyUniversity of Texas Medical Center—Professor of Medicine and Radiology
  • • Volcano

NoneNone
  • • Boston Scientific

NoneNone
  • 5.4.1

  • 5.4.2

John A. BittlMunroe Heart—Interventional CardiologistNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
Bojan CercekCedars-Sinai Medical Center—Director, Coronary Care UnitNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
Charles E. ChambersPenn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center—Professor of Medicine and RadiologyNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
Stephen G. EllisCleveland Clinic Foundation—Section Head, Invasive and Interventional Cardiology
  • • Abbott Vascular

  • • Boston Scientific

  • • Cordis

  • • Daiichi-Sankyo

  • • Eli Lilly

NoneNone
  • • Abbott Vascular

NoneNone
  • 2.2

  • 2.11

  • 5.7.2

  • 6.1

Robert A. GuytonEmory Clinic, Inc.—Professor and Chief, Division of Cardiothoracic SurgeryNoneNoneNone
  • • Edwards Lifesciences

NoneNone
  • 2.1

  • 2.2

  • 2.3

  • 2.9.7

  • 2.11

  • 5.2.4

  • 5.3

  • 5.5.5

  • 6.2

  • 6.3

Steven M. HollenbergCooper University Hospital—Director, Coronary Care Unit
  • • Eisai

NoneNoneNoneNoneNone5.7.4.3
Umesh N. KhotCV Research Innovations, LLC—President/CEONoneNone
  • • Merck†

NoneNoneNone
  • 4.6

  • 5.7.3

Richard A. LangeUniversity of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio—Professor of MedicineNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
Laura MauriBrigham and Women's Hospital—Associate Professor of Medicine, Harvard Medical School
  • • Abbott

  • • Conor Medsystems (Johnson & Johnson)

  • • Cordis

  • • Medtronic

NoneNone
  • • Lutonix

  • • Abbott

  • • Abiomed

  • • Boston Scientific

  • • Bristol-Myers Squibb

  • • Conor Medsystems

  • • Cordis

  • • Daiichi-Sankyo

  • • Eli Lilly

  • • Medtronic Cardiovascular

  • • Sanofi-aventis

  • • Defendant, Conor, interpretation of clinical trial results, 2010

  • 2.9.7

  • 5.2.3

  • 5.3

  • 5.4.2

  • 5.5.1

  • 5.5.2

  • 5.5.4

  • 5.5.5

  • 5.6

  • 5.7.2

  • 5.7.3

  • 5.8.2

  • 5.8.4

  • 5.8.5

  • 5.11

  • 6.1

  • 6.1.2

  • 6.1.3

  • 6.2

Roxana MehranColumbia University Medical Center—Associate Professor of Medicine; Director, Data Coordinating Analysis Center
  • • Abbott Vascular

  • • Abiomed

  • • AlphaMedical

  • • AstraZeneca

  • • Bracco

  • • BMS/sanofi-aventis

  • • DataScope

  • • Eli Lilly/Daichii- Sankyo

  • • Guerbet

  • • The Medicines Company

  • • Medtronic Vascular

  • • St. Jude

NoneNoneNoneNoneNone
  • 4.7

  • 5.1

  • 5.2.4

  • 5.3

  • 5.4.1

  • 5.4.2

  • 5.5.1

  • 5.5.2

  • 5.6

  • 5.7.2

  • 5.7.3

  • 5.7.4.1

  • 5.7.4.2

  • 5.7.4.3

  • 5.7.4.4

  • 5.7.4.5

  • 5.8.3

  • 5.8.4

  • 5.11

  • 6.1

  • 6.1.1

  • 6.1.2

  • 6.1.3

Issam D. MoussaMayo Clinic—Professor of Medicine; Chair, Division of Cardiovascular DiseasesNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
Debabrata MukherjeeTexas Tech University—Chief, Cardiovascular MedicineNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
Brahmajee K. NallamothuUniversity of Michigan—Assistant Professor of MedicineNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
Henry H. TingMayo Clinic—Professor of Medicine; Assistant Dean for QualityNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone

This table represents the relationships of committee members with industry and other entities that were determined to be relevant to this document. These relationships were reviewed and updated in conjunction with all meetings and/or conference calls of the writing committee during the document development process. The table does not necessarily reflect relationships with industry at the time of publication. A person is deemed to have a significant interest in a business if the interest represents ownership of ≥5% of the voting stock or share of the business entity, or ownership of ≥$10,000 of the fair market value of the business entity; or if funds received by the person from the business entity exceed 5% of the person's gross income for the previous year. Relationships that exist with no financial benefit are also included for the purpose of transparency. Relationships in this table are modest unless otherwise noted.

According to the ACCF/AHA, a person has a relevant relationship IF: a) The relationship or interest relates to the same or similar subject matter, intellectual property or asset, topic, or issue addressed in the document; or b) The company/entity (with whom the relationship exists) makes a drug, drug class, or device addressed in the document, or makes a competing drug or device addressed in the document; or c) The person or a member of the person's household has a reasonable potential for financial, professional, or other personal gain or loss as a result of the issues/content addressed in the document.

  • ↵⁎ Writing committee members are required to recuse themselves from voting on sections to which their specific relationships with industry and other entities may apply. Section numbers apply to the full-text guideline.

  • ↵† Significant relationship.

  • Appendix 2. Reviewer Relationships With Industry and Other Entities (Relevant)—2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

    Peer ReviewerRepresentationConsultantSpeaker's BureauOwnership/ Partnership/ PrincipalPersonal ResearchInstitutional, Organizational, or Other Financial BenefitExpert Witness
    Deepak L. BhattOfficial Reviewer—AHANoneNoneNone
    • • AstraZeneca⁎

    • • Bristol-Myers Squibb⁎

    • • Eisai⁎

    • • Eli Lilly

    • • Ethicon⁎

    • • The Medicines Company⁎

    • • PLx Pharma†

    • • Sanofi-aventis⁎

    NoneNone
    Mauricio G. CohenOfficial Reviewer—AHA
    • • AstraZeneca⁎

    • • Momenta Pharma

    • • Xoma

    • • Terumo Medical

    None
    • • Invitrox⁎

    NoneNone
    John P. Erwin IIIOfficial Reviewer—ACCF/AHA Task Force on Performance MeasuresNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
    Kirk GarrattOfficial Reviewer—SCAI
    • • Boston Scientific

    • • Cordis/Johnson & Johnson

    • • The Medicines Company

    • • Boston Scientific

    • • BMS/sanofi-aventis⁎

    • • Daiichi-Sankyo/Eli Lilly⁎

    • • Medtronic

    • • The Medicines Company

    • • Abbott Vascular

    • • Boston Scientific

    NoneNoneNone
    Steven L. GoldbergOfficial Reviewer—SCAI
    • • AGA

    • • Bristol-Myers Squibb

    • • Sanofi-aventis

    NoneNoneNone
    • • Plaintiff, patient litigation, 2010

    Alice K. JacobsOfficial Reviewer—ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice GuidelinesNoneNone
    • • Wyeth⁎

    • • Abbott Vascular⁎

    • • Abiomed⁎

    • • Accumetrics⁎

    • • Cardiovascular Research Foundation (DSMB)†

    • • Harvard Clinical Research Institute†

    • • TIMI Study Group (DSMB)†

    NoneNone
    G.B. John ManciniOfficial Reviewer—ACCF Board of Governors
    • • GlaxoSmithKline

    • • Merck

    • • Pfizer

    • • Sanofi-aventis

    NoneNone
    • • Merck⁎

    NoneNone
    W. Douglas WeaverOfficial Reviewer—ACCF Board of TrusteesNoneNoneNone
    • • Boehringher Ingelheim (DSMB)

    • • Boston Scientific (DSMB)

    • • Duke Clinical Research Institute (Johnson & Johnson/Schering Plough)⁎

    • • GlaxoSmithKline

    • • NHLBI (DSMB)

    • • TIMI Study Group (Johnson & Johnson/Bayer–DSMB)

    NoneNone
    Thomas M. BashoreContent ReviewerNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
    Christopher E. BullerContent Reviewer
    • • Abbott Vascular

    • • Toshiba Medical

    NoneNone
    • • Novartis

    • • Regado Biosciences

    NoneNone
    James A. BurkeContent Reviewer—ACCF Interventional Scientific CouncilNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
    John G. ByrneContent Reviewer—ACCF Surgeons' Scientific Council
    • • Edwards Lifesciences

    NoneNoneNoneNoneNone
    T. Bruce FergusonContent Reviewer—ACCF Surgeons' Scientific CouncilNoneNoneNone
    • • Novadaq Technologies⁎

    NoneNone
    Victor A. FerrariContent ReviewerNoneNoneNone
    • • NHLBI (DSMB)†

    • • National Institute for Aging/NIH (DSMB)†

    NoneNone
    John G. HaroldContent ReviewerNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
    Biswajit KarContent ReviewerNoneNoneNone
    • • AstraZeneca†

    • • Boston Scientific†

    • • Medtronic†

    • • Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study†

    None
    Morton J. KernContent Reviewer
    • • Infraredex

    • • Merit Medical⁎

    • • St. Jude Medical⁎

    • • Volcano Therapeutics⁎

    NoneNoneNoneNone
    Spencer B. King IIIContent Reviewer
    • • Celonova Biosciences†

    NoneNone
    • • Merck (DSMB)

    • • Wyeth (DSMB)

    NoneNone
    Frederick G. KushnerContent ReviewerNoneNoneNone
    • • Novartis†

    NoneNone
    David J. MaronContent ReviewerNoneNone
    • • Cardiovascular Care Affiliates⁎

    NoneNone
    • • Plaintiff, acute coronary syndrome, 2010

    Douglass A. MorrisonContent ReviewerNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
    Thomas C. PiemonteContent Reviewer—ACCF Board of GovernorsNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
    • • Defendant, stent perforation, 2010

    Peter K. SmithContent Reviewer
    • • Eli Lilly

    NoneNoneNoneNoneNone
    Sidney C. SmithContent ReviewerNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
    Richard W. SnyderContent Reviewer—ACCF Board of GovernorsNoneNoneNoneNone
    • • Hospital Corporation of America

    None
    Patrick L. WhitlowContent Reviewer
    • • Edwards Lifesciences⁎

    • • eValve⁎

    • • Medtronic⁎

    NoneNoneNone
    • • ICON

    None
    David O. WilliamsContent Reviewer
    • • Light Lab/St. Jude Medical

    NoneNoneNoneNoneNone
    R. Scott WrightContent Reviewer
    • • Hoffman LaRoche⁎

    NoneNoneNoneNoneNone

    This table represents the relationships of reviewers with industry and other entities that were disclosed at the time of peer review and determined to be relevant. It does not necessarily reflect relationships with industry at the time of publication. A person is deemed to have a significant interest in a business if the interest represents ownership of ≥5% of the voting stock or share of the business entity, or ownership of ≥$10,000 of the fair market value of the business entity; or if funds received by the person from the business entity exceed 5% of the person's gross income for the previous year. A relationship is considered to be modest if it is less than significant under the preceding definition. Relationships that exist with no financial benefit are also included for the purpose of transparency. Relationships in this table are modest unless otherwise noted. Names are listed in alphabetical order within each category of review.

    According to the ACCF/AHA, a person has a relevant relationship IF: a) The relationship or interest relates to the same or similar subject matter, intellectual property or asset, topic, or issue addressed in the document; or b) The company/entity (with whom the relationship exists) makes a drug, drug class, or device addressed in the document, or makes a competing drug or device addressed in the document; or c) The person or a member of the person's household has a reasonable potential for financial, professional, or other personal gain or loss as a result of the issues/content addressed in the document.

    ACCF indicates American College of Cardiology Foundation; AHA, American Heart Association; DSMB, data safety and monitoring board; NHLBI, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute; NIH, National Institutes of Health; SCAI, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions; and TIMI, Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction.

  • ↵⁎ Significant relationship.

  • ↵† No financial benefit.

  • Footnotes

    • ↵⁎ Writing committee members are required to recuse themselves from voting on sections to which their specific relationships with industry and other entities may apply; see Appendix 1 for recusal information.

    • ↵† ACCF/AHA Representative.

    • ↵‡ SCAI Representative.

    • ↵§ Joint Revascularization Section Author.

    • ↵∥ ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines Liaison.

    • ↵¶ ACCF/AHA Task Force on Performance Measures Liaison.

    • This document was approved by the American College of Cardiology Foundation Board of Trustees and the American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee in July 2011 and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography Interventions in August 2011.

    • The American College of Cardiology Foundation requests that this document be cited as follows: Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, Bailey SR, Bittl JA, Cercek B, Chambers CE, Ellis SG, Guyton RA, Hollenberg SM, Khot UN, Lange RA, Mauri L, Mehran R, Moussa ID, Mukherjee D, Nallamothu BK, Ting HH. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography Interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;58:2550–83.

    • This article is copublished in Circulation and Catheterization and Cardiovascular Interventions.

    • Copies: This document is available on the World Wide Web sites of the American College of Cardiology (www.cardiosource.org), the American Heart Association (my.americanheart.org), and the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions (www.scai.org). For copies of this document, please contact Elsevier Inc. Reprint Department, fax (212) 633-3820, e-mail reprints{at}elsevier.com.

    • Permissions: Multiple copies, modification, alteration, enhancement, and/or distribution of this document are not permitted without the express permission of the American College of Cardiology Foundation. Please contact healthpermissions{at}elsevier.com.

    • American College of Cardiology Foundation and the American Heart Association, Inc.

    References

    1. 1.↵
      1. ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines
      Methodologies and Policies from the ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines. http://circ.ahajournals.org/site/manual/index.xhtml http://assets.cardiosource.com/Methodology_Manual_for_ACC_AHA_Writing_Committees.pdf. Accessed July 1, 2011.
    2. 2.↵
      1. Institute of Medicine
      (2011) Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC).
    3. 3.
      1. Institute of Medicine
      (2011) Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC).
    4. 4.↵
      Levine GN, Bates ER, Blankenship JC, et al. 2011 ACCF/AHA/SCAI guideline for percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol, published online before print November 7, 2011, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2011.08.007. Accessed November 7, 2011.
    5. 5.↵
      1. Feit F.,
      2. Brooks M.M.,
      3. Sopko G.,
      4. et al.,
      5. BARI Investigators
      (2000) Long-term clinical outcome in the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation Registry: comparison with the randomized trial. Circulation 101:2795–2802.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    6. 6.
      1. King S.B.I.,
      2. Barnhart H.X.,
      3. Kosinski A.S.,
      4. et al.,
      5. Emory Angioplasty versus Surgery Trial Investigators
      (1997) Angioplasty or surgery for multivessel coronary artery disease: comparison of eligible registry and randomized patients in the EAST trial and influence of treatment selection on outcomes. Am J Cardiol 79:1453–1459.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    7. 7.↵
      1. Serruys P.W.,
      2. Morice M.C.,
      3. Kappetein A.P.,
      4. et al.
      (2009) Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 360:961–972.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    8. 8.↵
      1. Chakravarty T.,
      2. Buch M.H.,
      3. Naik H.,
      4. et al.
      (2011) Predictive accuracy of SYNTAX score for predicting long-term outcomes of unprotected left main coronary artery revascularization. Am J Cardiol 107:360–366.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    9. 9.
      1. Grover F.L.,
      2. Shroyer A.L.,
      3. Hammermeister K.,
      4. et al.
      (2001) A decade's experience with quality improvement in cardiac surgery using the Veterans Affairs and Society of Thoracic Surgeons national databases. Ann Surg 234:464–472.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    10. 10.
      1. Kim Y.H.,
      2. Park D.W.,
      3. Kim W.J.,
      4. et al.
      (2010) Validation of SYNTAX (Synergy between PCI with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery) score for prediction of outcomes after unprotected left main coronary revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 3:612–623.
      OpenUrl
    11. 11.↵
      1. Morice M.C.,
      2. Serruys P.W.,
      3. Kappetein A.P.,
      4. et al.
      (2010) Outcomes in patients with de novo left main disease treated with either percutaneous coronary intervention using paclitaxel-eluting stents or coronary artery bypass graft treatment in the Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial. Circulation 121:2645–2653.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    12. 12.
      1. Shahian D.M.,
      2. O'Brien S.M.,
      3. Filardo G.,
      4. et al.
      (2009) The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2008 cardiac surgery risk models: part 1—coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 88(Suppl 1):S2–S22.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    13. 13.
      1. Shahian D.M.,
      2. O'Brien S.M.,
      3. Normand S.L.,
      4. et al.
      (2010) Association of hospital coronary artery bypass volume with processes of care, mortality, morbidity, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons composite quality score. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 139:273–282.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    14. 14.
      1. Welke K.F.,
      2. Peterson E.D.,
      3. Vaughan-Sarrazin M.S.,
      4. et al.
      (2007) Comparison of cardiac surgery volumes and mortality rates between the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and Medicare databases from 1993 through 2001. Ann Thorac Surg 84:1538–1546.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    15. 15.↵
      1. Caracciolo E.A.,
      2. Davis K.B.,
      3. Sopko G.,
      4. et al.
      (1995) Comparison of surgical and medical group survival in patients with left main coronary artery disease. Long-term CASS experience. Circulation 91:2325–2334.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    16. 16.
      1. Chaitman B.R.,
      2. Fisher L.D.,
      3. Bourassa M.G.,
      4. et al.
      (1981) Effect of coronary bypass surgery on survival patterns in subsets of patients with left main coronary artery disease. Report of the Collaborative Study in Coronary Artery Surgery (CASS). Am J Cardiol 48:765–777.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    17. 17.↵
      1. Dzavik V.,
      2. Ghali W.A.,
      3. Norris C.,
      4. et al.
      (2001) Long-term survival in 11,661 patients with multivessel coronary artery disease in the era of stenting: a report from the Alberta Provincial Project for Outcome Assessment in Coronary Heart Disease (APPROACH) Investigators. Am Heart J 142:119–126.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    18. 18.
      1. Takaro T.,
      2. Hultgren H.N.,
      3. Lipton M.J.,
      4. et al.
      (1976) The VA cooperative randomized study of surgery for coronary arterial occlusive disease II: Subgroup with significant left main lesions. Circulation 54:III107–III117.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    19. 19.
      1. Takaro T.,
      2. Peduzzi P.,
      3. Detre K.M.,
      4. et al.
      (1982) Survival in subgroups of patients with left main coronary artery disease: Veterans Administration Cooperative Study of Surgery for Coronary Arterial Occlusive Disease. Circulation 66:14–22.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    20. 20.
      1. Taylor H.A.,
      2. Deumite N.J.,
      3. Chaitman B.R.,
      4. et al.
      (1989) Asymptomatic left main coronary artery disease in the Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS) registry. Circulation 79:1171–1179.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    21. 21.↵
      1. Yusuf S.,
      2. Zucker D.,
      3. Peduzzi P.,
      4. et al.
      (1994) 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 344:563–570.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    22. 22.
      1. Capodanno D.,
      2. Caggegi A.,
      3. Miano M.,
      4. et al.
      (2011) Global risk classification and Clinical SYNTAX (Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery) score in patients undergoing percutaneous or surgical left main revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 4:287–297.
      OpenUrl
    23. 23.↵
      1. Hannan E.L.,
      2. Wu C.,
      3. Walford G.,
      4. et al.
      (2008) Drug-eluting stents vs coronary-artery bypass grafting in multivessel coronary disease. N Engl J Med 358:331–341.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    24. 24.↵
      1. Ellis S.G.,
      2. Tamai H.,
      3. Nobuyoshi M.,
      4. et al.
      (1997) Contemporary percutaneous treatment of unprotected left main coronary stenoses: initial results from a multicenter registry analysis 1994–1996. Circulation 96:3867–3872.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    25. 25.
      1. Biondi-Zoccai G.G.,
      2. Lotrionte M.,
      3. Moretti C.,
      4. et al.
      (2008) A collaborative systematic review and meta-analysis on 1278 patients undergoing percutaneous drug-eluting stenting for unprotected left main coronary artery disease. Am Heart J 155:274–283.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    26. 26.
      1. Boudriot E.,
      2. Thiele H.,
      3. Walther T.,
      4. et al.
      (2011) Randomized comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention with sirolimus-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in unprotected left main stem stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 57:538–545.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    27. 27.
      1. Brener S.J.,
      2. Galla J.M.,
      3. Bryant R.I.,
      4. et al.
      (2008) Comparison of percutaneous versus surgical revascularization of severe unprotected left main coronary stenosis in matched patients. Am J Cardiol 101:169–172.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    28. 28.
      1. Buszman P.E.,
      2. Kiesz S.R.,
      3. Bochenek A.,
      4. et al.
      (2008) Acute and late outcomes of unprotected left main stenting in comparison with surgical revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol 51:538–545.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    29. 29.
      1. Chieffo A.,
      2. Magni V.,
      3. Latib A.,
      4. et al.
      (2010) 5-year outcomes following percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stent implantation versus coronary artery bypass graft for unprotected left main coronary artery lesions: the Milan experience. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 3:595–601.
      OpenUrl
    30. 30.
      1. Chieffo A.,
      2. Morici N.,
      3. Maisano F.,
      4. et al.
      (2006) Percutaneous treatment with drug-eluting stent implantation versus bypass surgery for unprotected left main stenosis: a single-center experience. Circulation 113:2542–2547.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    31. 31.
      1. Lee M.S.,
      2. Kapoor N.,
      3. Jamal F.,
      4. et al.
      (2006) Comparison of coronary artery bypass surgery with percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents for unprotected left main coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 47:864–870.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    32. 32.
      1. Makikallio T.H.,
      2. Niemela M.,
      3. Kervinen K.,
      4. et al.
      (2008) Coronary angioplasty in drug eluting stent era for the treatment of unprotected left main stenosis compared to coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Med 40:437–443.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    33. 33.
      1. Naik H.,
      2. White A.J.,
      3. Chakravarty T.,
      4. et al.
      (2009) A meta-analysis of 3,773 patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention or surgery for unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2:739–747.
      OpenUrl
    34. 34.
      1. Palmerini T.,
      2. Marzocchi A.,
      3. Marrozzini C.,
      4. et al.
      (2006) Comparison between coronary angioplasty and coronary artery bypass surgery for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery stenosis (the Bologna Registry). Am J Cardiol 98:54–59.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    35. 35.
      1. Park D.W.,
      2. Seung K.B.,
      3. Kim Y.H.,
      4. et al.
      (2010) Long-term safety and efficacy of stenting versus coronary artery bypass grafting for unprotected left main coronary artery disease: 5-year results from the MAIN-COMPARE (Revascularization for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Artery Stenosis: Comparison of Percutaneous Coronary Angioplasty Versus Surgical Revascularization) registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 56:117–124.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    36. 36.
      1. Rodes-Cabau J.,
      2. Deblois J.,
      3. Bertrand O.F.,
      4. et al.
      (2008) Nonrandomized comparison of coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention for the treatment of unprotected left main coronary artery disease in octogenarians. Circulation 118:2374–2381.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    37. 37.
      1. Sanmartin M.,
      2. Baz J.A.,
      3. Claro R.,
      4. et al.
      (2007) Comparison of drug-eluting stents versus surgery for unprotected left main coronary artery disease. Am J Cardiol 100:970–973.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    38. 38.
      1. Kappetein A.P.,
      2. Mohr F.W.,
      3. Feldman T.E.,
      4. et al.
      (2011) Comparison of coronary bypass surgery with drug-eluting stenting for the treatment of left main and/or three-vessel disease: 3-year follow-up of the SYNTAX trial. Eur Heart J 17:2125–2134.
      OpenUrl
    39. 39.
      1. Seung K.B.,
      2. Park D.W.,
      3. Kim Y.H.,
      4. et al.
      (2008) Stents versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for left main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 358:1781–1792.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    40. 40.
      1. White A.J.,
      2. Kedia G.,
      3. Mirocha J.M.,
      4. et al.
      (2008) Comparison of coronary artery bypass surgery and percutaneous drug-eluting stent implantation for treatment of left main coronary artery stenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 1:236–245.
      OpenUrl
    41. 41.
      1. Montalescot G.,
      2. Brieger D.,
      3. Eagle K.A.,
      4. et al.
      (2009) Unprotected left main revascularization in patients with acute coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J 30:2308–2317.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    42. 42.
      1. Lee M.S.,
      2. Tseng C.H.,
      3. Barker C.M.,
      4. et al.
      (2008) Outcome after surgery and percutaneous intervention for cardiogenic shock and left main disease. Ann Thorac Surg 86:29–34.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    43. 43.
      1. Lee M.S.,
      2. Bokhoor P.,
      3. Park S.J.,
      4. et al.
      (2010) Unprotected left main coronary disease and ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a contemporary review and argument for percutaneous coronary intervention. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 3:791–795.
      OpenUrl
    44. 44.
      1. Park S.J.,
      2. Kim Y.H.,
      3. Park D.W.,
      4. et al.
      (2011) Randomized trial of stents versus bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 364:1718–1727.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    45. 45.↵
      1. Jones R.H.,
      2. Kesler K.,
      3. Phillips H.R. III.,
      4. et al.
      (1996) Long-term survival benefits of coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous transluminal angioplasty in patients with coronary artery disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 111:1013–1025.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    46. 46.
      1. Myers W.O.,
      2. Schaff H.V.,
      3. Gersh B.J.,
      4. et al.
      (1989) Improved survival of surgically treated patients with triple vessel coronary artery disease and severe angina pectoris: A report from the Coronary Artery Surgery Study (CASS) registry. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 97:487–495.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    47. 47.
      1. Varnauskas E.
      (1988) Twelve-year follow-up of survival in the randomized European Coronary Surgery Study. N Engl J Med 319:332–337.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    48. 48.↵
      1. Smith P.K.,
      2. Califf R.M.,
      3. Tuttle R.H.,
      4. et al.
      (2006) Selection of surgical or percutaneous coronary intervention provides differential longevity benefit. Ann Thorac Surg 82:1420–1428.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    49. 49.↵
      1. Borger van der Burg A.E.,
      2. Bax J.J.,
      3. Boersma E.,
      4. et al.
      (2003) Impact of percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting on outcome after nonfatal cardiac arrest outside the hospital. Am J Cardiol 91:785–789.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    50. 50.
      1. Every N.R.,
      2. Fahrenbruch C.E.,
      3. Hallstrom A.P.,
      4. et al.
      (1992) Influence of coronary bypass surgery on subsequent outcome of patients resuscitated from out of hospital cardiac arrest. J Am Coll Cardiol 19:1435–1439.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    51. 51.
      1. Kaiser G.A.,
      2. Ghahramani A.,
      3. Bolooki H.,
      4. et al.
      (1975) Role of coronary artery surgery in patients surviving unexpected cardiac arrest. Surgery 78:749–754.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    52. 52.↵
      1. Di Carli M.F.,
      2. Maddahi J.,
      3. Rokhsar S.,
      4. et al.
      (1998) Long-term survival of patients with coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction: implications for the role of myocardial viability assessment in management decisions. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 116:997–1004.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    53. 53.
      1. Hachamovitch R.,
      2. Hayes S.W.,
      3. Friedman J.D.,
      4. et al.
      (2003) 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 107:2900–2907.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    54. 54.↵
      1. Sorajja P.,
      2. Chareonthaitawee P.,
      3. Rajagopalan N.,
      4. et al.
      (2005) Improved survival in asymptomatic diabetic patients with high-risk SPECT imaging treated with coronary artery bypass grafting. Circulation 112:I311–I316.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    55. 55.
      1. Davies R.F.,
      2. Goldberg A.D.,
      3. Forman S.,
      4. et al.
      (1997) Asymptomatic Cardiac Ischemia Pilot (ACIP) study two-year follow-up: outcomes of patients randomized to initial strategies of medical therapy versus revascularization. Circulation 95:2037–2043.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    56. 56.
      1. Alderman E.L.,
      2. Fisher L.D.,
      3. Litwin P.,
      4. et al.
      (1983) Results of coronary artery surgery in patients with poor left ventricular function (CASS). Circulation 68:785–795.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    57. 57.
      1. O'Connor C.M.,
      2. Velazquez E.J.,
      3. Gardner L.H.,
      4. et al.
      (2002) Comparison of coronary artery bypass grafting versus medical therapy on long-term outcome in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (a 25-year experience from the Duke Cardiovascular Disease Databank). Am J Cardiol 90:101–107.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    58. 58.
      1. Phillips H.R.,
      2. O'Connor C.M.,
      3. Rogers J.
      (2007) Revascularization for heart failure. Am Heart J 153:65–73.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    59. 59.
      1. Tarakji K.G.,
      2. Brunken R.,
      3. McCarthy P.M.,
      4. et al.
      (2006) Myocardial viability testing and the effect of early intervention in patients with advanced left ventricular systolic dysfunction. Circulation 113:230–237.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    60. 60.
      1. Tsuyuki R.T.,
      2. Shrive F.M.,
      3. Galbraith P.D.,
      4. et al.
      (2006) Revascularization in patients with heart failure. CMAJ 175:361–365.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    61. 61.
      1. Cameron A.,
      2. Davis K.B.,
      3. Green G.,
      4. et al.
      (1996) Coronary bypass surgery with internal-thoracic-artery grafts—effects on survival over a 15-year period. N Engl J Med 334:216–219.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    62. 62.
      1. Loop F.D.,
      2. Lytle B.W.,
      3. Cosgrove D.M.,
      4. et al.
      (1986) Influence of the internal-mammary-artery graft on 10-year survival and other cardiac events. N Engl J Med 314:1–6.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    63. 63.
      1. Brener S.J.,
      2. Lytle B.W.,
      3. Casserly I.P.,
      4. et al.
      (2004) Propensity analysis of long-term survival after surgical or percutaneous revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and high-risk features. Circulation 109:2290–2295.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    64. 64.
      1. Hannan E.L.,
      2. Racz M.J.,
      3. Walford G.,
      4. et al.
      (2005) Long-term outcomes of coronary-artery bypass grafting versus stent implantation. N Engl J Med 352:2174–2183.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    65. 65.
      Deleted in proof.
    66. 66.
      1. The BARI Investigators
      (1997) Influence of diabetes on 5-year mortality and morbidity in a randomized trial comparing CABG and PTCA in patients with multivessel disease: the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation (BARI). Circulation 96:1761–1769.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    67. 67.
      1. The BARI Investigators
      (2007) The final 10-year follow-up results from the BARI randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 49:1600–1606.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    68. 68.
      1. Banning A.P.,
      2. Westaby S.,
      3. Morice M.C.,
      4. et al.
      (2010) Diabetic and nondiabetic patients with left main and/or 3-vessel coronary artery disease: comparison of outcomes with cardiac surgery and paclitaxel-eluting stents. J Am Coll Cardiol 55:1067–1075.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    69. 69.
      1. Hoffman S.N.,
      2. TenBrook J.A.,
      3. Wolf M.P.,
      4. et al.
      (2003) A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing coronary artery bypass graft with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty: one- to eight-year outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol 41:1293–1304.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    70. 70.
      1. Hueb W.,
      2. Lopes N.H.,
      3. Gersh B.J.,
      4. et al.
      (2007) Five-year follow-up of the Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS II): a randomized controlled clinical trial of 3 therapeutic strategies for multivessel coronary artery disease. Circulation 115:1082–1089.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    71. 71.
      1. Malenka D.J.,
      2. Leavitt B.J.,
      3. Hearne M.J.,
      4. et al.
      (2005) Comparing long-term survival of patients with multivessel coronary disease after CABG or PCI: analysis of BARI-like patients in northern New England. Circulation 112:I371–I376.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    72. 72.
      1. Niles N.W.,
      2. McGrath P.D.,
      3. Malenka D.,
      4. et al.,
      5. Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group
      (2001) Survival of patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease after surgical or percutaneous coronary revascularization: results of a large regional prospective study. J Am Coll Cardiol 37:1008–1015.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    73. 73.
      1. Weintraub W.S.,
      2. Stein B.,
      3. Kosinski A.,
      4. et al.
      (1998) Outcome of coronary bypass surgery versus coronary angioplasty in diabetic patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 31:10–19.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    74. 74.↵
      1. Boden W.E.,
      2. O'Rourke R.A.,
      3. Teo K.K.,
      4. et al.
      (2007) Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 356:1503–1516.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    75. 75.
      1. Bonow R.O.,
      2. Maurer G.,
      3. Lee K.L.,
      4. et al.
      (2011) Myocardial viability and survival in ischemic left ventricular dysfunction. N Engl J Med 364:1617–1625.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    76. 76.
      1. Velazquez E.J.,
      2. Lee K.L.,
      3. Deja M.A.,
      4. et al.
      (2011) Coronary artery bypass surgery in patients with left ventricular dysfunction. N Engl J Med 364:1607–1616.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    77. 77.↵
      1. Brener S.J.,
      2. Lytle B.W.,
      3. Casserly I.P.,
      4. et al.
      (2006) Predictors of revascularization method and long-term outcome of percutaneous coronary intervention or repeat coronary bypass surgery in patients with multivessel coronary disease and previous coronary bypass surgery. Eur Heart J 27:413–418.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    78. 78.↵
      1. Gurfinkel E.P.,
      2. Perez de la Hoz R.,
      3. Brito V.M.,
      4. et al.
      (2007) Invasive vs non-invasive treatment in acute coronary syndromes and prior bypass surgery. Int J Cardiol. 119:65–72.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    79. 79.
      1. Lytle B.W.,
      2. Loop F.D.,
      3. Taylor P.C.,
      4. et al.
      (1993) The effect of coronary reoperation on the survival of patients with stenoses in saphenous vein bypass grafts to coronary arteries. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 105:605–612.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    80. 80.
      1. Morrison D.A.,
      2. Sethi G.,
      3. Sacks J.,
      4. et al.
      (2001) 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 (AWESOME). J Am Coll Cardiol 38:143–149.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    81. 81.
      1. Pfautsch P.,
      2. Frantz E.,
      3. Ellmer A.,
      4. et al.
      (1999) [Long-term outcome of therapy of recurrent myocardial ischemia after surgical revascularization]. Z Kardiol 88:489–497.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    82. 82.
      1. Sergeant P.,
      2. Blackstone E.,
      3. Meyns B.,
      4. et al.
      (1998) First cardiological or cardiosurgical reintervention for ischemic heart disease after primary coronary artery bypass grafting. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 14:480–487.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    83. 83.
      1. Stephan W.J.,
      2. O'Keefe J.H. Jr..,
      3. Piehler J.M.,
      4. et al.
      (1996) Coronary angioplasty versus repeat coronary artery bypass grafting for patients with previous bypass surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol 28:1140–1146.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    84. 84.
      1. Subramanian S.,
      2. Sabik J.F.I.,
      3. Houghtaling P.L.,
      4. et al.
      (2009) Decision-making for patients with patent left internal thoracic artery grafts to left anterior descending. Ann Thorac Surg 87:1392–1398.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    85. 85.↵
      1. Weintraub W.S.,
      2. Jones E.L.,
      3. Morris D.C.,
      4. et al.
      (1997) Outcome of reoperative coronary bypass surgery versus coronary angioplasty after previous bypass surgery. Circulation 95:868–877.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    86. 86.
      1. Shaw L.J.,
      2. Berman D.S.,
      3. Maron D.J.,
      4. et al.
      (2008) 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 117:1283–1291.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    87. 87.
      1. Cashin W.L.,
      2. Sanmarco M.E.,
      3. Nessim S.A.,
      4. et al.
      (1984) Accelerated progression of atherosclerosis in coronary vessels with minimal lesions that are bypassed. N Engl J Med, 824–828.
    88. 88.
      1. Pijls N.H.,
      2. De Bruyne B.,
      3. Peels K.,
      4. et al.
      (1996) Measurement of fractional flow reserve to assess the functional severity of coronary-artery stenoses. N Engl J Med 334:1703–1708.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    89. 89.↵
      1. Tonino P.A.,
      2. De Bruyne B.,
      3. Pijls N.H.,
      4. et al.
      (2009) Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 360:213–224.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    90. 90.
      1. Sawada S.,
      2. Bapat A.,
      3. Vaz D.,
      4. et al.
      (2003) Incremental value of myocardial viability for prediction of long-term prognosis in surgically revascularized patients with left ventricular dysfunction. J Am Coll Cardiol 42:2099–2105.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    91. 91.
      (2001) Trial of invasive versus medical therapy in elderly patients with chronic symptomatic coronary-artery disease (TIME): a randomised trial. Lancet 358:951–957.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    92. 92.
      1. Benzer W.,
      2. Hofer S.,
      3. Oldridge N.B.
      (2003) Health-related quality of life in patients with coronary artery disease after different treatments for angina in routine clinical practice. Herz 28:421–428.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    93. 93.
      1. Bonaros N.,
      2. Schachner T.,
      3. Ohlinger A.,
      4. et al.
      (2005) Assessment of health-related quality of life after coronary revascularization. Heart Surg Forum 8:E380–E385.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    94. 94.
      1. Bucher H.C.,
      2. Hengstler P.,
      3. Schindler C.,
      4. et al.
      (2000) Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty versus medical treatment for non-acute coronary heart disease: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 321:73–77.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    95. 95.
      1. Favarato M.E.,
      2. Hueb W.,
      3. Boden W.E.,
      4. et al.
      (2007) Quality of life in patients with symptomatic multivessel coronary artery disease: a comparative post hoc analyses of medical, angioplasty or surgical strategies—MASS II trial. Int J Cardiol 116:364–370.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    96. 96.
      1. Hueb W.,
      2. Lopes N.,
      3. Gersh B.J.,
      4. et al.
      (2010) Ten-year follow-up survival of the Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS II): a randomized controlled clinical trial of 3 therapeutic strategies for multivessel coronary artery disease. Circulation 122:949–957.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    97. 97.
      1. Pocock S.J.,
      2. Henderson R.A.,
      3. Seed P.,
      4. et al.
      (1996) Quality of life, employment status, and anginal symptoms after coronary angioplasty or bypass surgery: 3-year follow-up in the Randomized Intervention Treatment of Angina (RITA) Trial. Circulation 94:135–142.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    98. 98.
      1. Pocock S.J.,
      2. Henderson R.A.,
      3. Clayton T.,
      4. et al.
      (2000) Quality of life after coronary angioplasty or continued medical treatment for angina: three-year follow-up in the RITA-2 trial: Randomized Intervention Treatment of Angina. J Am Coll Cardiol 35:907–914.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    99. 99.
      1. Weintraub W.S.,
      2. Spertus J.A.,
      3. Kolm P.,
      4. et al.
      (2008) Effect of PCI on quality of life in patients with stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 359:677–687.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    100. 100.
      1. Wijeysundera H.C.,
      2. Nallamothu B.K.,
      3. Krumholz H.M.,
      4. et al.
      (2010) Meta-analysis: effects of percutaneous coronary intervention versus medical therapy on angina relief. Ann Intern Med 152:370–379.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    101. 101.↵
      1. Schofield P.M.,
      2. Sharples L.D.,
      3. Caine N.,
      4. et al.
      (1999) Transmyocardial laser revascularisation in patients with refractory angina: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 353:519–524.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    102. 102.
      1. Aaberge L.,
      2. Nordstrand K.,
      3. Dragsund M.,
      4. et al.
      (2000) Transmyocardial revascularization with CO2 laser in patients with refractory angina pectoris: Clinical results from the Norwegian randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 35:1170–1177.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    103. 103.
      1. Burkhoff D.,
      2. Schmidt S.,
      3. Schulman S.P.,
      4. et al.,
      5. ATLANTIC Investigators
      (1999) Transmyocardial laser revascularisation compared with continued medical therapy for treatment of refractory angina pectoris: a prospective randomised trial: Angina Treatments-Lasers and Normal Therapies in Comparison. Lancet 354:885–890.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    104. 104.
      1. Allen K.B.,
      2. Dowling R.D.,
      3. DelRossi A.J.,
      4. et al.
      (2000) Transmyocardial laser revascularization combined with coronary artery bypass grafting: a multicenter, blinded, prospective, randomized, controlled trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 119:540–549.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    105. 105.
      1. Stamou S.C.,
      2. Boyce S.W.,
      3. Cooke R.H.,
      4. et al.
      (2002) One-year outcome after combined coronary artery bypass grafting and transmyocardial laser revascularization for refractory angina pectoris. Am J Cardiol 89:1365–1368.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    106. 106.
      1. Kappetein A.,
      2. Feldman T.,
      3. Mack M.
      (2011) Comparison of coronary artery bypass surgery with drug-eluting stenting for the treatment of left main and/or three-vessel disease: 3-year follow-up of the SYNTAX trial. Eur Heart J 32:2125–2134.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    107. 107.↵
      1. Grines C.L.,
      2. Bonow R.O.,
      3. Casey D.E. Jr..,
      4. et al.
      (2007) Prevention of premature discontinuation of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary artery stents: a science advisory from the American Heart Association, American College of Cardiology, Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, American College of Surgeons, and American Dental Association, with representation from the American College of Physicians. J Am Coll Cardiol 49:734–739.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    108. 108.
      1. Leon M.B.,
      2. Baim D.S.,
      3. Popma J.J.,
      4. et al.,
      5. Stent Anticoagulation Restenosis Study Investigators
      (1998) A clinical trial comparing three antithrombotic-drug regimens after coronary-artery stenting. N Engl J Med 339:1665–1671.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    109. 109.
      1. Mauri L.,
      2. Hsieh W.H.,
      3. Massaro J.M.,
      4. et al.
      (2007) Stent thrombosis in randomized clinical trials of drug-eluting stents. N Engl J Med 356:1020–1029.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    110. 110.
      1. McFadden E.P.,
      2. Stabile E.,
      3. Regar E.,
      4. et al.
      (2004) Late thrombosis in drug-eluting coronary stents after discontinuation of antiplatelet therapy. Lancet 364:1519–1521.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    111. 111.↵
      1. Bonatti J.,
      2. Schachner T.,
      3. Bonaros N.,
      4. et al.
      (2008) Simultaneous hybrid coronary revascularization using totally endoscopic left internal mammary artery bypass grafting and placement of rapamycin eluting stents in the same interventional session: The COMBINATION pilot study. Cardiology 110:92–95.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    112. 112.
      1. Gilard M.,
      2. Bezon E.,
      3. Cornily J.C.,
      4. et al.
      (2007) Same-day combined percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery surgery. Cardiology 108:363–367.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    113. 113.
      1. Holzhey D.M.,
      2. Jacobs S.,
      3. Mochalski M.,
      4. et al.
      (2008) Minimally invasive hybrid coronary artery revascularization. Ann Thorac Surg 86:1856–1860.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    114. 114.
      1. Kon Z.N.,
      2. Brown E.N.,
      3. Tran R.,
      4. et al.
      (2008) Simultaneous hybrid coronary revascularization reduces postoperative morbidity compared with results from conventional off-pump coronary artery bypass. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 135:367–375.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    115. 115.
      1. Reicher B.,
      2. Poston R.S.,
      3. Mehra M.R.,
      4. et al.
      (2008) Simultaneous “hybrid” percutaneous coronary intervention and minimally invasive surgical bypass grafting: feasibility, safety, and clinical outcomes. Am Heart J 155:661–667.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    116. 116.
      1. Vassiliades T.A. Jr..,
      2. Douglas J.S.,
      3. Morris D.C.,
      4. et al.
      (2006) Integrated coronary revascularization with drug-eluting stents: immediate and seven-month outcome. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 131:956–962.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    117. 117.
      1. Zhao D.X.,
      2. Leacche M.,
      3. Balaguer J.M.,
      4. et al.
      (2009) Routine intraoperative completion angiography after coronary artery bypass grafting and 1-stop hybrid revascularization: results from a fully integrated hybrid catheterization laboratory/operating room. J Am Coll Cardiol 53:232–241.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    118. 118.↵
      1. Mehran R.,
      2. Aymong E.D.,
      3. Nikolsky E.,
      4. et al.
      (2004) A simple risk score for prediction of contrast-induced nephropathy after percutaneous coronary intervention: development and initial validation. J Am Coll Cardiol 44:1393–1399.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    119. 119.
      1. Moscucci M.,
      2. Rogers E.K.,
      3. Montoye C.,
      4. et al.
      (2006) Association of a continuous quality improvement initiative with practice and outcome variations of contemporary percutaneous coronary interventions. Circulation 113:814–822.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    120. 120.↵
      1. Bader B.D.,
      2. Berger E.D.,
      3. Heede M.B.,
      4. et al.
      (2004) What is the best hydration regimen to prevent contrast media-induced nephrotoxicity? Clin Nephrol 62:1–7.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    121. 121.
      1. Mueller C.,
      2. Buerkle G.,
      3. Buettner H.J.,
      4. et al.
      (2002) Prevention of contrast media-associated nephropathy: randomized comparison of 2 hydration regimens in 1620 patients undergoing coronary angioplasty. Arch Intern Med 162:329–336.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    122. 122.
      1. Solomon R.,
      2. Werner C.,
      3. Mann D.,
      4. et al.
      (1994) Effects of saline, mannitol, and furosemide to prevent acute decreases in renal function induced by radiocontrast agents. N Engl J Med 331:1416–1420.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    123. 123.
      1. Trivedi H.S.,
      2. Moore H.,
      3. Nasr S.,
      4. et al.
      (2003) A randomized prospective trial to assess the role of saline hydration on the development of contrast nephrotoxicity. Nephron Clin Pract 93:C29–C34.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    124. 124.↵
      1. Marenzi G.,
      2. Assanelli E.,
      3. Campodonico J.,
      4. et al.
      (2009) Contrast volume during primary percutaneous coronary intervention and subsequent contrast-induced nephropathy and mortality. Ann Intern Med 150:170–177.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    125. 125.
      1. McCullough P.A.,
      2. Wolyn R.,
      3. Rocher L.L.,
      4. et al.
      (1997) Acute renal failure after coronary intervention: incidence, risk factors, and relationship to mortality. Am J Med 103:368–375.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    126. 126.
      1. Russo D.,
      2. Minutolo R.,
      3. Cianciaruso B.,
      4. et al.
      (1995) Early effects of contrast media on renal hemodynamics and tubular function in chronic renal failure. J Am Soc Nephrol 6:1451–1458.
      OpenUrlAbstract
    127. 127.↵
      1. Gonzales D.A.,
      2. Norsworthy K.J.,
      3. Kern S.J.,
      4. et al.
      (2007) A meta-analysis of N-acetylcysteine in contrast-induced nephrotoxicity: unsupervised clustering to resolve heterogeneity. BMC Med 5:32, doi:10.1186/1741-7015-5-32, Published online November 14, 2007.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    128. 128.
      1. Ozcan E.E.,
      2. Guneri S.,
      3. Akdeniz B.,
      4. et al.
      (2007) Sodium bicarbonate, N-acetylcysteine, and saline for prevention of radiocontrast-induced nephropathy: A comparison of 3 regimens for protecting contrast-induced nephropathy in patients undergoing coronary procedures. A single-center prospective controlled trial. Am Heart J 154:539–544.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    129. 129.
      1. Thiele H.,
      2. Hildebrand L.,
      3. Schirdewahn C.,
      4. et al.
      (2010) Impact of high-dose N-acetylcysteine versus placebo on contrast-induced nephropathy and myocardial reperfusion injury in unselected patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention: the LIPSIA-N-ACC (Prospective, Single-Blind, Placebo-Controlled, Randomized Leipzig Immediate PercutaneouS Coronary Intervention Acute Myocardial Infarction N-ACC) Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 55:2201–2209.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    130. 130.
      1. Webb J.G.,
      2. Pate G.E.,
      3. Humphries K.H.,
      4. et al.
      (2004) A randomized controlled trial of intravenous N-acetylcysteine for the prevention of contrast-induced nephropathy after cardiac catheterization: lack of effect. Am Heart J 148:422–429.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    131. 131.
      1. ACT Investigators
      (2011) Acetylcysteine for prevention of renal outcomes in patients undergoing coronary and peripheral vascular angiography: main results from the randomized Acetylcysteine for Contrast-Induced Nephropathy Trial (ACT). Circulation 124:1250–1259.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    132. 132.↵
      1. Klein L.W.,
      2. Sheldon M.W.,
      3. Brinker J.,
      4. et al.
      (2009) The use of radiographic contrast media during PCI: a focused review: a position statement of the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 74:728–746.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    133. 133.
      1. Levine G.N.,
      2. Kern M.J.,
      3. Berger P.B.,
      4. et al.
      (2003) Management of patients undergoing percutaneous coronary revascularization. Ann Intern Med 139:123–136.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    134. 134.
      1. Tramer M.R.,
      2. von Elm E.,
      3. Loubeyre P.,
      4. et al.
      (2006) Pharmacological prevention of serious anaphylactic reactions due to iodinated contrast media: systematic review. BMJ 333:675.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    135. 135.
      1. Greenberger P.A.,
      2. Patterson R.,
      3. Tapio C.M.
      (1985) Prophylaxis against repeated radiocontrast media reactions in 857 cases: Adverse experience with cimetidine and safety of beta-adrenergic antagonists. Arch Intern Med 145:2197–2200.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    136. 136.↵
      1. Shehadi W.H.
      (1975) Adverse reactions to intravascularly administered contrast media: A comprehensive study based on a prospective survey. Am J Roentgenol Radium Ther Nucl Med 124:145–152.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    137. 137.
      1. Gill B.V.,
      2. Rice T.R.,
      3. Cartier A.,
      4. et al.
      (2009) Identification of crab proteins that elicit IgE reactivity in snow crab-processing workers. J Allergy Clin Immunol 124:1055–1061.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    138. 138.
      1. Swoboda I.,
      2. Bugajska-Schretter A.,
      3. Verdino P.,
      4. et al.
      (2002) Recombinant carp parvalbumin, the major cross-reactive fish allergen: a tool for diagnosis and therapy of fish allergy. J Immunol 168:4576–4584.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    139. 139.↵
      1. Briguori C.,
      2. Colombo A.,
      3. Airoldi F.,
      4. et al.
      (2004) Statin administration before percutaneous coronary intervention: impact on periprocedural myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 25:1822–1828.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    140. 140.
      1. Briguori C.,
      2. Visconti G.,
      3. Focaccio A.,
      4. et al.
      (2009) Novel approaches for preventing or limiting events (Naples) II trial: impact of a single high loading dose of atorvastatin on periprocedural myocardial infarction. J Am Coll Cardiol 54:2157–2163.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    141. 141.
      1. Pasceri V.,
      2. Patti G.,
      3. Nusca A.,
      4. et al.
      (2004) Randomized trial of atorvastatin for reduction of myocardial damage during coronary intervention: results from the ARMYDA (Atorvastatin for Reduction of MYocardial Damage during Angioplasty) study. Circulation 110:674–678.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    142. 142.
      1. Patti G.,
      2. Pasceri V.,
      3. Colonna G.,
      4. et al.
      (2007) Atorvastatin pretreatment improves outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing early percutaneous coronary intervention: results of the ARMYDA-ACS randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 49:1272–1278.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    143. 143.
      1. Yun K.H.,
      2. Jeong M.H.,
      3. Oh S.K.,
      4. et al.
      (2009) The beneficial effect of high loading dose of rosuvastatin before percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with acute coronary syndrome. Int J Cardiol 137:246–251.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    144. 144.
      1. Zhang F.,
      2. Dong L.,
      3. Ge J.
      (2010) Effect of statins pretreatment on periprocedural myocardial infarction in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: a meta-analysis. Ann Med 42:171–177.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    145. 145.
      1. Winchester D.E.,
      2. Wen X.,
      3. Xie L.,
      4. et al.
      (2010) Evidence of pre-procedural statin therapy a meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 56:1099–1109.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    146. 146.↵
      1. Di Sciascio G.,
      2. Patti G.,
      3. Pasceri V.,
      4. et al.
      (2009) Efficacy of atorvastatin reload in patients on chronic statin therapy undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: results of the ARMYDA-RECAPTURE (Atorvastatin for Reduction of Myocardial Damage During Angioplasty) Randomized Trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 54:558–565.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    147. 147.↵
      1. Levey A.S.,
      2. Coresh J.,
      3. Greene T.,
      4. et al.
      (2006) Using standardized serum creatinine values in the modification of diet in renal disease study equation for estimating glomerular filtration rate. Ann Intern Med 145:247–254.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    148. 148.
      1. Stevens L.A.,
      2. Nolin T.D.,
      3. Richardson M.M.,
      4. et al.
      (2009) Comparison of drug dosing recommendations based on measured GFR and kidney function estimating equations. Am J Kidney Dis 54:33–42.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    149. 149.
      1. Hassan Y.,
      2. Al-Ramahi R.J.,
      3. Aziz N.A.,
      4. et al.
      (2009) Impact of a renal drug dosing service on dose adjustment in hospitalized patients with chronic kidney disease. Ann Pharmacother 43:1598–1605.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    150. 150.↵
      1. Barnathan E.S.,
      2. Schwartz J.S.,
      3. Taylor L.,
      4. et al.
      (1987) Aspirin and dipyridamole in the prevention of acute coronary thrombosis complicating coronary angioplasty. Circulation 76:125–134.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    151. 151.↵
      1. Jolly S.S.,
      2. Pogue J.,
      3. Haladyn K.,
      4. et al.
      (2009) Effects of aspirin dose on ischaemic events and bleeding after percutaneous coronary intervention: insights from the PCI-CURE study. Eur Heart J 30:900–907.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    152. 152.
      1. Popma J.J.,
      2. Berger P.,
      3. Ohman E.M.,
      4. et al.
      (2004) Antithrombotic therapy during percutaneous coronary intervention: the Seventh ACCP Conference on Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy. Chest 126 Suppl 3:576S–599S.
      OpenUrl
    153. 153.
      1. Schwartz L.,
      2. Bourassa M.G.,
      3. Lesperance J.,
      4. et al.
      (1988) Aspirin and dipyridamole in the prevention of restenosis after percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty. N Engl J Med 318:1714–1719.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    154. 154.↵
      Deleted in proof.
    155. 155.↵
      1. Aversano T.,
      2. Aversano L.T.,
      3. Passamani E.,
      4. et al.
      (2002) Thrombolytic therapy vs primary percutaneous coronary intervention for myocardial infarction in patients presenting to hospitals without on-site cardiac surgery: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 287:1943–1951.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    156. 156.↵
      1. Dehmer G.J.,
      2. Blankenship J.,
      3. Wharton T.P. Jr..,
      4. et al.
      (2007) The current status and future direction of percutaneous coronary intervention without on-site surgical backup: an expert consensus document from the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 69:471–478.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    157. 157.
      1. Melberg T.,
      2. Nilsen D.W.,
      3. Larsen A.I.,
      4. et al.
      (2006) Nonemergent coronary angioplasty without on-site surgical backup: a randomized study evaluating outcomes in low-risk patients. Am Heart J 152:888–895.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    158. 158.
      1. Singh P.P.,
      2. Singh M.,
      3. Bedi U.S.,
      4. et al.
      (2011) Outcomes of nonemergent percutaneous coronary intervention with and without on-site surgical backup: a meta-analysis. Am J Ther 18:e22–e28.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    159. 159.↵
      1. Brueck M.,
      2. Bandorski D.,
      3. Kramer W.,
      4. et al.
      (2009) A randomized comparison of transradial versus transfemoral approach for coronary angiography and angioplasty. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2:1047–1054.
      OpenUrl
    160. 160.
      1. Jaffe R.,
      2. Hong T.,
      3. Sharieff W.,
      4. et al.
      (2007) Comparison of radial versus femoral approach for percutaneous coronary interventions in octogenarians. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 69:815–820.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    161. 161.
      1. Jolly S.S.,
      2. Amlani S.,
      3. Hamon M.,
      4. et al.
      (2009) Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography or intervention and the impact on major bleeding and ischemic events: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Am Heart J 157:132–140.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    162. 162.
      1. Louvard Y.,
      2. Benamer H.,
      3. Garot P.,
      4. et al.
      (2004) Comparison of transradial and transfemoral approaches for coronary angiography and angioplasty in octogenarians (the OCTOPLUS study). Am J Cardiol 94:1177–1180.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    163. 163.
      1. Pristipino C.,
      2. Trani C.,
      3. Nazzaro M.S.,
      4. et al.
      (2009) Major improvement of percutaneous cardiovascular procedure outcomes with radial artery catheterisation: results from the PREVAIL study. Heart 95:476–482.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    164. 164.
      1. Rao S.V.,
      2. Ou F.S.,
      3. Wang T.Y.,
      4. et al.
      (2008) Trends in the prevalence and outcomes of radial and femoral approaches to percutaneous coronary intervention: a report from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 1:379–386.
      OpenUrl
    165. 165.
      1. Rao S.V.,
      2. Cohen M.G.,
      3. Kandzari D.E.,
      4. et al.
      (2010) The transradial approach to percutaneous coronary intervention: historical perspective, current concepts, and future directions. J Am Coll Cardiol 55:2187–2195.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    166. 166.
      1. Hamon M.,
      2. Rasmussen L.H.,
      3. Manoukian S.V.,
      4. et al.
      (2009) Choice of arterial access site and outcomes in patients with acute coronary syndromes managed with an early invasive strategy: the ACUITY trial. EuroIntervention 5:115–120.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    167. 167.
      1. Jolly S.S.,
      2. Yusuf S.,
      3. Cairns J.,
      4. et al.
      (2011) Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Lancet 377:1409–1420.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    168. 168.↵
      1. Bavry A.A.,
      2. Kumbhani D.J.,
      3. Rassi A.N.,
      4. et al.
      (2006) Benefit of early invasive therapy in acute coronary syndromes: a meta-analysis of contemporary randomized clinical trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 48:1319–1325.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    169. 169.↵
      1. Cannon C.P.,
      2. Weintraub W.S.,
      3. Demopoulos L.A.,
      4. et al.
      (2001) Comparison of early invasive and conservative strategies in patients with unstable coronary syndromes treated with the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofiban. N Engl J Med 344:1879–1887.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    170. 170.
      1. Fox K.A.,
      2. Clayton T.C.,
      3. Damman P.,
      4. et al.
      (2010) Long-term outcome of a routine versus selective invasive strategy in patients with non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome a meta-analysis of individual patient data. J Am Coll Cardiol 55:2435–2445.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    171. 171.
      1. FRagmin and Fast Revascularisation during InStability in Coronary artery disease Investigators
      (1999) Invasive compared with non-invasive treatment in unstable coronary-artery disease: FRISC II prospective randomised multicentre study. Lancet 354:708–715.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    172. 172.
      1. Mehta S.R.,
      2. Granger C.B.,
      3. Boden W.E.,
      4. et al.
      (2009) Early versus delayed invasive intervention in acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 360:2165–2175.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    173. 173.
      1. Rodriguez A.E.,
      2. Baldi J.,
      3. Fernandez P.C.,
      4. et al.
      (2005) Five-year follow-up of the Argentine randomized trial of coronary angioplasty with stenting versus coronary bypass surgery in patients with multiple vessel disease (ERACI II). J Am Coll Cardiol 46:582–588.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    174. 174.
      1. Valgimigli M.,
      2. Dawkins K.,
      3. Macaya C.,
      4. et al.
      (2007) Impact of stable versus unstable coronary artery disease on 1-year outcome in elective patients undergoing multivessel revascularization with sirolimus-eluting stents: a subanalysis of the ARTS II trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 49:431–441.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    175. 175.↵
      1. Keeley E.C.,
      2. Boura J.A.,
      3. Grines C.L.
      (2003) Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials. Lancet 361:13–20.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    176. 176.
      1. Zijlstra F.,
      2. de Boer M.J.,
      3. Hoorntje J.C.,
      4. et al.
      (1993) A comparison of immediate coronary angioplasty with intravenous streptokinase in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 328:680–684.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    177. 177.
      1. Keeley E.C.,
      2. Grines C.L.
      (2004) Primary coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction. JAMA 291:736–739.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    178. 178.
      1. Keeley E.C.,
      2. Hillis L.D.
      (2007) Primary PCI for myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation. N Engl J Med 356:47–54.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    179. 179.↵
      1. Wu A.H.,
      2. Parsons L.,
      3. Every N.R.,
      4. et al.
      (2002) Hospital outcomes in patients presenting with congestive heart failure complicating acute myocardial infarction: a report from the Second National Registry of Myocardial Infarction (NRMI-2). J Am Coll Cardiol 40:1389–1394.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    180. 180.↵
      1. Hochman J.S.,
      2. Sleeper L.A.,
      3. Webb J.G.,
      4. et al.,
      5. SHOCK Investigators
      (1999) Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock. N Engl J Med 341:625–634.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    181. 181.↵
      1. Gershlick A.H.,
      2. Stephens-Lloyd A.,
      3. Hughes S.,
      4. et al.
      (2005) Rescue angioplasty after failed thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 353:2758–2768.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    182. 182.
      1. Wijeysundera H.C.,
      2. Vijayaraghavan R.,
      3. Nallamothu B.K.,
      4. et al.
      (2007) Rescue angioplasty or repeat fibrinolysis after failed fibrinolytic therapy for ST-segment myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 49:422–430.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    183. 183.↵
      1. Bohmer E.,
      2. Hoffmann P.,
      3. Abdelnoor M.,
      4. et al.
      (2010) Efficacy and safety of immediate angioplasty versus ischemia-guided management after thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction in areas with very long transfer distances results of the NORDISTEMI (NORwegian study on DIstrict treatment of ST-elevation myocardial infarction). J Am Coll Cardiol 55:102–110.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    184. 184.
      1. Di Mario C.,
      2. Dudek D.,
      3. Piscione F.,
      4. et al.
      (2008) Immediate angioplasty versus standard therapy with rescue angioplasty after thrombolysis in the Combined Abciximab REteplase Stent Study in Acute Myocardial Infarction (CARESS-in-AMI): an open, prospective, randomised, multicentre trial. Lancet 371:559–568.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    185. 185.
      1. Fernandez-Aviles F.,
      2. Alonso J.J.,
      3. Castro-Beiras A.,
      4. et al.
      (2004) Routine invasive strategy within 24 hours of thrombolysis versus ischaemia-guided conservative approach for acute myocardial infarction with ST-segment elevation (GRACIA-1): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 364:1045–1053.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    186. 186.↵
      1. Borgia F.,
      2. Goodman S.G.,
      3. Halvorsen S.,
      4. et al.
      (2010) Early routine percutaneous coronary intervention after fibrinolysis vs standard therapy in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis. Eur Heart J 31:2156–2169.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    187. 187.
      1. Cantor W.J.,
      2. Fitchett D.,
      3. Borgundvaag B.,
      4. et al.
      (2009) Routine early angioplasty after fibrinolysis for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 360:2705–2718.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    188. 188.↵
      1. Lambert L.,
      2. Brown K.,
      3. Segal E.,
      4. et al.
      (2010) Association between timeliness of reperfusion therapy and clinical outcomes in ST-elevation myocardial infarction. JAMA 303:2148–2155.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    189. 189.
      1. Terkelsen C.J.,
      2. Sorensen J.T.,
      3. Maeng M.,
      4. et al.
      (2010) System delay and mortality among patients with STEMI treated with primary percutaneous coronary intervention. JAMA 304:763–771.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    190. 190.↵
      1. Aguirre F.V.,
      2. Varghese J.J.,
      3. Kelley M.P.,
      4. et al.
      (2008) Rural interhospital transfer of ST-elevation myocardial infarction patients for percutaneous coronary revascularization: the Stat Heart Program. Circulation 117:1145–1152.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    191. 191.
      1. Blankenship J.C.,
      2. Scott T.D.,
      3. Skelding K.A.,
      4. et al.
      (2011) Door-to-balloon times under 90 min can be routinely achieved for patients transferred for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction percutaneous coronary intervention in a rural setting. J Am Coll Cardiol 57:272–279.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    192. 192.
      1. Henry T.D.,
      2. Sharkey S.W.,
      3. Burke M.N.,
      4. et al.
      (2007) A regional system to provide timely access to percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Circulation 116:721–728.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    193. 193.↵
      1. Zahn R.,
      2. Schuster S.,
      3. Schiele R.,
      4. et al.,
      5. Maximal Individual Therapy in Acute Myocardial Infarction (MITRA) Study Group
      (1999) Comparison of primary angioplasty with conservative therapy in patients with acute myocardial infarction and contraindications for thrombolytic therapy. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 46:127–133.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    194. 194.
      1. Grzybowski M.,
      2. Clements E.A.,
      3. Parsons L.,
      4. et al.
      (2003) Mortality benefit of immediate revascularization of acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction in patients with contraindications to thrombolytic therapy: a propensity analysis. JAMA 290:1891–1898.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    195. 195.↵
      1. Fibrinolytic Therapy Trialists' (FTT) Collaborative Group
      (1994) Indications for fibrinolytic therapy in suspected acute myocardial infarction: collaborative overview of early mortality and major morbidity results from all randomised trials of more than 1000 patients. Lancet 343:311–322.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    196. 196.
      1. Schomig A.,
      2. Mehilli J.,
      3. Antoniucci D.,
      4. et al.
      (2005) Mechanical reperfusion in patients with acute myocardial infarction presenting more than 12 hours from symptom onset: a randomized controlled trial. JAMA 293:2865–2872.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    197. 197.
      1. Gierlotka M.,
      2. Gasior M.,
      3. Wilczek K.,
      4. et al.
      (2011) Reperfusion by primary percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction within 12 to 24 hours of the onset of symptoms (from a prospective national observational study [PL-ACS]). Am J Cardiol 107:501–508.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    198. 198.↵
      1. Toma M.,
      2. Buller C.E.,
      3. Westerhout C.M.,
      4. et al.
      (2010) Non-culprit coronary artery percutaneous coronary intervention during acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: insights from the APEX-AMI trial. Eur Heart J 31:1701–1707.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    199. 199.
      1. Widimsky P.,
      2. Holmes D.R. Jr.
      (2011) How to treat patients with ST-elevation acute myocardial infarction and multi-vessel disease? Eur Heart J 32:396–403.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    200. 200.
      1. Politi L.,
      2. Sgura F.,
      3. Rossi R.,
      4. et al.
      (2010) A randomised trial of target-vessel versus multi-vessel revascularisation in ST-elevation myocardial infarction: major adverse cardiac events during long-term follow-up. Heart 96:662–667.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    201. 201.
      1. Vlaar P.J.,
      2. Mahmoud K.D.,
      3. Holmes D.R. Jr.,
      4. et al.
      (2011) Culprit vessel only versus multivessel and staged percutaneous coronary intervention for multivessel disease in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a pairwise and network meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 58:692–703.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    202. 202.
      1. Kornowski R.,
      2. Mehran R.,
      3. Dangas G.,
      4. et al.
      (2011) Prognostic impact of staged versus “one-time” multivessel percutaneous interventions in acute myocardial infarction: analysis from the HORIZONS-AMI trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 58:704–711.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    203. 203.↵
      1. Erne P.,
      2. Schoenenberger A.W.,
      3. Burckhardt D.,
      4. et al.
      (2007) Effects of percutaneous coronary interventions in silent ischemia after myocardial infarction: the SWISSI II randomized controlled trial. JAMA 297:1985–1991.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    204. 204.
      1. Madsen J.K.,
      2. Grande P.,
      3. Saunamaki K.,
      4. et al.
      (1997) Danish multicenter randomized study of invasive versus conservative treatment in patients with inducible ischemia after thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction (DANAMI): DANish trial in Acute Myocardial Infarction. Circulation 96:748–755.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    205. 205.↵
      1. Stenestrand U.,
      2. Wallentin L.
      (2002) Early revascularisation and 1-year survival in 14-day survivors of acute myocardial infarction: a prospective cohort study. Lancet 359:1805–1811.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    206. 206.
      1. Alter D.A.,
      2. Tu J.V.,
      3. Austin P.C.,
      4. et al.
      (2003) Waiting times, revascularization modality, and outcomes after acute myocardial infarction at hospitals with and without on-site revascularization facilities in Canada. J Am Coll Cardiol 42:410–419.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    207. 207.
      1. Zeymer U.,
      2. Uebis R.,
      3. Vogt A.,
      4. et al.
      (2003) Randomized comparison of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty and medical therapy in stable survivors of acute myocardial infarction with single vessel disease: a study of the Arbeitsgemeinschaft Leitende Kardiologische Krankenhausarzte. Circulation 108:1324–1328.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    208. 208.
      1. Gupta M.,
      2. Chang W.C.,
      3. Van de Werf F.,
      4. et al.
      (2003) International differences in in-hospital revascularization and outcomes following acute myocardial infarction: a multilevel analysis of patients in ASSENT-2. Eur Heart J 24:1640–1650.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    209. 209.
      1. Gibson C.M.,
      2. Karha J.,
      3. Murphy S.A.,
      4. et al.
      (2003) Early and long-term clinical outcomes associated with reinfarction following fibrinolytic administration in the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction trials. J Am Coll Cardiol 42:7–16.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    210. 210.↵
      1. Ioannidis J.P.,
      2. Katritsis D.G.
      (2007) Percutaneous coronary intervention for late reperfusion after myocardial infarction in stable patients. Am Heart J 154:1065–1071.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    211. 211.
      1. Steg P.G.,
      2. Thuaire C.,
      3. Himbert D.,
      4. et al.
      (2004) DECOPI (DEsobstruction COronaire en Post-Infarctus): a randomized multi-centre trial of occluded artery angioplasty after acute myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 25:2187–2194.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    212. 212.
      1. Hochman J.S.,
      2. Lamas G.A.,
      3. Buller C.E.,
      4. et al.
      (2006) Coronary intervention for persistent occlusion after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 355:2395–2407.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    213. 213.
      1. Hochman J.S.,
      2. Sleeper L.A.,
      3. White H.D.,
      4. et al.
      (2001) One-year survival following early revascularization for cardiogenic shock. JAMA 285:190–192.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    214. 214.
      1. Hochman J.S.,
      2. Sleeper L.A.,
      3. Webb J.G.,
      4. et al.
      (2006) Early revascularization and long-term survival in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. JAMA 295:2511–2515.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    215. 215.
      1. Urban P.,
      2. Stauffer J.C.,
      3. Bleed D.,
      4. et al.
      (1999) A randomized evaluation of early revascularization to treat shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: The (Swiss) Multicenter Trial of Angioplasty for Shock-(S)MASH. Eur Heart J 20:1030–1038.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    216. 216.
      1. Sanborn T.A.,
      2. Sleeper L.A.,
      3. Bates E.R.,
      4. et al.
      (2000) Impact of thrombolysis, intra-aortic balloon pump counterpulsation, and their combination in cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: a report from the SHOCK Trial Registry: SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries for cardiogenic shocK? J Am Coll Cardiol 36:1123–1129.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    217. 217.
      1. Chen E.W.,
      2. Canto J.G.,
      3. Parsons L.S.,
      4. et al.
      (2003) Relation between hospital intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation volume and mortality in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. Circulation 108:951–957.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    218. 218.
      1. Barron H.V.,
      2. Every N.R.,
      3. Parsons L.S.,
      4. et al.
      (2001) The use of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction: data from the National Registry of Myocardial Infarction 2. Am Heart J 141:933–939.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    219. 219.
      1. Reynolds H.R.,
      2. Hochman J.S.
      (2008) Cardiogenic shock: current concepts and improving outcomes. Circulation 117:686–697.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    220. 220.↵
      1. Berger P.B.,
      2. Bell M.R.,
      3. Hasdai D.,
      4. et al.
      (1999) Safety and efficacy of ticlopidine for only 2 weeks after successful intracoronary stent placement. Circulation 99:248–253.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    221. 221.
      1. Cruden N.L.,
      2. Harding S.A.,
      3. Flapan A.D.,
      4. et al.
      (2010) Previous coronary stent implantation and cardiac events in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 3:236–242.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    222. 222.↵
      1. Fleisher L.A.,
      2. Beckman J.A.,
      3. Brown K.A.,
      4. et al.
      (2009) 2009 ACCF/AHA focused update on perioperative beta blockade incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and care for noncardiac surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol 54:e13–e118.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    223. 223.
      1. Kaluza G.L.,
      2. Joseph J.,
      3. Lee J.R.,
      4. et al.
      (2000) Catastrophic outcomes of noncardiac surgery soon after coronary stenting. J Am Coll Cardiol 35:1288–1294.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    224. 224.
      1. Reddy P.R.,
      2. Vaitkus P.T.
      (2005) Risks of noncardiac surgery after coronary stenting. Am J Cardiol 95:755–757.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    225. 225.
      1. Sharma A.K.,
      2. Ajani A.E.,
      3. Hamwi S.M.,
      4. et al.
      (2004) Major noncardiac surgery following coronary stenting: when is it safe to operate? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 63:141–145.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    226. 226.
      1. Wilson S.H.,
      2. Fasseas P.,
      3. Orford J.L.,
      4. et al.
      (2003) Clinical outcome of patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery in the two months following coronary stenting. J Am Coll Cardiol 42:234–240.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    227. 227.
      1. Fleisher L.A.,
      2. Beckman J.A.,
      3. Brown K.A.,
      4. et al.
      (2007) ACC/AHA 2007 guidelines on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and care for noncardiac surgery: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation for Noncardiac Surgery). J Am Coll Cardiol 50:1707–1732.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    228. 228.↵
      1. McFalls E.O.,
      2. Ward H.B.,
      3. Moritz T.E.,
      4. et al.
      (2004) Coronary-artery revascularization before elective major vascular surgery. N Engl J Med 351:2795–2804.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    229. 229.
      1. Schouten O.,
      2. van Kuijk J.P.,
      3. Flu W.J.,
      4. et al.
      (2009) Long-term outcome of prophylactic coronary revascularization in cardiac high-risk patients undergoing major vascular surgery (from the randomized DECREASE-V Pilot Study). Am J Cardiol 103:897–901.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    230. 230.
      1. Kaluza G.L.,
      2. Joseph J.,
      3. Lee J.R.,
      4. et al.
      (2000) Catastrophic outcomes of noncardiac surgery soon after coronary stenting. J Am Coll Cardiol 35:1288–1294.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    231. 231.
      1. Win H.K.,
      2. Caldera A.E.,
      3. Maresh K.,
      4. et al.
      (2007) Clinical outcomes and stent thrombosis following off-label use of drug-eluting stents. JAMA 297:2001–2009.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    232. 232.↵
      1. Eisenstein E.L.,
      2. Anstrom K.J.,
      3. Kong D.F.,
      4. et al.
      (2007) Clopidogrel use and long-term clinical outcomes after drug-eluting stent implantation. JAMA 297:159–168.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    233. 233.↵
      1. Moses J.W.,
      2. Leon M.B.,
      3. Popma J.J.,
      4. et al.
      (2003) Sirolimus-eluting stents versus standard stents in patients with stenosis in a native coronary artery. N Engl J Med 349:1315–1323.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    234. 234.
      1. Stone G.W.,
      2. Ellis S.G.,
      3. Cox D.A.,
      4. et al.
      (2004) One-year clinical results with the slow-release, polymer-based, paclitaxel-eluting TAXUS stent: the TAXUS-IV trial. Circulation 109:1942–1947.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    235. 235.↵
      1. Mauri L.,
      2. Silbaugh T.S.,
      3. Garg P.,
      4. et al.
      (2008) Drug-eluting or bare-metal stents for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 359:1330–1342.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    236. 236.
      1. Stone G.W.,
      2. Lansky A.J.,
      3. Pocock S.J.,
      4. et al.
      (2009) Paclitaxel-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 360:1946–1959.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    237. 237.
      Mehilli J, Pache J, Abdel-Wahab M, et al. Drug-eluting versus bare-metal stents in saphenous vein graft lesions (ISAR-CABG): a randomised controlled superiority trial. Lancet, published online before print August 28, 2011, doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(11)61255-5.
    238. 238.
      1. Pan X.H.,
      2. Chen Y.X.,
      3. Xiang M.X.,
      4. et al.
      (2010) A meta-analysis of randomized trials on clinical outcomes of paclitaxel-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients. J Zhejiang Univ Sci B. 11:754–761.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    239. 239.
      1. Hao P.P.,
      2. Chen Y.G.,
      3. Wang X.L.,
      4. et al.
      (2010) Efficacy and safety of drug-eluting stents in patients with acute ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Tex Heart Inst J 37:516–524.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    240. 240.
      1. Suh H.S.,
      2. Song H.J.,
      3. Choi J.E.,
      4. et al.
      (2011) Drug-eluting stents versus bare-metal stents in acute myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Int J Technol Assess Health Care 27:11–22.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    241. 241.
      1. Park D.W.,
      2. Park S.W.,
      3. Park K.H.,
      4. et al.
      (2006) Frequency of and risk factors for stent thrombosis after drug-eluting stent implantation during long-term follow-up. Am J Cardiol 98:352–356.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    242. 242.
      1. Spertus J.A.,
      2. Kettelkamp R.,
      3. Vance C.,
      4. et al.
      (2006) Prevalence, predictors, and outcomes of premature discontinuation of thienopyridine therapy after drug-eluting stent placement: results from the PREMIER registry. Circulation 113:2803–2809.