2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines Developed in Collaboration With the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons

L. David Hillis; Peter K. Smith; Jeffrey L. Anderson; John A. Bittl; Charles R. Bridges; John G. Byrne; Joaquin E. Cigarroa; Verdi J. DiSesa; Loren F. Hiratzka; Adolph M. Hutter; Michael E. Jessen; Ellen C. Keeley; Stephen J. Lahey; Richard A. Lange; Martin J. London; Michael J. Mack; Manesh R. Patel; John D. Puskas; Joseph F. Sabik; Ola Selnes; David M. Shahian; Jeffrey C. Trost; Michael D. Winniford

doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2011.08.008

Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Volume 58, Issue 24, December 2011 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.08.008

2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: Executive Summary
A Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines Developed in Collaboration With the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons

L. David Hillis, Peter K. Smith, Jeffrey L. Anderson, John A. Bittl, Charles R. Bridges, John G. Byrne, Joaquin E. Cigarroa, Verdi J. DiSesa, Loren F. Hiratzka, Adolph M. Hutter Jr, Michael E. Jessen, Ellen C. Keeley, Stephen J. Lahey, Richard A. Lange, Martin J. London, Michael J. Mack, Manesh R. Patel, John D. Puskas, Joseph F. Sabik, Ola Selnes, David M. Shahian, Jeffrey C. Trost and Michael D. Winniford

This article has a correction. Please see:

Correction - May 01, 2012

Author + information

vol. 58 no. 24 2584-2614

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2011.08.008

Published By:

Journal of the American College of Cardiology

Print ISSN:

0735-1097

Online ISSN:

1558-3597

History:

Published online December 6, 2011.

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

Author Information

L. David Hillis, MD, FACC, Chair, Writing Committee Member^†,
Peter K. Smith, MD, FACC, Vice Chair, Writing Committee Member^⁎,^†,
Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA, Writing Committee Member^⁎,^‡,
John A. Bittl, MD, FACC, Writing Committee Member^§,
Charles R. Bridges, MD, ScD, FACC, FAHA, Writing Committee Member^⁎,^†,
John G. Byrne, MD, FACC, Writing Committee Member^†,
Joaquin E. Cigarroa, MD, FACC, Writing Committee Member^†,
Verdi J. DiSesa, MD, FACC, Writing Committee Member^†,
Loren F. Hiratzka, MD, FACC, FAHA, Writing Committee Member^†,
Adolph M. Hutter Jr, MD, MACC, FAHA, Writing Committee Member^†,
Michael E. Jessen, MD, FACC, Writing Committee Member^⁎,^†,
Ellen C. Keeley, MD, MS, Writing Committee Member^†,
Stephen J. Lahey, MD, Writing Committee Member^†,
Richard A. Lange, MD, FACC, FAHA, Writing Committee Member^†,^§,
Martin J. London, MD, Writing Committee Member^∥,
Michael J. Mack, MD, FACC, Writing Committee Member^⁎,^¶,
Manesh R. Patel, MD, FACC, Writing Committee Member^†,
John D. Puskas, MD, FACC, Writing Committee Member^⁎,^†,
Joseph F. Sabik, MD, FACC, Writing Committee Member^⁎,^#,
Ola Selnes, PhD, Writing Committee Member^†,
David M. Shahian, MD, FACC, FAHA, Writing Committee Member^⁎⁎,
Jeffrey C. Trost, MD, FACC, Writing Committee Member^⁎,^† and
Michael D. Winniford, MD, FACC, Writing Committee Member^†

Key Words

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

Preamble…...2585
1. Introduction…...2588
- 1.1 Methodology and Evidence Review…...2588
- 1.2 Organization of the Writing Committee…...2588
- 1.3 Document Review and Approval…...2588
2. Procedural Considerations: Recommendations…...2588
- 2.1 Anesthetic Considerations…...2588
- 2.2 Bypass Graft Conduit…...2589
- 2.3 Intraoperative Transesophageal Echocardiography…...2589
- 2.4 Preconditioning/Management of Myocardial Ischemia…...2589
- 2.5 Clinical Subsets…...2589
  - 2.5.1 CABG in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction…...2589
  - 2.5.2 Life-Threatening Ventricular Arrhythmias…...2590
  - 2.5.3 Emergency CABG After Failed PCI…...2590
  - 2.5.4 CABG in Association With Other Cardiac Procedures…...2590
3. CAD Revascularization: Recommendations…...2590
- 3.1 Heart Team Approach to Revascularization Decisions…...2590
- 3.2 Revascularization to Improve Survival…...2590
- 3.3 Revascularization to Improve Symptoms…...2593
- 3.4 Clinical Factors That May Influence the Choice of Revascularization…...2593
  - 3.4.1 Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Compliance and Stent Thrombosis…...2593
- 3.5 Hybrid Coronary Revascularization…...2593
4. Perioperative Management: Recommendations…...2593
- 4.1 Preoperative Antiplatelet Therapy…...2593
- 4.2 Postoperative Antiplatelet Therapy…...2593
- 4.3 Management of Hyperlipidemia…...2594
- 4.4 Hormonal Manipulation…...2594
- 4.5 Perioperative Beta Blockers…...2594
- 4.6 Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin-Receptor Blockers…...2594
- 4.7 Smoking Cessation…...2594
- 4.8 Emotional Dysfunction and Psychosocial Considerations…...2595
- 4.9 Cardiac Rehabilitation…...2595
- 4.10 Perioperative Monitoring…...2595
  - 4.10.1 Electrocardiographic Monitoring…...2595
  - 4.10.2 Pulmonary Artery Catheterization…...2595
  - 4.10.3 Central Nervous System Monitoring…...2595
5. CABG-Associated Morbidity and Mortality: Occurrence and Prevention: Recommendations…...2595
- 5.1 Public Reporting of Cardiac Surgery Outcomes…...2595
  - 5.1.1 Use of Outcomes or Volume as CABG Quality Measures…...2595
- 5.2 Use of Epiaortic Ultrasound Imaging to Reduce Stroke Rates…...2595
- 5.3 The Role of Preoperative Carotid Artery Noninvasive Screening in CABG Patients…...2595
- 5.4 Mediastinitis/Perioperative Infection…...2596
- 5.5 Renal Dysfunction…...2596
- 5.6 Perioperative Myocardial Dysfunction…...2596
  - 5.6.1 Transfusion…...2596
- 5.7 Perioperative Dysrhythmias…...2596
- 5.8 Perioperative Bleeding/Transfusion…...2596
6. Specific Patient Subsets: Recommendations…...2597
- 6.1 Anomalous Coronary Arteries…...2597
- 6.2 Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease/Respiratory Insufficiency…...2597
- 6.3 Patients With End-Stage Renal Disease on Dialysis…...2597
- 6.4 Patients With Concomitant Valvular Disease…...2597
- 6.5 Patients With Previous Cardiac Surgery…...2597
References…...2597
Appendix 1. Author Relationships With Industry and Other Entities (Relevant)…...2610
Appendix 2. Reviewer Relationships With Industry and Other Entities (Relevant)…...2612

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:

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 the 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 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 rescue 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 and AHA 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, evidence tables (with references linked to abstracts in PubMed) have been added.

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

Whenever possible, the recommendations listed in this document are evidence based. Articles reviewed in this guideline revision covered evidence from the past 10 years through January 2011, as well as selected other references through April 2011. Searches were limited to studies, reviews, and evidence conducted in human subjects that were published in English. Key search words included but were not limited to: analgesia, anastomotic techniques, antiplatelet agents, automated proximal clampless anastomosis device, asymptomatic ischemia, Cardica C-port, cost effectiveness, depressed left ventricular (LV) function, distal anastomotic techniques, direct proximal anastomosis on aorta, distal anastomotic devices, emergency coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), heart failure, interrupted sutures, LV systolic dysfunction, magnetic connectors, PAS-Port automated proximal clampless anastomotic device, patency, proximal connectors, renal disease, sequential anastomosis, sternotomy, symmetry connector, symptomatic ischemia, proximal connectors, sequential anastomosis, T grafts, thoracotomy, U-clips, Ventrica Magnetic Vascular Port system, Y grafts. 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 but not all-inclusive.

The guideline is focused on the safe, appropriate, and efficacious performance of CABG. The STEMI, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and CABG guidelines were written concurrently, with additional collaboration from the Stable Ischemic Heart Disease (SIHD) guideline writing committee. This allowed greater collaboration among the different writing committees on topics such as PCI in STEMI and revascularization strategies in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) (including unprotected left main PCI, multivessel disease revascularization, and hybrid procedures).

In accordance with the direction of the Task Force and feedback from readers, in this iteration of the guideline, the amount of text has been shortened, and emphasis has been placed 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.

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 CABG.

1.2 Organization of the Writing Committee

The committee was composed of acknowledged experts in CABG, interventional cardiology, general cardiology, and cardiovascular anesthesiology. The committee included representatives from the ACCF, AHA, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS).

1.3 Document Review and Approval

This document was reviewed by 2 official reviewers, each nominated by both the ACCF and the AHA, as well as 1 reviewer each from the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, and STS, as well as members from the ACCF/AHA Task Force on Data Standards, ACCF/AHA Task Force on Performance Measures, ACCF Surgeons' Scientific Council, ACCF Interventional Scientific Council, and Southern Thoracic Surgical Association. All information on reviewers' RWIs 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 and the AHA and endorsed by the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, and STS.

2 Procedural Considerations: Recommendations

2.1 Anesthetic Considerations

Class I

1. Anesthetic management directed toward early postoperative extubation and accelerated recovery of low- to medium-risk patients undergoing uncomplicated CABG is recommended (5–7). (Level of Evidence: B)
2. Multidisciplinary efforts are indicated to ensure an optimal level of analgesia and patient comfort throughout the perioperative period (8–12). (Level of Evidence: B)
3. Efforts are recommended to improve interdisciplinary communication and patient safety in the perioperative environment (e.g., formalized checklist-guided multidisciplinary communication) (13–16). (Level of Evidence: B)
4. A fellowship-trained cardiac anesthesiologist (or experienced board-certified practitioner) credentialed in the use of perioperative transesophageal echocardiography is recommended to provide or supervise anesthetic care of patients who are considered to be at high risk (17–19). (Level of Evidence: C)

Class IIa

1. Volatile anesthestic-based regimens can be useful in facilitating early extubation and reducing patient recall (6,20–22). (Level of Evidence: A)

Class IIb

1. The effectiveness of high thoracic epidural anesthesia/analgesia for routine analgesic use is uncertain (23–26). (Level of Evidence: B)

Class III: Harm

1. Cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors are not recommended for pain relief in the postoperative period after CABG (27,28). (Level of Evidence: B)
2. Routine use of early extubation strategies in facilities with limited backup for airway emergencies or advanced respiratory support is potentially harmful. (Level of Evidence: C)

2.2 Bypass Graft Conduit

Class I

1. If possible, the left internal mammary artery (LIMA) should be used to bypass the left anterior descending (LAD) artery when bypass of the LAD artery is indicated (29–32). (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIa

1. The right internal mammary artery is probably indicated to bypass the LAD artery when the LIMA is unavailable or unsuitable as a bypass conduit. (Level of Evidence: C)
2. When anatomically and clinically suitable, use of a second internal mammary artery to graft the left circumflex or right coronary artery (when critically stenosed and perfusing LV myocardium) is reasonable to improve the likelihood of survival and to decrease reintervention (33–37). (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIb

1. Complete arterial revascularization may be reasonable in patients less than or equal to 60 years of age with few or no comorbidities. (Level of Evidence: C)
2. Arterial grafting of the right coronary artery may be reasonable when a critical (≥90%) stenosis is present (32,36,38). (Level of Evidence: B)
3. Use of a radial artery graft may be reasonable when grafting left-sided coronary arteries with severe stenoses (>70%) and right-sided arteries with critical stenoses (≥90%) that perfuse LV myocardium (39–44). (Level of Evidence: B)

Class III: Harm

1. An arterial graft should not be used to bypass the right coronary artery with less than a critical stenosis (<90%) (32). (Level of Evidence: C)

2.3 Intraoperative Transesophageal Echocardiography

Class I

1. Intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography should be performed for evaluation of acute, persistent, and life-threatening hemodynamic disturbances that have not responded to treatment (45,46). (Level of Evidence: B)
2. Intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography should be performed in patients undergoing concomitant valvular surgery (45,47). (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIa

1. Intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography is reasonable for monitoring of hemodynamic status, ventricular function, regional wall motion, and valvular function in patients undergoing CABG (46,48–53). (Level of Evidence: B)

2.4 Preconditioning/Management of Myocardial Ischemia

Class I

1. Management targeted at optimizing the determinants of coronary arterial perfusion (e.g., heart rate, diastolic or mean arterial pressure, and right ventricular or LV end-diastolic pressure) is recommended to reduce the risk of perioperative myocardial ischemia and infarction (54–58). (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIa

1. Volatile-based anesthesia can be useful in reducing the risk of perioperative myocardial ischemia and infarction (59–62). (Level of Evidence: A)

Class IIb

1. The effectiveness of prophylactic pharmacological therapies or controlled reperfusion strategies aimed at inducing preconditioning or attenuating the adverse consequences of myocardial reperfusion injury or surgically induced systemic inflammation is uncertain (63–70). (Level of Evidence: A)
2. Mechanical preconditioning might be considered to reduce the risk of perioperative myocardial ischemia and infarction in patients undergoing off-pump CABG (71–73). (Level of Evidence: B)
3. Remote ischemic preconditioning strategies using peripheral-extremity occlusion/reperfusion might be considered to attenuate the adverse consequences of myocardial reperfusion injury (74–76). (Level of Evidence: B)
4. The effectiveness of postconditioning strategies to attenuate the adverse consequences of myocardial reperfusion injury is uncertain (77,78). (Level of Evidence: C)

2.5 Clinical Subsets

2.5.1 CABG in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction

Class I

1. Emergency CABG is recommended in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) in whom 1) primary PCI has failed or cannot be performed, 2) coronary anatomy is suitable for CABG, and 3) persistent ischemia of a significant area of myocardium at rest and/or hemodynamic instability refractory to nonsurgical therapy is present (79–83). (Level of Evidence: B)
2. Emergency CABG is recommended in patients undergoing surgical repair of a postinfarction mechanical complication of MI, such as ventricular septal rupture, mitral valve insufficiency because of papillary muscle infarction and/or rupture, or free wall rupture (84–88). (Level of Evidence: B)
3. Emergency CABG is recommended in patients with cardiogenic shock and who are suitable for CABG irrespective of the time interval from MI to onset of shock and time from MI to CABG (82,89–91). (Level of Evidence: B)
4. Emergency CABG is recommended in patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias (believed to be ischemic in origin) in the presence of left main stenosis greater than or equal to 50% and/or 3-vessel CAD (92). (Level of Evidence: C)

Class IIa

1. The use of CABG is reasonable as a revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel CAD with recurrent angina or MI within the first 48 hours of STEMI presentation as an alternative to a more delayed strategy (79,81,83,93). (Level of Evidence: B)
2. Early revascularization with PCI or CABG is reasonable for selected patients greater than 75 years of age with ST-segment elevation or left bundle branch block who are suitable for revascularization irrespective of the time interval from MI to onset of shock (94–98). (Level of Evidence: B)

Class III: Harm

1. Emergency CABG should not be performed in patients with persistent angina and a small area of viable myocardium who are stable hemodynamically. (Level of Evidence: C)
2. Emergency CABG should not be performed in patients with no-reflow (successful epicardial reperfusion with unsuccessful microvascular reperfusion). (Level of Evidence: C)

2.5.2 Life-Threatening Ventricular Arrhythmias

Class I

1. CABG is recommended in patients with resuscitated sudden cardiac death or sustained ventricular tachycardia thought to be caused by significant CAD (≥50% stenosis of left main coronary artery and/or ≥70% stenosis of 1, 2, or all 3 epicardial coronary arteries) and resultant myocardial ischemia (92,99,100). (Level of Evidence: B)

Class III: Harm

1. CABG should not be performed in patients with ventricular tachycardia with scar and no evidence of ischemia. (Level of Evidence: C)

2.5.3 Emergency CABG After Failed PCI

Class I

1. Emergency CABG is recommended after failed PCI in the presence of ongoing ischemia or threatened occlusion with substantial myocardium at risk (101,102). (Level of Evidence: B)
2. Emergency CABG is recommended after failed PCI for hemodynamic compromise in patients without impairment of the coagulation system and without a previous sternotomy (101,103,104). (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIa

1. Emergency CABG is reasonable after failed PCI for retrieval of a foreign body (most likely a fractured guidewire or stent) in a crucial anatomic location. (Level of Evidence: C)
2. Emergency CABG can be beneficial after failed PCI for hemodynamic compromise in patients with impairment of the coagulation system and without previous sternotomy. (Level of Evidence: C)

Class IIb

1. Emergency CABG might be considered after failed PCI for hemodynamic compromise in patients with previous sternotomy. (Level of Evidence: C)

Class III: Harm

1. Emergency CABG should not be performed after failed PCI in the absence of ischemia or threatened occlusion. (Level of Evidence: C)
2. Emergency CABG should not be performed after failed PCI if revascularization is impossible because of target anatomy or a no-reflow state. (Level of Evidence: C)

2.5.4 CABG in Association With Other Cardiac Procedures

Class I

1. CABG is recommended in patients undergoing noncoronary cardiac surgery with greater than or equal to 50% luminal diameter narrowing of the left main coronary artery or greater than or equal to 70% luminal diameter narrowing of other major coronary arteries. (Level of Evidence: C)

Class IIa

1. The use of the LIMA is reasonable to bypass a significantly narrowed LAD artery in patients undergoing noncoronary cardiac surgery. (Level of Evidence: C)
2. CABG of moderately diseased coronary arteries (>50% luminal diameter narrowing) is reasonable in patients undergoing noncoronary cardiac surgery. (Level of Evidence: C)

3 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 Unstable Angina/Non–ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction (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) to improve survival and 2) to relieve symptoms. The following text contains recommendations for revascularization to improve survival and symptoms. These recommendations are summarized in Tables 2 and 3.⇓⇓

View this table:

Table 2

Revascularization to Improve Survival Compared With Medical Therapy

View this table:

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.

3.1 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 (105–107). (Level of Evidence: C)

Class IIa

1. Calculation of the STS and SYNTAX (Synergy between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery) scores is reasonable in patients with unprotected left main and complex CAD (107–114). (Level of Evidence: B)

3.2 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 (115–121). (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., STS-predicted risk of operative mortality ≥5%) (108,110,111,122–140,168). (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 (111,127,129–131,136,137,139,140,142). (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 Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction grade 3, and PCI can be performed more rapidly and safely than CABG (124,143,144). (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; STS-predicted risk of operative mortality >2%) (108,110,111,122–140,145). (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 (108,110,111,115–123). (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 LAD artery) or in the proximal LAD plus 1 other major coronary artery (117,121,146–149). (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 [99,150,152]; PCI Level of Evidence: C [150])

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 (153–156). (Level of Evidence: B)
2. CABG to improve survival is reasonable in patients with mild–moderate LV 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 (121,157–161). (Level of Evidence: B)
3. CABG with a LIMA graft to improve survival is reasonable in patients with significant (≥70% diameter) stenosis in the proximal LAD artery and evidence of extensive ischemia (30,31,121,148). (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 (123,138,148,164–165). (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 LIMA graft can be anastomosed to the LAD artery (155,168–175). (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 (148). (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 (117,146,148,176). (Level of Evidence: B)
3. CABG might be considered with the primary or sole intent of improving survival in patients with SIHD with severe LV systolic dysfunction (ejection fraction <35%) whether or not viable myocardium is present (121,157–161,177,178). (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 (179–187). (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 (121,146,153,154,188–192). (Level of Evidence: B)

3.3 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 (176,193–202). (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 (180,183,186). (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 (123,138,148,164,165). (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 (187). (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 (203–207). (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)

3.4 Clinical Factors That May Influence the Choice of Revascularization

3.4.1 Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Compliance and Stent Thrombosis

Class III: Harm

1. PCI with coronary stenting (bare-metal stent or drug-eluting stent) should not be performed if the patient is not likely to be able to tolerate and comply with dual antiplatelet therapy for the appropriate duration of treatment based on the type of stent implanted (208–211). (Level of Evidence: B)

3.5 Hybrid Coronary Revascularization

Class IIa

1. Hybrid coronary revascularization (defined as the planned combination of LIMA-to-LAD artery grafting and PCI of ≥1 non-LAD coronary arteries) is reasonable in patients with 1 or more of the following (212–220) (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 for PCI (i.e., excessive vessel tortuosity or chronic total occlusion).

Class IIb

1. Hybrid coronary revascularization (defined as the planned combination of LIMA-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)

4 Perioperative Management: Recommendations

4.1 Preoperative Antiplatelet Therapy

Class I

1. Aspirin (100 mg to 325 mg daily) should be administered to CABG patients preoperatively (221–223). (Level of Evidence: B)
2. In patients referred for elective CABG, clopidogrel and ticagrelor should be discontinued for at least 5 days before surgery (224–226) (Level of Evidence: B) and prasugrel for at least 7 days (Level of Evidence: C) to limit blood transfusions.
3. In patients referred for urgent CABG, clopidogrel and ticagrelor should be discontinued for at least 24 hours to reduce major bleeding complications (225,227–229). (Level of Evidence: B)
4. In patients referred for CABG, short-acting intravenous glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (eptifibatide or tirofiban) should be discontinued for at least 2 to 4 hours before surgery (230,231) and abciximab for at least 12 hours beforehand (232) to limit blood loss and transfusions. (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIb

1. In patients referred for urgent CABG, it may be reasonable to perform surgery less than 5 days after clopidogrel or ticagrelor has been discontinued and less than 7 days after prasugrel has been discontinued. (Level of Evidence: C)

4.2 Postoperative Antiplatelet Therapy

Class I

1. If aspirin (100 mg to 325 mg daily) was not initiated preoperatively, it should be initiated within 6 hours postoperatively and then continued indefinitely to reduce the occurrence of saphenous vein graft closure and adverse cardiovascular events (223,233,234). (Level of Evidence: A)

Class IIa

1. For patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting, clopidogrel 75 mg daily is a reasonable alternative in patients who are intolerant of or allergic to aspirin. (Level of Evidence: C)

4.3 Management of Hyperlipidemia

Class I

1. All patients undergoing CABG should receive statin therapy, unless contraindicated (235–247,247a). (Level of Evidence: A)
2. In patients undergoing CABG, an adequate dose of statin should be used to reduce low-density lipoprotein cholesterol to less than 100 mg/dL and to achieve at least a 30% lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol (235–239,247a). (Level of Evidence: C)

Class IIa

1. In patients undergoing CABG, it is reasonable to treat with statin therapy to lower the low-density lipoprotein cholesterol to less than 70 mg/dL in very high-risk^⁎ patients (236–238,247a,248–250). (Level of Evidence: C)
2. For patients undergoing urgent or emergency CABG who are not taking a statin, it is reasonable to initiate high-dose statin therapy immediately (250a). (Level of Evidence: C)

Class III: Harm

1. Discontinuation of statin or other dyslipidemic therapy is not recommended before or after CABG in patients without adverse reactions to therapy (251–253). (Level of Evidence: B)

4.4 Hormonal Manipulation

Class I

1. Use of continuous intravenous insulin to achieve and maintain an early postoperative blood glucose concentration less than or equal to 180 mg/dL while avoiding hypoglycemia is indicated to reduce the incidence of adverse events, including deep sternal wound infection, after CABG (254–256). (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIb

1. The use of continuous intravenous insulin designed to achieve a target intraoperative blood glucose concentration less than 140 mg/dL has uncertain effectiveness (257–259). (Level of Evidence: B)

Class III: Harm

1. Postmenopausal hormonal therapy (estrogen/prosgesterone) should not be administered to women undergoing CABG (260–262). (Level of Evidence: B)

4.5 Perioperative Beta Blockers

Class I

1. Beta blockers should be administered for at least 24 hours before CABG to all patients without contraindications to reduce the incidence or clinical sequelae of postoperative AF (263–267,267a–267c). (Level of Evidence: B)
2. Beta blockers should be reinstituted as soon as possible after CABG in all patients without contraindications to reduce the incidence or clinical sequelae of AF (263–267,267a–267c). (Level of Evidence: B)
3. Beta blockers should be prescribed to all CABG patients without contraindications at the time of hospital discharge. (Level of Evidence: C)

Class IIa

1. Preoperative use of beta blockers in patients without contraindications, particularly in those with an LV ejection fraction (LVEF) greater than 30%, can be effective in reducing the risk of in-hospital mortality (268–270). (Level of Evidence: B)
2. Beta blockers can be effective in reducing the incidence of perioperative myocardial ischemia (271–274). (Level of Evidence: B)
3. Intravenous administration of beta blockers in clinically stable patients unable to take oral medications is reasonable in the early postoperative period (275). (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIb

1. The effectiveness of preoperative beta blockers in reducing in-hospital mortality rate in patients with LVEF less than 30% is uncertain (268,276). (Level of Evidence: B)

4.6 Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin-Receptor Blockers

Class I

1. Angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors and angiotensin-receptor blockers given before CABG should be reinstituted postoperatively once the patient is stable, unless contraindicated (277–279). (Level of Evidence: B)
2. ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers should be initiated postoperatively and continued indefinitely in CABG patients who were not receiving them preoperatively, who are stable, and who have an LVEF less than or equal to 40%, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, or chronic kidney disease, unless contraindicated (278,279a,279b). (Level of Evidence: A)

Class IIa

1. It is reasonable to initiate ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers postoperatively and to continue them indefinitely in all CABG patients who were not receiving them preoperatively and are considered to be at low risk (i.e., those with a normal LVEF in whom cardiovascular risk factors are well controlled), unless contraindicated (278–282). (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIb

1. The safety of the preoperative administration of ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers in patients on chronic therapy is uncertain (283–288). (Level of Evidence: B)
2. The safety of initiating ACE inhibitors or angiotensin-receptor blockers before hospital discharge is not well established (278,280,282,289). (Level of Evidence: B)

4.7 Smoking Cessation

Class I

1. All smokers should receive in-hospital educational counseling and be offered smoking cessation therapy during CABG hospitalization (291–293,293a). (Level of Evidence: A)

Class IIb

1. The effectiveness of pharmacological therapy for smoking cessation offered to patients before hospital discharge is uncertain. (Level of Evidence: C)

4.8 Emotional Dysfunction and Psychosocial Considerations

Class IIa

1. Cognitive behavior therapy or collaborative care for patients with clinical depression after CABG can be beneficial to reduce objective measures of depression (294–298). (Level of Evidence: B)

4.9 Cardiac Rehabilitation

Class I

1. Cardiac rehabilitation is recommended for all eligible patients after CABG (299–301,301a–301d). (Level of Evidence: A)

4.10 Perioperative Monitoring

4.10.1 Electrocardiographic Monitoring

Class I

1. Continuous monitoring of the electrocardiogram for arrhythmias should be performed for at least 48 hours in all patients after CABG (265,302,303). (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIa

1. Continuous ST-segment monitoring for detection of ischemia is reasonable in the intraoperative period for patients undergoing CABG (56,304–306). (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIb

1. Continuous ST-segment monitoring for detection of ischemia may be considered in the early postoperative period after CABG (272,302,307–310). (Level of Evidence: B)

4.10.2 Pulmonary Artery Catheterization

Class I

1. Placement of a pulmonary artery catheter is indicated, preferably before the induction of anesthesia or surgical incision, in patients in cardiogenic shock undergoing CABG. (Level of Evidence: C)

Class IIa

1. Placement of a pulmonary artery catheter can be useful in the intraoperative or early postoperative period in patients with acute hemodynamic instability (311–316). (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIb

1. Placement of a pulmonary artery catheter may be reasonable in clinically stable patients undergoing CABG after consideration of baseline patient risk, the planned surgical procedure, and the practice setting (311–316). (Level of Evidence: B)

4.10.3 Central Nervous System Monitoring

Class IIb

1. The effectiveness of intraoperative monitoring of the processed electroencephalogram to reduce the possibility of adverse recall of clinical events or for detection of cerebral hypoperfusion in CABG patients is uncertain (449–451). (Level of Evidence: B)
2. The effectiveness of routine use of intraoperative or early postoperative monitoring of cerebral oxygen saturation via near-infrared spectroscopy to detect cerebral hypoperfusion in patients undergoing CABG is uncertain (317–319). (Level of Evidence: B)

5 CABG-Associated Morbidity and Mortality: Occurrence and Prevention: Recommendations

5.1 Public Reporting of Cardiac Surgery Outcomes

Class I

1. Public reporting of cardiac surgery outcomes should use risk-adjusted results based on clinical data (320–327). (Level of Evidence: B)

5.1.1 Use of Outcomes or Volume as CABG Quality Measures

Class I

1. All cardiac surgery programs should participate in a state, regional, or national clinical data registry and should receive periodic reports of their risk-adjusted outcomes. (Level of Evidence: C)

Class IIa

1. When credible risk-adjusted outcomes data are not available, volume can be useful as a structural metric of CABG quality (328–342). (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIb

1. Affiliation with a high-volume tertiary center might be considered by cardiac surgery programs that perform fewer than 125 CABG procedures annually. (Level of Evidence: C)

5.2 Use of Epiaortic Ultrasound Imaging to Reduce Stroke Rates

Class IIa

1. Routine epiaortic ultrasound scanning is reasonable to evaluate the presence, location, and severity of plaque in the ascending aorta to reduce the incidence of atheroembolic complications (343–345). (Level of Evidence: B)

5.3 The Role of Preoperative Carotid Artery Noninvasive Screening in CABG Patients

Class I

1. A multidisciplinary team approach (consisting of a cardiologist, cardiac surgeon, vascular surgeon, and neurologist) is recommended for patients with clinically significant carotid artery disease for whom CABG is planned. (Level of Evidence: C)

Class IIa

1. Carotid artery duplex scanning is reasonable in selected patients who are considered to have high-risk features (i.e., age >65 years, left main coronary stenosis, peripheral artery disease, history of cerebrovascular disease [transient ischemic attack, stroke, etc.], hypertension, smoking, and diabetes mellitus) (346,347). (Level of Evidence: C)
2. In the CABG patient with a previous transient ischemic attack or stroke and a significant (50% to 99%) carotid artery stenosis, it is reasonable to consider carotid revascularization in conjunction with CABG. In such an individual, the sequence and timing (simultaneous or staged) of carotid intervention and CABG should be determined by the patient's relative magnitudes of cerebral and myocardial dysfunction. (Level of Evidence: C)

Class IIb

1. In the patient scheduled to undergo CABG who has no history of transient ischemic attack or stroke, carotid revascularization may be considered in the presence of bilateral severe (70% to 99%) carotid stenoses or a unilateral severe carotid stenosis with a contralateral occlusion. (Level of Evidence: C)

5.4 Mediastinitis/Perioperative Infection

Class I

1. Preoperative antibiotics should be administered to all patients to reduce the risk of postoperative infection (348–353). (Level of Evidence: A)
2. A first- or second-generation cephalosporin is recommended for prophylaxis in patients without methicillin-resistant Staphylococcus aureus colonization (353–361). (Level of Evidence: A)
3. Vancomycin alone or in combination with other antibiotics to achieve broader coverage is recommended for prophylaxis in patients with proven or suspected methicillin-resistant S. aureus colonization (356,362–364). (Level of Evidence: B)
4. A deep sternal wound infection should be treated with aggressive surgical debridement in the absence of complicating circumstances. Primary or secondary closure with muscle or omental flap is recommended (365–367). Vacuum therapy in conjunction with early and aggressive debridement is an effective adjunctive therapy (368–377). (Level of Evidence: B)
5. Use of a continuous intravenous insulin protocol to achieve and maintain an early postoperative blood glucose concentration less than or equal to 180 mg/dL while avoiding hypoglycemia is indicated to reduce the risk of deep sternal wound infection (256,259,378–381). (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIa

1. When blood transfusions are needed, leukocyte-filtered blood can be useful to reduce the rate of overall perioperative infection and in-hospital death (382–385). (Level of Evidence: B)
2. The use of intranasal mupirocin is reasonable in nasal carriers of S. aureus (386,387). (Level of Evidence: A)
3. The routine use of intranasal mupirocin is reasonable in patients who are not carriers of S. aureus, unless an allergy exists. (Level of Evidence: C)

Class IIb

1. The use of bilateral internal mammary arteries in patients with diabetes mellitus is associated with an increased risk of deep sternal wound infection, but it may be reasonable when the overall benefit to the patient outweighs this increased risk. (Level of Evidence: C)

5.5 Renal Dysfunction

Class IIb

1. In patients with preoperative renal dysfunction (creatinine clearance <60 mL/min), off-pump CABG may be reasonable to reduce the risk of acute kidney injury (388–392). (Level of Evidence: B)
2. In patients with preexisting renal dysfunction undergoing on-pump CABG, maintenance of a perioperative hematocrit greater than 19% and mean arterial pressure greater than 60 mm Hg may be reasonable. (Level of Evidence: C)
3. In patients with preexisting renal dysfunction, a delay of surgery after coronary angiography may be reasonable until the effect of radiographic contrast material on renal function is assessed (393–395). (Level of Evidence: B)
4. The effectiveness of pharmacological agents to provide renal protection during cardiac surgery is uncertain (396–418). (Level of Evidence: B)

5.6 Perioperative Myocardial Dysfunction

Class IIa

1. In the absence of severe, symptomatic aorto-iliac occlusive disease or peripheral artery disease, the insertion of an intra-aortic balloon is reasonable to reduce mortality rate in CABG patients who are considered to be at high risk (e.g., those who are undergoing reoperation or have LVEF <30% or left main CAD) (419–424). (Level of Evidence: B)
2. Measurement of biomarkers of myonecrosis (e.g., creatine kinase-MB, troponin) is reasonable in the first 24 hours after CABG (425). (Level of Evidence: B)

5.6.1 Transfusion

Class I

1. Aggressive attempts at blood conservation are indicated to limit hemodilutional anemia and the need for intraoperative and perioperative allogeneic red blood cell transfusion in CABG patients (426–429). (Level of Evidence: B)

5.7 Perioperative Dysrhythmias

Class I

1. Beta blockers should be administered for at least 24 hours before CABG to all patients without contraindications to reduce the incidence or clinical sequelae of postoperative AF (263–267,267a–267c). (Level of Evidence: B)
2. Beta blockers should be reinstituted as soon as possible after CABG in all patients without contraindications to reduce the incidence or clinical sequelae of AF (263–267,267a–267c). (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIa

1. Preoperative administration of amiodarone to reduce the incidence of postoperative AF is reasonable for patients at high risk for postoperative AF who have contraindications to beta blockers (430). (Level of Evidence: B)
2. Digoxin and nondihydropyridine calcium channel blockers can be useful to control the ventricular rate in the setting of AF but are not indicated for prophylaxis (265). (Level of Evidence: B)

5.8 Perioperative Bleeding/Transfusion

Class I

1. Lysine analogues are useful intraoperatively and postoperatively in patients undergoing on-pump CABG to reduce perioperative blood loss and transfusion requirements (431–438). (Level of Evidence: A)
2. A multimodal approach with transfusion algorithms, point-of-care testing, and a focused blood conservation strategy should be used to limit the number of transfusions (439–444). (Level of Evidence: A)
3. In patients taking thienopyridines (clopidogrel or prasugrel) or ticagrelor in whom elective CABG is planned, clopidogrel and ticagrelor should be withheld for at least 5 days (224,225,227,228,445–451) (Level of Evidence: B) and prasugrel for at least 7 days (452) (Level of Evidence: C) before surgery.
4. It is recommended that surgery be delayed after the administration of streptokinase, urokinase, and tissue-type plasminogen activators until hemostatic capacity is restored, if possible. The timing of recommended delay should be guided by the pharmacodynamic half-life of the involved agent. (Level of Evidence: C)
5. Tirofiban or eptifibatide should be discontinued at least 2 to 4 hours before CABG and abciximab at least 12 hours before CABG (230–232,436,437,453–457). (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIa

1. It is reasonable to consider off-pump CABG to reduce perioperative bleeding and allogeneic blood transfusion (458–464). (Level of Evidence: A)

6 Specific Patient Subsets: Recommendations

6.1 Anomalous Coronary Arteries

Class I

1. Coronary revascularization should be performed in patients with:
- a. A left main coronary artery that arises anomalously and then courses between the aorta and pulmonary artery (465–467). (Level of Evidence: B)
- b. A right coronary artery that arises anomalously and then courses between the aorta and pulmonary artery with evidence of myocardial ischemia (465–468). (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIb

1. Coronary revascularization may be reasonable in patients with a LAD coronary artery that arises anomalously and then courses between the aorta and pulmonary artery. (Level of Evidence: C)

6.2 Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease/Respiratory Insufficiency

Class IIa

1. Preoperative intensive inspiratory muscle training is reasonable to reduce the incidence of pulmonary complications in patients at high risk for respiratory complications after CABG (469). (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIb

1. After CABG, noninvasive positive pressure ventilation may be reasonable to improve pulmonary mechanics and to reduce the need for reintubation (470,471). (Level of Evidence: B)
2. High thoracic epidural analgesia may be considered to improve lung function after CABG (472,473). (Level of Evidence: B)

6.3 Patients With End-Stage Renal Disease on Dialysis

Class IIb

1. CABG to improve survival rate may be reasonable in patients with end-stage renal disease undergoing CABG for left main coronary artery stenosis of greater than or equal to 50% (474). (Level of Evidence: C)
2. CABG to improve survival rate or to relieve angina despite GDMT may be reasonable for patients with end-stage renal disease with significant stenoses (≥70%) in 3 major vessels or in the proximal LAD artery plus 1 other major vessel, regardless of LV systolic function (475). (Level of Evidence: B)

Class III: Harm

1. CABG should not be performed in patients with end-stage renal disease whose life expectancy is limited by noncardiac issues. (Level of Evidence: C)

6.4 Patients With Concomitant Valvular Disease

Class I

1. Patients undergoing CABG who have at least moderate aortic stenosis should have concomitant aortic valve replacement (476–479). (Level of Evidence: B)
2. Patients undergoing CABG who have severe ischemic mitral valve regurgitation not likely to resolve with revascularization should have concomitant mitral valve repair or replacement at the time of CABG (480–485). (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIa

1. In patients undergoing CABG who have moderate ischemic mitral valve regurgitation not likely to resolve with revascularization, concomitant mitral valve repair or replacement at the time of CABG is reasonable (480–485). (Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIb

1. Patients undergoing CABG who have mild aortic stenosis may be considered for concomitant aortic valve replacement when evidence (e.g., moderate–severe leaflet calcification) suggests that progression of the aortic stenosis may be rapid and the risk of the combined procedure is acceptable. (Level of Evidence: C)

6.5 Patients With Previous Cardiac Surgery

Class IIa

1. In patients with a patent LIMA to the LAD artery and ischemia in the distribution of the right or left circumflex coronary arteries, it is reasonable to recommend reoperative CABG to treat angina if GDMT has failed and the coronary stenoses are not amenable to PCI (186,486). (Level of Evidence: B)

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
Debjani Mukherjee, MPH, Associate Director, Evidence-Based Medicine
Sue Keller, BSN, MPH, Senior Specialist, Evidence-Based Medicine
Maria Koinis, Specialist, Science and Clinical Policy
Jesse M. Welsh, Specialist, Science and Clinical Policy
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
Cheryl L. Perkins, MD, RPh, Science and Medicine Advisor, Office of Science Operations

Appendix 1 Author Relationships With Industry and Other Entities (Relevant)—2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

Committee Member	Employer/Title	Consultant	Speaker's Bureau	Ownership/ Partnership/ Principal	Personal Research	Institutional, Organizational, or Other Financial Benefit	Expert Witness	Voting Recusals by Section Numbers^⁎
L. David Hillis (Chair)	University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio—Professor and Chair of the Department of Medicine	None	None	None	None	None	None	None
Peter K. Smith (Vice Chair)	Duke University Medical Center: Private Diagnostic Clinic—Professor of Surgery; Chief of Thoracic Surgery	• Eli Lilly • Baxter BioSurgery	None	None	None	None	None	2.2.3 4.1 4.2 5.2.6
Jeffrey L. Anderson	Intermountain Medical Center—Associate Chief of Cardiology	• BMS/sanofi-aventis	None	None	• Toshiba‡ • Gilead Pharma • AstraZeneca	None	None	2.1.6 2.2.3 4.1 4.2 4.3 5.2.6
John A. Bittl	Ocala Heart Institute Munroe Regional Medical Center—Interventional Cardiologist	None	None	None	None	None	None	None
Charles R. Bridges	University of Pennsylvania Medical Center—Chief of Cardiothoracic Surgery	• Baxter BioSurgery‡ • Zymogenetics	• Bayer Pharmaceuticals	None	None	None	• Plaintiff, alleged mitral valve dysfunction, 2009 • Defendant, retinal artery occlusion (stroke) after CABG, 2009 • Defendant, timely insertion of IABP after CABG, 2009 • Defendant, timely transport after acute aortic dissection, 2009 • Plaintiff, unexpected intra-abdominal hemorrhage and death after AVR, 2009	2.2.3 4.1 4.2 5.2.6
John G. Byrne	Vanderbilt University Medical Center: Division of Cardiac Surgery—Chairman of Cardiac Surgery	None	None	None	None	None	None	None
Joaquin E. Cigarroa	Oregon Health and Science University—Associate Professor of Medicine	None	None	None	None	None	None	None
Verdi J. DiSesa	John Hopkins Hospital, Division of Cardiac Surgery—Clinical Associate	None	None	None	None	None	None	None
Loren F. Hiratzka	Cardiac, Vascular and Thoracic Surgeons, Inc.—Medical Director of Cardiac Surgery	None	None	None	None	None	None	None
Adolph M. Hutter, Jr.	Massachusetts General Hospital—Professor of Medicine	None	None	None	None	None	None	None
Michael E. Jessen	UT Southwestern Medical Center—Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery	• Quest Medical‡	None	None	None	None	None	2.1.8
Ellen C. Keeley	University of Virginia—Associate Professor of Internal Medicine	None	None	None	None	None	None	None
Stephen J. Lahey	University of Connecticut—Professor and Chief of Cardiothoracic Surgery	None	None	None	None	None	• Defendant, mitral valve replacement, 2009	None
Richard A. Lange	University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio—Professor of Medicine	None	None	None	None	None	None	None
Martin J. London	University of California San Francisco, Veterans Affairs Medical Center—Professor of Clinical Anesthesia	None	None	None	None	None	None	None
Michael J. Mack	The Heart Hospital Baylor Plano—Cardiovascular Surgery, Medical Director	• Cordis • Marquett • Medtronic • Edwards Lifesciences‡	None	None	None	None	None	2.1.3 2.2.1 5.2.1.1 5.2.1.2
Manesh R. Patel	Duke University Medical Center—Associate Professor of Medicine	None	None	None	None	None	None	None
John D. Puskas	Emory University/Emory Healthcare—Chief of Cardiac Surgery	• Marquett • Medtronic	None	None	• Marquett† • Medtronic†	None	None	2.1.3 2.2.1 2.2.2
Joseph F. Sabik	Cleveland Clinic Foundation—Professor of Surgery	• Edwards Lifesciences • Medtronic	None	None	None	None	None	2.2.2 5.2.1.1 5.2.1.2
Ola Selnes	John Hopkins Hospital, Department of Neurology—Professor of Neurology	None	None	None	None	None	None	None
David M. Shahian	Massachusetts General Hospital—Professor of Surgery	None	None	None	None	None	None	None
Jeffrey C. Trost	John Hopkins School of Medicine—Assistant Professor of Medicine	None	None	None	• Toshiba†	None	None	2.1.7 3.5 4.10 4.10.1 4.10.2 4.10.3 5.2.1.1.1 5.2.1.1.2
Michael D. Winniford	University of Mississippi Medical Center—Professor of Medicine	None	None	None	None	None	None	None

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.

AVR indicates aortic valve replacement; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft surgery; and IABP, intra-aortic balloon pump.

↵⁎ 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.

↵‡ No financial benefit.

Appendix 2 Reviewer Relationships With Industry and Other Entitites (Relevant)—2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

Peer Reviewer	Representation	Consultant	Speaker's Bureau	Ownership/ Partnership/ Principal	Personal Research	Institutional, Organizational, or Other Financial Benefit	Expert Witness
Robert Guyton	Official Reviewer—ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines	None	None	None	• Edwards Lifesciences	None	None
Jeffrey Jacobs	Official Reviewer—ACCF/AHA Task Force on Data Standards	None	None	None	None	None	None
L. Kristin Newby	Official Reviewer—AHA	• AstraZeneca	None	None	• Eli Lilly^⁎ • GlaxoSmithKline†	None	None
Eric D. Peterson	Official Reviewer—ACCF/AHA Task Force on Performance Measures	• AstraZeneca	None	None	• BMS/sanofi-aventis† • Eli Lilly†	None	None
Richard J. Shemin	Official Reviewer—AHA	• Edwards Lifesciences	None	None	None	None	None
Hector Ventura	Official Reviewer—ACCF Board of Governors	None	• Actelion • Gilead	None	None	None	None
Thad F. Waites	Official Reviewer—ACCF Board of Trustees	None	None	None	None	None	None
T. Bruce Ferguson, Jr.	Organizational Reviewer—STS	None	None	None	None	None	None
Stephen E. Fremes	Organizational Reviewer—AATS	None	None	None	None	Merck	• Defendant, leaking thoracic aortic aneurysm, 2009 • Defendant, aortic dissection, 2009
Colleen G. Koch	Organizational Reviewer—SCA	None	None	None	None	None	None
Harold L. Lazar	Organizational Reviewer—AATS	None	None	None	None	None	None
Walter H. Merrill	Organizational Reviewer—STS	None	None	None	None	None	None
Stanton K. Shernan	Organizational Reviewer—SCA	None	• Philips Healthcare	None	None	None	• Plaintiff, communication of echocardiography results, 2010
Joseph S. Alpert	Content Reviewer	• Bayer • Sanofi-aventis	None	None	None	None	None
Robert M. Califf	Content Reviewer	• AstraZeneca • Daiichi-Sankyo • GlaxoSmithKline • Medtronic • Sanofi-aventis	None	None	• Eli Lilly† • Bayer	None	None
Robbin G. Cohen	Content Reviewer	None	None	None	None	None	• Defendant, death after minimally invasive heart surgery, 2011 • Defendant, diagnosis of aortic dissection, 2010 • Plaintiff, renal failure and Aprotinin, 2010
Mark A. Creager	Content Reviewer—ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines	• AstraZeneca • Genzyme • Merck • Roche • Vascutek	None	None	• Merck	None	• Plaintiff, Fasudil Development: Asahi Pharma v Actelion, 2010
Steven M. Ettinger	Content Reviewer— ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines	None	None	None	• Medtronic	None	None
David P. Faxon	Content Reviewer	• Sanofi-aventis	None	None	None	None	• Defendant, cath vascular access site complication, 2009
Kirsten E. Fleischmann	Content Reviewer	None	None	None	None	None	None
Lee Fleisher	Content Reviewer	None	None	None	• Pfizer	• AstraZeneca†	• Defendant, perioperative stroke, 2009
Anthony P. Furnary	Content Reviewer—ACCF Surgeons' Scientific Council	None	None	None	None	None	• Defendant, Bayer Corp. Trasylol litigation, 2009 to 2011
Valentin Fuster	Content Reviewer	None	None	None	None	None	None
John W. Hirshfeld, Jr.	Content Reviewer	• GlaxoSmithKline	None	None	None	None	None
Judith S. Hochman	Content Reviewer—ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines	• Eli Lilly • GlaxoSmithKline	None	None	None	None	None
James L. Januzzi, Jr.	Content Reviewer	• Roche	None	None	• Roche	None	None
Frederick G. Kushner	Content Reviewer—Vice Chair, 2012 STEMI Guideline Writing Committee	None	None	None	None	None	None
Glenn Levine	Content Reviewer—Chair, 2011 PCI Guideline Writing Committee	None	None	None	None	None	None
Donald Likosky	Content Reviewer	None	None	None	• Maquet† • Medtronic†	None	None
James J. Livesay	Content Reviewer—Southern Thoracic Surgical Association	None	None	None	None	None	• Defendant, acute aortic dissection, 2011 • Defendant, cardiac mortality review, 2010 • Defendant, heparin induced thrombocytopenia, 2010
Bruce W. Lytle	Content Reviewer—2004 CABG Guideline Writing Committee	None	None	None	None	None	None
Robert A. Marlow	Content Reviewer—2004 CABG Guideline Writing Committee	None	None	None	None	None	None
Rick A. Nishimura	Content Reviewer—ACCF Board of Trustees	None	None	None	None	None	None
Patrick O'Gara	Content Reviewer—Chair, 2012 STEMI Guideline Writing Committee	None	None	None	None	None	None
E. Magnus Ohman	Content Reviewer—ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines	• AstraZeneca • Bristol-Myers Squibb • Boehringer Ingelheim • Gilead Sciences • Merck • Pozen • Sanofi-aventis	• Boehringer Ingelheim • Gilead Sciences	None	• Daiichi-Sankyo • Datascope • Eli Lilly	None	None
John D. Rutherford	Content Reviewer	None	None	None	None	None	None
George A. Stouffer	Content Reviewer	None	None	None	None	None	• Defendant, review of malpractice claim, 2010
Mathew Williams	Content Reviewer—ACCF Interventional Scientific Council	• Edwards Lifesciences • Medtronic	None	None	None	None	None

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.

AATS indicates American Association for Thoracic Surgery; ACCF, American College of Cardiology Foundation; AHA, American Heart Association; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft surgery; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention; SCA, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists; STEMI, ST-elevation myocardial infarction; and STS, Society of Thoracic Surgeons.

↵⁎ No financial benefit.

↵† Significant relationship.

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.
↵‡ ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines Liaison.
↵§ Joint Revascularization Section Author.
↵∥ Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists Representative.
↵¶ American Association for Thoracic Surgery Representative.
↵# Society of Thoracic Surgeons Representative.
↵⁎⁎ ACCF/AHA Task Force on Performance Measures Liaison.
↵⁎ Presence of established cardiovascular disease plus 1) multiple major risk factors (especially diabetes), 2) severe and poorly controlled risk factors (especially continued cigarette smoking), 3) multiple risk factors of the metabolic syndrome (especially high triglycerides ≥200 mg/dL plus non–high-density lipoprotein cholesterol ≥130 mg/dL with low high-density lipoprotein cholesterol [<40 mg/dL]), and 4) acute coronary syndromes.
This document was approved by the American College of Cardiology Foundation Board of Trustees and American Heart Association Science Advisory and Coordinating Committee in July 2011, by the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists and Society of Thoracic Surgeons in August 2011, and by the American Association for Thoracic Surgery in September 2011.
The American College of Cardiology Foundation requests that this document be cited as follows: Hillis LD, Smith PK, Anderson JL, Bittl JA, Bridges CR, Byrne JG, Cigarroa JE, DiSesa VJ, Hiratzka LF, Hutter AM Jr., Jessen ME, Keeley EC, Lahey SJ, Lange RA, London MJ, Mack MJ, Patel MR, Puskas JD, Sabik JF, Selnes O, Shahian DM, Trost JC, Winniford MD. 2011 ACCF/AHA guideline for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol 2011;58:2584–614.
This article is copublished in Circulation, Anesthesia & Analgesia, and the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery.
Copies: This document is available on the World Wide Web sites of the American College of Cardiology (www.cardiosource.org), and the American Heart Association (my.americanheart.org). For copies of this document, please contact the 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. ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines
Methodologies and Policies from the ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines. http://assets.cardiosource.com/Methodology_Manual_for_ACC_AHA_Writing_Committees.pdf http://circ.ahajournals.org/site/manual/index.xhtml. Accessed July 1, 2011.
2.↵
1. Institute of Medicine
(2011) Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC).
3.
1. Institute of Medicine
(2011) Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC).
4.↵
1. Hillis L.D.,
2. Smith P.K.,
3. Anderson J.L.,
4. et al.
(2011) 2011 ACCF/AHA guideline for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol, published online before print November 7, 2011, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2011.08.009. Accessed November 7, 2011.
5.↵
1. Hawkes C.A.,
2. Dhileepan S.,
3. Foxcroft D.
(2003) Early extubation for adult cardiac surgical patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, CD003587-10.1002/14651858.CD003587.
6.↵
1. Myles P.S.,
2. Daly D.J.,
3. Djaiani G.,
4. et al.
(2003) A systematic review of the safety and effectiveness of fast-track cardiac anesthesia. Anesthesiology 99:982–987.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
7.
1. van Mastrigt G.A.,
2. Maessen J.G.,
3. Heijmans J.,
4. et al.
(2006) Does fast-track treatment lead to a decrease of intensive care unit and hospital length of stay in coronary artery bypass patients?: A meta-regression of randomized clinical trials. Crit Care Med 34:1624–1634.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
8.↵
1. Bainbridge D.,
2. Martin J.E.,
3. Cheng D.C.
(2006) Patient-controlled versus nurse-controlled analgesia after cardiac surgery—a meta-analysis. Can J Anaesth 53:492–499.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
9.
1. Brennan F.,
2. Carr D.B.,
3. Cousins M.
(2007) Pain management: a fundamental human right. Anesth Analg 105:205–221.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
10.
1. Lahtinen P.,
2. Kokki H.,
3. Hynynen M.
(2006) Pain after cardiac surgery: a prospective cohort study of 1-year incidence and intensity. Anesthesiology 105:794–800.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
11.
1. Serfontein L.
(2010) Awareness in cardiac anesthesia. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 23:103–108.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
12.
1. Taillefer M.-C.,
2. Carrier M.,
3. Belisle S.,
4. et al.
(2006) Prevalence, characteristics, and predictors of chronic nonanginal postoperative pain after a cardiac operation: a cross-sectional study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 131:1274–1280.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
13.↵
1. Martinez E.A.,
2. Marsteller J.A.,
3. Thompson D.A.,
4. et al.
(2010) The Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists' FOCUS initiative: Locating Errors through Networked Surveillance (LENS) project vision. Anesth Analg 110:307–311.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
14.
1. Wadhera R.K.,
2. Parker S.H.,
3. Burkhart H.M.,
4. et al.
(2010) Is the “sterile cockpit” concept applicable to cardiovascular surgery critical intervals or critical events?: The impact of protocol-driven communication during cardiopulmonary bypass. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 139:312–319.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
15.
1. Neily J.,
2. Mills P.D.,
3. Young-Xu Y.,
4. et al.
(2010) Association between implementation of a medical team training program and surgical mortality. JAMA 304:1693–1700.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
16.
1. Haynes A.B.,
2. Weiser T.G.,
3. Berry W.R.,
4. et al.
(2009) A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med 360:491–499.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
17.↵
1. Cahalan M.K.,
2. Stewart W.,
3. Pearlman A.,
4. et al.
(2002) American Society of Echocardiography and Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists task force guidelines for training in perioperative echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 15:647–652.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
18.
1. Mathew J.P.,
2. Glas K.,
3. Troianos C.A.,
4. et al.
(2006) American Society of Echocardiography/Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists recommendations and guidelines for continuous quality improvement in perioperative echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 19:1303–1313.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
19.
1. Thys D.M.
(2009) Cardiac anesthesia: thirty years later—the second annual Arthur E. Weyman lecture. Anesth Analg 109:1782–1790.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
20.
1. Dowd N.P.,
2. Cheng D.C.,
3. Karski J.M.,
4. et al.
(1998) Intraoperative awareness in fast-track cardiac anesthesia. Anesthesiology 89:1068–1073.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
21.
1. Groesdonk H.V.,
2. Pietzner J.,
3. Borger M.A.,
4. et al.
(2010) The incidence of intraoperative awareness in cardiac surgery fast-track treatment. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 24:785–789.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
22.
1. Cheng D.C.,
2. Karski J.,
3. Peniston C.,
4. et al.
(1996) Early tracheal extubation after coronary artery bypass graft surgery reduces costs and improves resource use: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Anesthesiology 85:1300–1310.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
23.↵
1. Horlocker T.T.,
2. Wedel D.J.,
3. Rowlingson J.C.,
4. et al.
(2010) Regional anesthesia in the patient receiving antithrombotic or thrombolytic therapy: American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Evidence-Based Guidelines (Third Edition). Reg Anesth Pain Med 35:64–101.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
24.
1. Murphy G.S.,
2. Szokol J.W.,
3. Marymont J.H.,
4. et al.
(2003) Recovery of neuromuscular function after cardiac surgery: pancuronium versus rocuronium. Anesth Analg 96:1301–1307.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
25.
1. Nygard E.,
2. Kofoed K.F.,
3. Freiberg J.,
4. et al.
(2005) Effects of high thoracic epidural analgesia on myocardial blood flow in patients with ischemic heart disease. Circulation 111:2165–2170.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
26.
1. Tenenbein P.K.,
2. Debrouwere R.,
3. Maguire D.,
4. et al.
(2008) Thoracic epidural analgesia improves pulmonary function in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Can J Anaesth 55:344–350.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
27.↵
1. Nussmeier N.A.,
2. Whelton A.A.,
3. Brown M.T.,
4. et al.
(2005) Complications of the COX-2 inhibitors parecoxib and valdecoxib after cardiac surgery. N Engl J Med 352:1081–1091.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
28.
1. Ott E.,
2. Nussmeier N.A.,
3. Duke P.C.,
4. et al.
(2003) Efficacy and safety of the cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors parecoxib and valdecoxib in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 125:1481–1492.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
29.↵
1. Boylan M.J.,
2. Lytle B.W.,
3. Loop F.D.,
4. et al.
(1994) Surgical treatment of isolated left anterior descending coronary stenosis: comparison of left internal mammary artery and venous autograft at 18 to 20 years of follow-up. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 107:657–662.
OpenUrl PubMed
30.↵
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
31.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
32.↵
1. Sabik J.F.I.,
2. Lytle B.W.,
3. Blackstone E.H.,
4. et al.
(2005) Comparison of saphenous vein and internal thoracic artery graft patency by coronary system. Ann Thorac Surg 79:544–551.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
33.↵
1. Lytle B.W.,
2. Blackstone E.H.,
3. Loop F.D.,
4. et al.
(1999) Two internal thoracic artery grafts are better than one. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 117:855–872.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
34.
1. Lytle B.W.,
2. Blackstone E.H.,
3. Sabik J.F.,
4. et al.
(2004) The effect of bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting on survival during 20 postoperative years. Ann Thorac Surg 78:2005–2012.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
35.
1. Sabik J.F.I.,
2. Blackstone E.H.,
3. Gillinov A.M.,
4. et al.
(2006) Influence of patient characteristics and arterial grafts on freedom from coronary reoperation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 131:90–98.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
36.
1. Sabik J.F.I.,
2. Stockins A.,
3. Nowicki E.R.,
4. et al.
(2008) Does location of the second internal thoracic artery graft influence outcome of coronary artery bypass grafting? Circulation 118(Suppl):S210–S215.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
37.
1. Stevens L.M.,
2. Carrier M.,
3. Perrault L.P.,
4. et al.
(2004) Single versus bilateral internal thoracic artery grafts with concomitant saphenous vein grafts for multivessel coronary artery bypass grafting: effects on mortality and event-free survival. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 127:1408–1415.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
38.
1. Sabik J.F.I.,
2. Lytle B.W.,
3. Blackstone E.H.,
4. et al.
(2003) Does competitive flow reduce internal thoracic artery graft patency? Ann Thorac Surg 76:1490–1496.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
39.↵
1. Acar C.,
2. Ramsheyi A.,
3. Pagny J.Y.,
4. et al.
(1998) The radial artery for coronary artery bypass grafting: clinical and angiographic results at five years. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 116:981–989.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
40.
1. Maniar H.S.,
2. Sundt T.M.,
3. Barner H.B.,
4. et al.
(2002) Effect of target stenosis and location on radial artery graft patency. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 123:45–52.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
41.
1. Moran S.V.,
2. Baeza R.,
3. Guarda E.,
4. et al.
(2001) Predictors of radial artery patency for coronary bypass operations. Ann Thorac Surg 72:1552–1556.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
42.
1. Possati G.,
2. Gaudino M.,
3. Alessandrini F.,
4. et al.
(1998) Midterm clinical and angiographic results of radial artery grafts used for myocardial revascularization. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 116:1015–1021.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
43.
1. Royse A.G.,
2. Royse C.F.,
3. Tatoulis J.,
4. et al.
(2000) Postoperative radial artery angiography for coronary artery bypass surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 17:294–304.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
44.
1. Desai N.D.,
2. Cohen E.A.,
3. Naylor C.D.,
4. et al.
(2004) A randomized comparison of radial-artery and saphenous-vein coronary bypass grafts. N Engl J Med 351:2302–2309.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
45.↵
1. Eltzschig H.K.,
2. Rosenberger P.,
3. Loffler M.,
4. et al.
(2008) Impact of intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography on surgical decisions in 12,566 patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 85:845–852.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
46.↵
1. Savage R.M.,
2. Lytle B.W.,
3. Aronson S.,
4. et al.
(1997) Intraoperative echocardiography is indicated in high-risk coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg 64:368–373.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
47.
(2010) Practice guidelines for perioperative transesophageal echocardiography: An updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists and the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists Task Force on Transesophageal Echocardiography. Anesthesiology 112:1084–1096.
OpenUrl PubMed
48.
1. Bergquist B.D.,
2. Bellows W.H.,
3. Leung J.M.
(1996) Transesophageal echocardiography in myocardial revascularization: II: Influence on intraoperative decision making. Anesth Analg 82:1139–1145.
OpenUrl PubMed
49.
1. Moises V.A.,
2. Mesquita C.B.,
3. Campos O.,
4. et al.
(1998) Importance of intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography during coronary artery surgery without cardiopulmonary bypass. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 11:1139–1144.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
50.
1. Qaddoura F.E.,
2. Abel M.D.,
3. Mecklenburg K.L.,
4. et al.
(2004) Role of intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography in patients having coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 78:1586–1590.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
51.
1. Swaminathan M.,
2. Morris R.W.,
3. De Meyts D.D.,
4. et al.
(2007) Deterioration of regional wall motion immediately after coronary artery bypass graft surgery is associated with long-term major adverse cardiac events. Anesthesiology 107:739–745.
OpenUrl PubMed
52.
1. Wang J.,
2. Filipovic M.,
3. Rudzitis A.,
4. et al.
(2004) Transesophageal echocardiography for monitoring segmental wall motion during off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery. Anesth Analg 99:965–973.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
53.
1. Zimarino M.,
2. Gallina S.,
3. Di Fulvio M.,
4. et al.
(2004) Intraoperative ischemia and long-term events after minimally invasive coronary surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 78:135–141.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
54.↵
1. Dyub A.M.,
2. Whitlock R.P.,
3. Abouzahr L.L.,
4. et al.
(2008) Preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing coronary bypass surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Card Surg 23:79–86.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
55.
1. Heusch G.
(2008) Heart rate in the pathophysiology of coronary blood flow and myocardial ischaemia: benefit from selective bradycardic agents. Br J Pharmacol 153:1589–1601.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
56.↵
1. Slogoff S.,
2. Keats A.S.
(1985) Does perioperative myocardial ischemia lead to postoperative myocardial infarction? Anesthesiology 62:107–114.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
57.
1. Gibbons R.J.,
2. Balady G.J.,
3. Bricker J.T.,
4. et al.
(2002) ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for exercise testing: summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1997 Exercise Testing Guidelines) [published correction appears in J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:1731]. J Am Coll Cardiol 40:1531–1540.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text
58.
1. Lavana J.D.,
2. Fraser J.F.,
3. Smith S.E.,
4. et al.
(2010) Influence of timing of intraaortic balloon placement in cardiac surgical patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 140:80–85.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
59.↵
1. Landoni G.,
2. Biondi-Zoccai G.G.,
3. Zangrillo A.,
4. et al.
(2007) Desflurane and sevoflurane in cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 21:502–511.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
60.
1. Lucchinetti E.,
2. Hofer C.,
3. Bestmann L.,
4. et al.
(2007) Gene regulatory control of myocardial energy metabolism predicts postoperative cardiac function in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery: inhalational versus intravenous anesthetics. Anesthesiology 106:444–457.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
61.
1. Yao Y.T.,
2. Li L.H.
(2009) Sevoflurane versus propofol for myocardial protection in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Chin Med Sci J 24:133–141.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
62.
1. Yu C.H.,
2. Beattie W.S.
(2006) The effects of volatile anesthetics on cardiac ischemic complications and mortality in CABG: a meta-analysis. Can J Anaesth 53:906–918.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
63.↵
1. Rabi D.,
2. Clement F.,
3. McAlister F.,
4. et al.
(2010) Effect of perioperative glucose-insulin-potassium infusions on mortality and atrial fibrillation after coronary artery bypass grafting: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Cardiol 26:178–184.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
64.
1. Buckberg G.D.
(2010) Controlled reperfusion after ischemia may be the unifying recovery denominator. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 140:12–18.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
65.
1. Alexander J.H.,
2. Emery R. Jr..,
3. Carrier M.,
4. et al.
(2008) Efficacy and safety of pyridoxal 5'-phosphate (MC-1) in high-risk patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery: the MEND-CABG II randomized clinical trial. JAMA 299:1777–1787.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
66.
1. Mangano D.T.
(1997) Effects of acadesine on myocardial infarction, stroke, and death following surgery: a meta-analysis of the 5 international randomized trials: the Multicenter Study of Perioperative Ischemia (McSPI) Research Group. JAMA 277:325–332.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
67.
1. Mangano D.T.,
2. Miao Y.,
3. Tudor I.C.,
4. et al.
(2006) Post-reperfusion myocardial infarction: long-term survival improvement using adenosine regulation with acadesine. J Am Coll Cardiol 48:206–214.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text
68.
1. Shernan S.K.,
2. Fitch J.C.,
3. Nussmeier N.A.,
4. et al.
(2004) Impact of pexelizumab, an anti-C5 complement antibody, on total mortality and adverse cardiovascular outcomes in cardiac surgical patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass. Ann Thorac Surg 77:942–949.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
69.
1. Smith P.K.,
2. Shernan S.K.,
3. Chen J.C.,
4. et al.
(2010) Effects of C5 complement inhibitor pexelizumab on outcome in high-risk coronary artery bypass grafting: Combined results from the PRIMO-CABG I and II trials. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 142:89–98.
OpenUrl PubMed
70.
1. Testa L.,
2. Van Gaal W.J.,
3. Bhindi R.,
4. et al.
(2008) Pexelizumab in ischemic heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis on 15,196 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 136:884–893.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
71.↵
1. Laurikka J.,
2. Wu Z.K.,
3. Iisalo P.,
4. et al.
(2002) Regional ischemic preconditioning enhances myocardial performance in off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Chest 121:1183–1189.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
72.
1. Penttila H.J.,
2. Lepojarvi M.V.,
3. Kaukoranta P.K.,
4. et al.
(2003) Ischemic preconditioning does not improve myocardial preservation during off-pump multivessel coronary operation. Ann Thorac Surg 75:1246–1252.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
73.
1. Walsh S.R.,
2. Tang T.Y.,
3. Kullar P.,
4. et al.
(2008) Ischaemic preconditioning during cardiac surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes in randomised clinical trials. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 34:985–994.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
74.↵
1. Hausenloy D.J.,
2. Mwamure P.K.,
3. Venugopal V.,
4. et al.
(2007) Effect of remote ischaemic preconditioning on myocardial injury in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 370:575–579.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
75.
1. Rahman I.A.,
2. Mascaro J.G.,
3. Steeds R.P.,
4. et al.
(2010) Remote ischemic preconditioning in human coronary artery bypass surgery: from promise to disappointment? Circulation 122(Suppl):S53–S59.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
76.
1. Venugopal V.,
2. Hausenloy D.J.,
3. Ludman A.,
4. et al.
(2009) Remote ischaemic preconditioning reduces myocardial injury in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cold-blood cardioplegia: a randomised controlled trial. Heart 95:1567–1571.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
77.↵
1. Luo W.,
2. Li B.,
3. Chen R.,
4. et al.
(2008) Effect of ischemic postconditioning in adult valve replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 33:203–208.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
78.
1. Ovize M.,
2. Baxter G.F.,
3. Di Lisa F.,
4. et al.
(2010) Postconditioning and protection from reperfusion injury: where do we stand?: Position paper from the Working Group of Cellular Biology of the Heart of the European Society of Cardiology. Cardiovasc Res 87:406–423.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
79.↵
1. Alexiou K.,
2. Kappert U.,
3. Staroske A.,
4. et al.
(2008) Coronary surgery for acute coronary syndrome: which determinants of outcome remain? Clin Res Cardiol 97:601–608.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
80.
1. Chiu F.C.,
2. Chang S.N.,
3. Lin J.W.,
4. et al.
(2009) Coronary artery bypass graft surgery provides better survival in patients with acute coronary syndrome or ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction experiencing cardiogenic shock after percutaneous coronary intervention: a propensity score analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 138:1326–1330.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
81.
1. DeWood M.A.,
2. Spores J.,
3. Berg R. Jr..,
4. et al.
(1983) Acute myocardial infarction: a decade of experience with surgical reperfusion in 701 patients. Circulation 68:II8–II16.
OpenUrl PubMed
82.↵
1. Donatelli F.,
2. Benussi S.,
3. Triggiani M.,
4. et al.
(1997) Surgical treatment for life-threatening acute myocardial infarction: a prospective protocol. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 11:228–233.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
83.
1. Filizcan U.,
2. Kurc E.,
3. Cetemen S.,
4. et al.
(2011) Mortality predictors in ST-elevated myocardial infarction patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. Angiology 62:68–73.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
84.↵
1. Chevalier P.,
2. Burri H.,
3. Fahrat F.,
4. et al.
(2004) Perioperative outcome and long-term survival of surgery for acute post-infarction mitral regurgitation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 26:330–335.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
85.
1. Lemery R.,
2. Smith H.C.,
3. Giuliani E.R.,
4. et al.
(1992) Prognosis in rupture of the ventricular septum after acute myocardial infarction and role of early surgical intervention. Am J Cardiol 70:147–151.
OpenUrl PubMed
86.
1. Russo A.,
2. Suri R.M.,
3. Grigioni F.,
4. et al.
(2008) Clinical outcome after surgical correction of mitral regurgitation due to papillary muscle rupture. Circulation 118:1528–1534.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
87.
1. Shamshad F.,
2. Kenchaiah S.,
3. Finn P.V.,
4. et al.
(2010) Fatal myocardial rupture after acute myocardial infarction complicated by heart failure, left ventricular dysfunction, or both: the VALsartan In Acute myocardial iNfarcTion Trial (VALIANT). Am Heart J 160:145–151.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
88.
1. Tavakoli R.,
2. Weber A.,
3. Brunner-La Rocca H.,
4. et al.
(2002) Results of surgery for irreversible moderate to severe mitral valve regurgitation secondary to myocardial infarction. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 21:818–824.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
89.
1. Hochman J.S.,
2. Sleeper L.A.,
3. Webb J.G.,
4. et al.
(1999) Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: SHOCK Investigators: Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock. N Engl J Med 341:625–634.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
90.
1. Mehta R.H.,
2. Lopes R.D.,
3. Ballotta A.,
4. et al.
(2010) Percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass surgery for cardiogenic shock and multivessel coronary artery disease? Am Heart J 159:141–147.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
91.
1. White H.D.,
2. Assmann S.F.,
3. Sanborn T.A.,
4. et al.
(2005) Comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting after acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: results from the Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock (SHOCK) trial. Circulation 112:1992–2001.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
92.↵
1. Ngaage D.L.,
2. Cale A.R.,
3. Cowen M.E.,
4. et al.
(2008) Early and late survival after surgical revascularization for ischemic ventricular fibrillation/tachycardia. Ann Thorac Surg 85:1278–1281.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
93.
1. Parikh S.V.,
2. de Lemos J.A.,
3. Jessen M.E.,
4. et al.
(2010) Timing of in-hospital coronary artery bypass graft surgery for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients results from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ACTION Registry-GWTG (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry-Get With The Guidelines). J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 3:419–427.
OpenUrl
94.↵
1. Lim H.S.,
2. Farouque O.,
3. Andrianopoulos N.,
4. et al.
(2009) Survival of elderly patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2:146–152.
OpenUrl
95.
1. Amin A.P.,
2. Nathan S.,
3. Prodduturi P.,
4. et al.
(2009) Survival benefit from early revascularization in elderly patients with cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction: a cohort study. J Invasive Cardiol 21:305–312.
OpenUrl PubMed
96.
1. Migliorini A.,
2. Moschi G.,
3. Valenti R.,
4. et al.
(2006) Routine percutaneous coronary intervention in elderly patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J 152:903–908.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
97.
1. Hochman J.S.,
2. Buller C.E.,
3. Sleeper L.A.,
4. et al.
(2000) Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction–etiologies, management and outcome: a report from the SHOCK Trial Registry: SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries for cardiogenic shocK? J Am Coll Cardiol 36:1063–1070.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text
98.
1. Dzavik V.,
2. Sleeper L.A.,
3. Cocke T.P.,
4. et al.
(2003) Early revascularization is associated with improved survival in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. Eur Heart J 24:828–837.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
99.↵
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.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text
100.
1. Kelly P.,
2. Ruskin J.N.,
3. Vlahakes G.J.,
4. et al.
(1990) Surgical coronary revascularization in survivors of prehospital cardiac arrest: its effect on inducible ventricular arrhythmias and long-term survival. J Am Coll Cardiol 15:267–273.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text
101.↵
1. Barakate M.S.,
2. Bannon P.G.,
3. Hughes C.F.,
4. et al.
(2003) Emergency surgery after unsuccessful coronary angioplasty: a review of 15 years' experience. Ann Thorac Surg 75:1400–1405.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
102.
1. Roy P.,
2. de Labriolle A.,
3. Hanna N.,
4. et al.
(2009) Requirement for emergent coronary artery bypass surgery following percutaneous coronary intervention in the stent era. Am J Cardiol 103:950–953.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
103.
1. Craver J.M.,
2. Weintraub W.S.,
3. Jones E.L.,
4. et al.
(1992) Emergency coronary artery bypass surgery for failed percutaneous coronary angioplasty: a 10-year experience. Ann Surg 215:425–433.
OpenUrl PubMed
104.
1. Stamou S.C.,
2. Hill P.C.,
3. Haile E.,
4. et al.
(2006) Clinical outcomes of nonelective coronary revascularization with and without cardiopulmonary bypass. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 131:28–33.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
105.↵
1. Feit F.,
2. Brooks M.M.,
3. Sopko G.,
4. et al.
(2000) Long-term clinical outcome in the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation Registry: comparison with the randomized trial: BARI Investigators. Circulation 101:2795–2802.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
106.
1. King S.B.I.,
2. Barnhart H.X.,
3. Kosinski A.S.,
4. et al.
(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: Emory Angioplasty versus Surgery Trial Investigators. Am J Cardiol 79:1453–1459.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
107.↵
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
108.↵
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
109.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
110.
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
111.↵
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.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
112.
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 1 Suppl:S2–S22.
OpenUrl
113.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
114.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
115.↵
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.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
116.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
117.↵
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
118.
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.
OpenUrl PubMed
119.
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.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
120.
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.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
121.↵
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
122.
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
123.↵
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
124.↵
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.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
125.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
126.
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 [published correction appears in J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;57:1792]. J Am Coll Cardiol 57:538–545.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text
127.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
128.
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.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text
129.
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.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
130.
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
131.
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.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text
132.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
133.
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
134.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
135.
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.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text
136.
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.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
137.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
138.
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
139.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
140.
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
141.
Deleted in proof.
142.
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.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
143.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
144.
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
145.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
146.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
147.
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.
OpenUrl PubMed
148.↵
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
149.
1. Varnauskas E.
(1988) Twelve-year follow-up of survival in the randomized European Coronary Surgery Study. N Engl J Med 319:332–337.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
150.↵
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
151.
Deleted in proof.
152.
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.
OpenUrl PubMed
153.↵
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
154.
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.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
155.↵
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.
OpenUrl PubMed
156.
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.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
157.
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.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
158.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
159.
1. Phillips H.R.,
2. O'Connor C.M.,
3. Rogers J.
(2007) Revascularization for heart failure. Am Heart J 153:65–73.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
160.
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.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
161.
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.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
162.
Deleted in proof.
163.
Deleted in proof.
164.
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.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
165.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
166.
Deleted in proof.
167.
Deleted in proof.
168.
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.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
169.
1. The BARI Investigators
(2007) The final 10-year follow-up results from the BARI randomized trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 49:1600–1606.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text
170.
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.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text
171.
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.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text
172.
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.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
173.
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.
OpenUrl PubMed
174.
1. Niles N.W.,
2. McGrath P.D.,
3. Malenka D.,
4. et al.
(2001) Survival of patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary artery disease after surgical or percutaneous coronary revascularization: results of a large regional prospective study: Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group. J Am Coll Cardiol 37:1008–1015.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text
175.
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.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text
176.↵
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
177.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
178.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
179.↵
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.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
180.↵
1. Gurfinkel E.P.,
2. Perez dlH.,
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
181.
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.
OpenUrl PubMed
182.
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.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text
183.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
184.
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.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
185.
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.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text
186.↵
1. Subramanian S.,
2. Sabik J.F. III.,
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
187.↵
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.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
188.
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.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
189.
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 311:824–828.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
190.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
191.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
192.
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.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text
193.
1. TIME Investigators
(2001) Trial of invasive versus medical therapy in elderly patients with chronic symptomatic coronary-artery disease (TIME): a randomised trial. Lancet 358:951–957.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
194.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
195.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
196.
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.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
197.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
198.
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.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
199.
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.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
200.
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.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text
201.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
202.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
203.↵
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 [published correction appears in Lancet. 1999;353:1714]. Lancet 353:519–524.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
204.
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.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text
205.
1. Burkhoff D.,
2. Schmidt S.,
3. Schulman S.P.,
4. et al.
(1999) Transmyocardial laser revascularisation compared with continued medical therapy for treatment of refractory angina pectoris: a prospective randomised trial: ATLANTIC Investigators. Angina Treatments-Lasers and Normal Therapies in Comparison. Lancet 354:885–890.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
206.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
207.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
208.↵
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. Circulation 115:813–818.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
209.
1. Leon M.B.,
2. Baim D.S.,
3. Popma J.J.,
4. et al.
(1998) A clinical trial comparing three antithrombotic-drug regimens after coronary-artery stenting: Stent Anticoagulation Restenosis Study Investigators. N Engl J Med 339:1665–1671.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
210.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
211.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
212.↵
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
213.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
214.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
215.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
216.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
217.
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
218.
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.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text
219.
1. Angelini G.D.,
2. Wilde P.,
3. Salerno T.A.,
4. et al.
(1996) Integrated left small thoracotomy and angioplasty for multivessel coronary artery revascularisation. Lancet 347:757–758.
OpenUrl PubMed
220.
1. Simoons M.L.
(1996) Myocardial revascularization–bypass surgery or angioplasty? N Engl J Med 335:275–277.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
221.↵
1. Bybee K.A.,
2. Powell B.D.,
3. Valeti U.,
4. et al.
(2005) Preoperative aspirin therapy is associated with improved postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. Circulation 112:I286–I292.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
222.
1. Dacey L.J.,
2. Munoz J.J.,
3. Johnson E.R.,
4. et al.
(2000) Effect of preoperative aspirin use on mortality in coronary artery bypass grafting patients. Ann Thorac Surg 70:1986–1990.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
223.↵
1. Mangano D.T.,
2. Multicenter Study of Perioperative Ischemia Research Group
(2002) Aspirin and mortality from coronary bypass surgery. N Engl J Med 347:1309–1317.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
224.↵
1. Berger J.S.,
2. Frye C.B.,
3. Harshaw Q.,
4. et al.
(2008) Impact of clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes requiring coronary artery bypass surgery: a multicenter analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol 52:1693–1701.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text
225.↵
1. Held C.,
2. Asenblad N.,
3. Bassand J.P.,
4. et al.
(2010) Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery: results from the PLATO (Platelet Inhibition and Patient Outcomes) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 57:672–684.
OpenUrl PubMed
226.
1. Hongo R.H.,
2. Ley J.,
3. Dick S.E.,
4. et al.
(2002) The effect of clopidogrel in combination with aspirin when given before coronary artery bypass grafting. J Am Coll Cardiol 40:231–237.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text
227.
1. Firanescu C.E.,
2. Martens E.J.,
3. Schonberger J.P.,
4. et al.
(2009) Postoperative blood loss in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery after preoperative treatment with clopidogrel: A prospective randomised controlled study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 36:856–862.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
228.
1. Herman C.R.,
2. Buth K.J.,
3. Kent B.A.,
4. et al.
(2010) Clopidogrel increases blood transfusion and hemorrhagic complications in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 89:397–402.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
229.
1. Mehta R.H.,
2. Sheng S.,
3. O'Brien S.M.,
4. et al.
(2009) Reoperation for bleeding in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery: incidence, risk factors, time trends, and outcomes. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2:583–590.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
230.↵
1. Bizzarri F.,
2. Scolletta S.,
3. Tucci E.,
4. et al.
(2001) Perioperative use of tirofiban hydrochloride (Aggrastat) does not increase surgical bleeding after emergency or urgent coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 122:1181–1185.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
231.
1. Dyke C.M.,
2. Bhatia D.,
3. Lorenz T.J.,
4. et al.
(2000) Immediate coronary artery bypass surgery after platelet inhibition with eptifibatide: results from PURSUIT: Platelet Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa in Unstable Angina: Receptor Suppression Using Integrelin Therapy. Ann Thorac Surg 70:866–871.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
232.↵
1. Lincoff A.M.,
2. LeNarz L.A.,
3. Despotis G.J.,
4. et al.
(2000) Abciximab and bleeding during coronary surgery: results from the EPILOG and EPISTENT trials: Improve Long-term Outcome with abciximab GP IIb/IIIa blockade. Evaluation of Platelet IIb/IIIa Inhibition in STENTing. Ann Thorac Surg 70:516–526.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
233.
1. Sethi G.K.,
2. Copeland J.G.,
3. Goldman S.,
4. et al.
(1990) Implications of preoperative administration of aspirin in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: Department of Veterans Affairs Cooperative Study on Antiplatelet Therapy. J Am Coll Cardiol 15:15–20.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
234.
(2002) Collaborative meta-analysis of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy for prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in high risk patients [published correction appears in BMJ. 2002;324:141]. BMJ 324:71–86.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
235.↵
(2002) Third Report of the National Cholesterol Education Program (NCEP) Expert Panel on Detection, Evaluation, and Treatment of High Blood Cholesterol in Adults (Adult Treatment Panel III) final report. Circulation 106:3143–3421.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text
236.↵
1. Baigent C.,
2. Blackwell L.,
3. Emberson J.,
4. et al.
(2010) Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: a meta-analysis of data from 170,000 participants in 26 randomised trials. Lancet 376:1670–1681.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
237.
1. Pedersen T.R.,
2. Faergeman O.,
3. Kastelein J.J.,
4. et al.
(2005) High-dose atorvastatin vs usual-dose simvastatin for secondary prevention after myocardial infarction: the IDEAL study: a randomized controlled trial [published correction appears in JAMA. 2005;294;3092]. JAMA 294:2437–2445.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
238.
1. LaRosa J.C.,
2. Grundy S.M.,
3. Waters D.D.,
4. et al.
(2005) Intensive lipid lowering with atorvastatin in patients with stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 352:1425–1435.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
239.
1. Heart Protection Study Collaborative Group
(2002) MRC/BHF Heart Protection Study of cholesterol lowering with simvastatin in 20,536 high-risk individuals: a randomised placebo-controlled trial. Lancet 360:7–22.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
240.
1. Dotani M.I.,
2. Elnicki D.M.,
3. Jain A.C.,
4. et al.
(2000) Effect of preoperative statin therapy and cardiac outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting. Am J Cardiol 86:1128–1130.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
241.
1. Mannacio V.A.,
2. Iorio D.,
3. De Amicis V.,
4. et al.
(2008) Effect of rosuvastatin pretreatment on myocardial damage after coronary surgery: a randomized trial. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 136:1541–1548.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
242.
1. Liakopoulos O.J.,
2. Choi Y.H.,
3. Haldenwang P.L.,
4. et al.
(2008) Impact of preoperative statin therapy on adverse postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of over 30,000 patients. Eur Heart J 29:1548–1559.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
243.
1. Knatterud G.L.,
2. Rosenberg Y.,
3. Campeau L.,
4. et al.
(2000) Long-term effects on clinical outcomes of aggressive lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and low-dose anticoagulation in the post coronary artery bypass graft trial: Post CABG Investigators. Circulation 102:157–165.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
244.
1. Christenson J.T.
(1999) Preoperative lipid-control with simvastatin reduces the risk of postoperative thrombocytosis and thrombotic complications following CABG. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 15:394–399.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text
245.
1. Pascual D.A.,
2. Arribas J.M.,
3. Tornel P.L.,
4. et al.
(2006) Preoperative statin therapy and troponin T predict early complications of coronary artery surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 81:78–83.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed
246.
1. Pan W.,
2. Pintar T.,
3. Anton J.,
4. et al.
(2004) Statins are associated with a reduced incidence of perioperative mortality after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Circulation 110:II45–II49.
OpenUrl PubMed
247.
1. The Post Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Trial Investigators
(1997) The effect of aggressive lowering of low-density lipoprotein cholesterol levels and low-dose anticoagulation on obstructive changes in saphenous-vein coronary-artery bypass grafts. N Engl J Med 336:153–162.

[1] 1.↵
ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines
Methodologies and Policies from the ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines. http://assets.cardiosource.com/Methodology_Manual_for_ACC_AHA_Writing_Committees.pdf http://circ.ahajournals.org/site/manual/index.xhtml. Accessed July 1, 2011.

[2] ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines

[3] 2.↵
Institute of Medicine
(2011) Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC).

[4] Institute of Medicine

[5] 3.
Institute of Medicine
(2011) Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC).

[6] Institute of Medicine

[7] 4.↵
Hillis L.D.,
Smith P.K.,
Anderson J.L.,
et al.
(2011) 2011 ACCF/AHA guideline for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol, published online before print November 7, 2011, doi:10.1016/j.jacc.2011.08.009. Accessed November 7, 2011.

[8] Hillis L.D.,

[9] Smith P.K.,

[10] Anderson J.L.,

[11] et al.

[12] 5.↵
Hawkes C.A.,
Dhileepan S.,
Foxcroft D.
(2003) Early extubation for adult cardiac surgical patients. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, CD003587-10.1002/14651858.CD003587.

[13] Hawkes C.A.,

[14] Dhileepan S.,

[15] Foxcroft D.

[16] 6.↵
Myles P.S.,
Daly D.J.,
Djaiani G.,
et al.
(2003) A systematic review of the safety and effectiveness of fast-track cardiac anesthesia. Anesthesiology 99:982–987.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[17] Myles P.S.,

[18] Daly D.J.,

[19] Djaiani G.,

[20] et al.

[21] 7.
van Mastrigt G.A.,
Maessen J.G.,
Heijmans J.,
et al.
(2006) Does fast-track treatment lead to a decrease of intensive care unit and hospital length of stay in coronary artery bypass patients?: A meta-regression of randomized clinical trials. Crit Care Med 34:1624–1634.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[22] van Mastrigt G.A.,

[23] Maessen J.G.,

[24] Heijmans J.,

[25] et al.

[26] 8.↵
Bainbridge D.,
Martin J.E.,
Cheng D.C.
(2006) Patient-controlled versus nurse-controlled analgesia after cardiac surgery—a meta-analysis. Can J Anaesth 53:492–499.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[27] Bainbridge D.,

[28] Martin J.E.,

[29] Cheng D.C.

[30] 9.
Brennan F.,
Carr D.B.,
Cousins M.
(2007) Pain management: a fundamental human right. Anesth Analg 105:205–221.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[31] Brennan F.,

[32] Carr D.B.,

[33] Cousins M.

[34] 10.
Lahtinen P.,
Kokki H.,
Hynynen M.
(2006) Pain after cardiac surgery: a prospective cohort study of 1-year incidence and intensity. Anesthesiology 105:794–800.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[35] Lahtinen P.,

[36] Kokki H.,

[37] Hynynen M.

[38] 11.
Serfontein L.
(2010) Awareness in cardiac anesthesia. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 23:103–108.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[39] Serfontein L.

[40] 12.
Taillefer M.-C.,
Carrier M.,
Belisle S.,
et al.
(2006) Prevalence, characteristics, and predictors of chronic nonanginal postoperative pain after a cardiac operation: a cross-sectional study. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 131:1274–1280.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[41] Taillefer M.-C.,

[42] Carrier M.,

[43] Belisle S.,

[44] et al.

[45] 13.↵
Martinez E.A.,
Marsteller J.A.,
Thompson D.A.,
et al.
(2010) The Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists' FOCUS initiative: Locating Errors through Networked Surveillance (LENS) project vision. Anesth Analg 110:307–311.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[46] Martinez E.A.,

[47] Marsteller J.A.,

[48] Thompson D.A.,

[49] et al.

[50] 14.
Wadhera R.K.,
Parker S.H.,
Burkhart H.M.,
et al.
(2010) Is the “sterile cockpit” concept applicable to cardiovascular surgery critical intervals or critical events?: The impact of protocol-driven communication during cardiopulmonary bypass. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 139:312–319.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[51] Wadhera R.K.,

[52] Parker S.H.,

[53] Burkhart H.M.,

[54] et al.

[55] 15.
Neily J.,
Mills P.D.,
Young-Xu Y.,
et al.
(2010) Association between implementation of a medical team training program and surgical mortality. JAMA 304:1693–1700.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[56] Neily J.,

[57] Mills P.D.,

[58] Young-Xu Y.,

[59] et al.

[60] 16.
Haynes A.B.,
Weiser T.G.,
Berry W.R.,
et al.
(2009) A surgical safety checklist to reduce morbidity and mortality in a global population. N Engl J Med 360:491–499.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[61] Haynes A.B.,

[62] Weiser T.G.,

[63] Berry W.R.,

[64] et al.

[65] 17.↵
Cahalan M.K.,
Stewart W.,
Pearlman A.,
et al.
(2002) American Society of Echocardiography and Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists task force guidelines for training in perioperative echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 15:647–652.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[66] Cahalan M.K.,

[67] Stewart W.,

[68] Pearlman A.,

[69] et al.

[70] 18.
Mathew J.P.,
Glas K.,
Troianos C.A.,
et al.
(2006) American Society of Echocardiography/Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists recommendations and guidelines for continuous quality improvement in perioperative echocardiography. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 19:1303–1313.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[71] Mathew J.P.,

[72] Glas K.,

[73] Troianos C.A.,

[74] et al.

[75] 19.
Thys D.M.
(2009) Cardiac anesthesia: thirty years later—the second annual Arthur E. Weyman lecture. Anesth Analg 109:1782–1790.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[76] Thys D.M.

[77] 20.
Dowd N.P.,
Cheng D.C.,
Karski J.M.,
et al.
(1998) Intraoperative awareness in fast-track cardiac anesthesia. Anesthesiology 89:1068–1073.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[78] Dowd N.P.,

[79] Cheng D.C.,

[80] Karski J.M.,

[81] et al.

[82] 21.
Groesdonk H.V.,
Pietzner J.,
Borger M.A.,
et al.
(2010) The incidence of intraoperative awareness in cardiac surgery fast-track treatment. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 24:785–789.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[83] Groesdonk H.V.,

[84] Pietzner J.,

[85] Borger M.A.,

[86] et al.

[87] 22.
Cheng D.C.,
Karski J.,
Peniston C.,
et al.
(1996) Early tracheal extubation after coronary artery bypass graft surgery reduces costs and improves resource use: a prospective, randomized, controlled trial. Anesthesiology 85:1300–1310.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[88] Cheng D.C.,

[89] Karski J.,

[90] Peniston C.,

[91] et al.

[92] 23.↵
Horlocker T.T.,
Wedel D.J.,
Rowlingson J.C.,
et al.
(2010) Regional anesthesia in the patient receiving antithrombotic or thrombolytic therapy: American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Evidence-Based Guidelines (Third Edition). Reg Anesth Pain Med 35:64–101.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[93] Horlocker T.T.,

[94] Wedel D.J.,

[95] Rowlingson J.C.,

[96] et al.

[97] 24.
Murphy G.S.,
Szokol J.W.,
Marymont J.H.,
et al.
(2003) Recovery of neuromuscular function after cardiac surgery: pancuronium versus rocuronium. Anesth Analg 96:1301–1307.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[98] Murphy G.S.,

[99] Szokol J.W.,

[100] Marymont J.H.,

[101] et al.

[102] 25.
Nygard E.,
Kofoed K.F.,
Freiberg J.,
et al.
(2005) Effects of high thoracic epidural analgesia on myocardial blood flow in patients with ischemic heart disease. Circulation 111:2165–2170.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[103] Nygard E.,

[104] Kofoed K.F.,

[105] Freiberg J.,

[106] et al.

[107] 26.
Tenenbein P.K.,
Debrouwere R.,
Maguire D.,
et al.
(2008) Thoracic epidural analgesia improves pulmonary function in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Can J Anaesth 55:344–350.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[108] Tenenbein P.K.,

[109] Debrouwere R.,

[110] Maguire D.,

[111] et al.

[112] 27.↵
Nussmeier N.A.,
Whelton A.A.,
Brown M.T.,
et al.
(2005) Complications of the COX-2 inhibitors parecoxib and valdecoxib after cardiac surgery. N Engl J Med 352:1081–1091.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[113] Nussmeier N.A.,

[114] Whelton A.A.,

[115] Brown M.T.,

[116] et al.

[117] 28.
Ott E.,
Nussmeier N.A.,
Duke P.C.,
et al.
(2003) Efficacy and safety of the cyclooxygenase 2 inhibitors parecoxib and valdecoxib in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 125:1481–1492.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[118] Ott E.,

[119] Nussmeier N.A.,

[120] Duke P.C.,

[121] et al.

[122] 29.↵
Boylan M.J.,
Lytle B.W.,
Loop F.D.,
et al.
(1994) Surgical treatment of isolated left anterior descending coronary stenosis: comparison of left internal mammary artery and venous autograft at 18 to 20 years of follow-up. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 107:657–662.
OpenUrl PubMed

[123] Boylan M.J.,

[124] Lytle B.W.,

[125] Loop F.D.,

[126] et al.

[127] 30.↵
Cameron A.,
Davis K.B.,
Green G.,
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[128] Cameron A.,

[129] Davis K.B.,

[130] Green G.,

[131] et al.

[132] 31.
Loop F.D.,
Lytle B.W.,
Cosgrove D.M.,
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[133] Loop F.D.,

[134] Lytle B.W.,

[135] Cosgrove D.M.,

[136] et al.

[137] 32.↵
Sabik J.F.I.,
Lytle B.W.,
Blackstone E.H.,
et al.
(2005) Comparison of saphenous vein and internal thoracic artery graft patency by coronary system. Ann Thorac Surg 79:544–551.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[138] Sabik J.F.I.,

[139] Lytle B.W.,

[140] Blackstone E.H.,

[141] et al.

[142] 33.↵
Lytle B.W.,
Blackstone E.H.,
Loop F.D.,
et al.
(1999) Two internal thoracic artery grafts are better than one. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 117:855–872.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[143] Lytle B.W.,

[144] Blackstone E.H.,

[145] Loop F.D.,

[146] et al.

[147] 34.
Lytle B.W.,
Blackstone E.H.,
Sabik J.F.,
et al.
(2004) The effect of bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting on survival during 20 postoperative years. Ann Thorac Surg 78:2005–2012.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[148] Lytle B.W.,

[149] Blackstone E.H.,

[150] Sabik J.F.,

[151] et al.

[152] 35.
Sabik J.F.I.,
Blackstone E.H.,
Gillinov A.M.,
et al.
(2006) Influence of patient characteristics and arterial grafts on freedom from coronary reoperation. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 131:90–98.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[153] Sabik J.F.I.,

[154] Blackstone E.H.,

[155] Gillinov A.M.,

[156] et al.

[157] 36.
Sabik J.F.I.,
Stockins A.,
Nowicki E.R.,
et al.
(2008) Does location of the second internal thoracic artery graft influence outcome of coronary artery bypass grafting? Circulation 118(Suppl):S210–S215.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[158] Sabik J.F.I.,

[159] Stockins A.,

[160] Nowicki E.R.,

[161] et al.

[162] 37.
Stevens L.M.,
Carrier M.,
Perrault L.P.,
et al.
(2004) Single versus bilateral internal thoracic artery grafts with concomitant saphenous vein grafts for multivessel coronary artery bypass grafting: effects on mortality and event-free survival. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 127:1408–1415.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[163] Stevens L.M.,

[164] Carrier M.,

[165] Perrault L.P.,

[166] et al.

[167] 38.
Sabik J.F.I.,
Lytle B.W.,
Blackstone E.H.,
et al.
(2003) Does competitive flow reduce internal thoracic artery graft patency? Ann Thorac Surg 76:1490–1496.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[168] Sabik J.F.I.,

[169] Lytle B.W.,

[170] Blackstone E.H.,

[171] et al.

[172] 39.↵
Acar C.,
Ramsheyi A.,
Pagny J.Y.,
et al.
(1998) The radial artery for coronary artery bypass grafting: clinical and angiographic results at five years. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 116:981–989.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[173] Acar C.,

[174] Ramsheyi A.,

[175] Pagny J.Y.,

[176] et al.

[177] 40.
Maniar H.S.,
Sundt T.M.,
Barner H.B.,
et al.
(2002) Effect of target stenosis and location on radial artery graft patency. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 123:45–52.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[178] Maniar H.S.,

[179] Sundt T.M.,

[180] Barner H.B.,

[181] et al.

[182] 41.
Moran S.V.,
Baeza R.,
Guarda E.,
et al.
(2001) Predictors of radial artery patency for coronary bypass operations. Ann Thorac Surg 72:1552–1556.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[183] Moran S.V.,

[184] Baeza R.,

[185] Guarda E.,

[186] et al.

[187] 42.
Possati G.,
Gaudino M.,
Alessandrini F.,
et al.
(1998) Midterm clinical and angiographic results of radial artery grafts used for myocardial revascularization. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 116:1015–1021.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[188] Possati G.,

[189] Gaudino M.,

[190] Alessandrini F.,

[191] et al.

[192] 43.
Royse A.G.,
Royse C.F.,
Tatoulis J.,
et al.
(2000) Postoperative radial artery angiography for coronary artery bypass surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 17:294–304.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[193] Royse A.G.,

[194] Royse C.F.,

[195] Tatoulis J.,

[196] et al.

[197] 44.
Desai N.D.,
Cohen E.A.,
Naylor C.D.,
et al.
(2004) A randomized comparison of radial-artery and saphenous-vein coronary bypass grafts. N Engl J Med 351:2302–2309.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[198] Desai N.D.,

[199] Cohen E.A.,

[200] Naylor C.D.,

[201] et al.

[202] 45.↵
Eltzschig H.K.,
Rosenberger P.,
Loffler M.,
et al.
(2008) Impact of intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography on surgical decisions in 12,566 patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 85:845–852.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[203] Eltzschig H.K.,

[204] Rosenberger P.,

[205] Loffler M.,

[206] et al.

[207] 46.↵
Savage R.M.,
Lytle B.W.,
Aronson S.,
et al.
(1997) Intraoperative echocardiography is indicated in high-risk coronary artery bypass grafting. Ann Thorac Surg 64:368–373.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[208] Savage R.M.,

[209] Lytle B.W.,

[210] Aronson S.,

[211] et al.

[212] 47.
(2010) Practice guidelines for perioperative transesophageal echocardiography: An updated report by the American Society of Anesthesiologists and the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists Task Force on Transesophageal Echocardiography. Anesthesiology 112:1084–1096.
OpenUrl PubMed

[213] 48.
Bergquist B.D.,
Bellows W.H.,
Leung J.M.
(1996) Transesophageal echocardiography in myocardial revascularization: II: Influence on intraoperative decision making. Anesth Analg 82:1139–1145.
OpenUrl PubMed

[214] Bergquist B.D.,

[215] Bellows W.H.,

[216] Leung J.M.

[217] 49.
Moises V.A.,
Mesquita C.B.,
Campos O.,
et al.
(1998) Importance of intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography during coronary artery surgery without cardiopulmonary bypass. J Am Soc Echocardiogr 11:1139–1144.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[218] Moises V.A.,

[219] Mesquita C.B.,

[220] Campos O.,

[221] et al.

[222] 50.
Qaddoura F.E.,
Abel M.D.,
Mecklenburg K.L.,
et al.
(2004) Role of intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography in patients having coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 78:1586–1590.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[223] Qaddoura F.E.,

[224] Abel M.D.,

[225] Mecklenburg K.L.,

[226] et al.

[227] 51.
Swaminathan M.,
Morris R.W.,
De Meyts D.D.,
et al.
(2007) Deterioration of regional wall motion immediately after coronary artery bypass graft surgery is associated with long-term major adverse cardiac events. Anesthesiology 107:739–745.
OpenUrl PubMed

[228] Swaminathan M.,

[229] Morris R.W.,

[230] De Meyts D.D.,

[231] et al.

[232] 52.
Wang J.,
Filipovic M.,
Rudzitis A.,
et al.
(2004) Transesophageal echocardiography for monitoring segmental wall motion during off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery. Anesth Analg 99:965–973.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[233] Wang J.,

[234] Filipovic M.,

[235] Rudzitis A.,

[236] et al.

[237] 53.
Zimarino M.,
Gallina S.,
Di Fulvio M.,
et al.
(2004) Intraoperative ischemia and long-term events after minimally invasive coronary surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 78:135–141.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[238] Zimarino M.,

[239] Gallina S.,

[240] Di Fulvio M.,

[241] et al.

[242] 54.↵
Dyub A.M.,
Whitlock R.P.,
Abouzahr L.L.,
et al.
(2008) Preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing coronary bypass surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Card Surg 23:79–86.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[243] Dyub A.M.,

[244] Whitlock R.P.,

[245] Abouzahr L.L.,

[246] et al.

[247] 55.
Heusch G.
(2008) Heart rate in the pathophysiology of coronary blood flow and myocardial ischaemia: benefit from selective bradycardic agents. Br J Pharmacol 153:1589–1601.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[248] Heusch G.

[249] 56.↵
Slogoff S.,
Keats A.S.
(1985) Does perioperative myocardial ischemia lead to postoperative myocardial infarction? Anesthesiology 62:107–114.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[250] Slogoff S.,

[251] Keats A.S.

[252] 57.
Gibbons R.J.,
Balady G.J.,
Bricker J.T.,
et al.
(2002) ACC/AHA 2002 guideline update for exercise testing: summary article: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1997 Exercise Testing Guidelines) [published correction appears in J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:1731]. J Am Coll Cardiol 40:1531–1540.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text

[253] Gibbons R.J.,

[254] Balady G.J.,

[255] Bricker J.T.,

[256] et al.

[257] 58.
Lavana J.D.,
Fraser J.F.,
Smith S.E.,
et al.
(2010) Influence of timing of intraaortic balloon placement in cardiac surgical patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 140:80–85.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[258] Lavana J.D.,

[259] Fraser J.F.,

[260] Smith S.E.,

[261] et al.

[262] 59.↵
Landoni G.,
Biondi-Zoccai G.G.,
Zangrillo A.,
et al.
(2007) Desflurane and sevoflurane in cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth 21:502–511.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[263] Landoni G.,

[264] Biondi-Zoccai G.G.,

[265] Zangrillo A.,

[266] et al.

[267] 60.
Lucchinetti E.,
Hofer C.,
Bestmann L.,
et al.
(2007) Gene regulatory control of myocardial energy metabolism predicts postoperative cardiac function in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery: inhalational versus intravenous anesthetics. Anesthesiology 106:444–457.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[268] Lucchinetti E.,

[269] Hofer C.,

[270] Bestmann L.,

[271] et al.

[272] 61.
Yao Y.T.,
Li L.H.
(2009) Sevoflurane versus propofol for myocardial protection in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting surgery: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Chin Med Sci J 24:133–141.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[273] Yao Y.T.,

[274] Li L.H.

[275] 62.
Yu C.H.,
Beattie W.S.
(2006) The effects of volatile anesthetics on cardiac ischemic complications and mortality in CABG: a meta-analysis. Can J Anaesth 53:906–918.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[276] Yu C.H.,

[277] Beattie W.S.

[278] 63.↵
Rabi D.,
Clement F.,
McAlister F.,
et al.
(2010) Effect of perioperative glucose-insulin-potassium infusions on mortality and atrial fibrillation after coronary artery bypass grafting: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Cardiol 26:178–184.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[279] Rabi D.,

[280] Clement F.,

[281] McAlister F.,

[282] et al.

[283] 64.
Buckberg G.D.
(2010) Controlled reperfusion after ischemia may be the unifying recovery denominator. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 140:12–18.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[284] Buckberg G.D.

[285] 65.
Alexander J.H.,
Emery R. Jr..,
Carrier M.,
et al.
(2008) Efficacy and safety of pyridoxal 5'-phosphate (MC-1) in high-risk patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery: the MEND-CABG II randomized clinical trial. JAMA 299:1777–1787.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[286] Alexander J.H.,

[287] Emery R. Jr..,

[288] Carrier M.,

[289] et al.

[290] 66.
Mangano D.T.
(1997) Effects of acadesine on myocardial infarction, stroke, and death following surgery: a meta-analysis of the 5 international randomized trials: the Multicenter Study of Perioperative Ischemia (McSPI) Research Group. JAMA 277:325–332.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[291] Mangano D.T.

[292] 67.
Mangano D.T.,
Miao Y.,
Tudor I.C.,
et al.
(2006) Post-reperfusion myocardial infarction: long-term survival improvement using adenosine regulation with acadesine. J Am Coll Cardiol 48:206–214.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text

[293] Mangano D.T.,

[294] Miao Y.,

[295] Tudor I.C.,

[296] et al.

[297] 68.
Shernan S.K.,
Fitch J.C.,
Nussmeier N.A.,
et al.
(2004) Impact of pexelizumab, an anti-C5 complement antibody, on total mortality and adverse cardiovascular outcomes in cardiac surgical patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass. Ann Thorac Surg 77:942–949.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[298] Shernan S.K.,

[299] Fitch J.C.,

[300] Nussmeier N.A.,

[301] et al.

[302] 69.
Smith P.K.,
Shernan S.K.,
Chen J.C.,
et al.
(2010) Effects of C5 complement inhibitor pexelizumab on outcome in high-risk coronary artery bypass grafting: Combined results from the PRIMO-CABG I and II trials. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 142:89–98.
OpenUrl PubMed

[303] Smith P.K.,

[304] Shernan S.K.,

[305] Chen J.C.,

[306] et al.

[307] 70.
Testa L.,
Van Gaal W.J.,
Bhindi R.,
et al.
(2008) Pexelizumab in ischemic heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis on 15,196 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 136:884–893.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[308] Testa L.,

[309] Van Gaal W.J.,

[310] Bhindi R.,

[311] et al.

[312] 71.↵
Laurikka J.,
Wu Z.K.,
Iisalo P.,
et al.
(2002) Regional ischemic preconditioning enhances myocardial performance in off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Chest 121:1183–1189.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[313] Laurikka J.,

[314] Wu Z.K.,

[315] Iisalo P.,

[316] et al.

[317] 72.
Penttila H.J.,
Lepojarvi M.V.,
Kaukoranta P.K.,
et al.
(2003) Ischemic preconditioning does not improve myocardial preservation during off-pump multivessel coronary operation. Ann Thorac Surg 75:1246–1252.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[318] Penttila H.J.,

[319] Lepojarvi M.V.,

[320] Kaukoranta P.K.,

[321] et al.

[322] 73.
Walsh S.R.,
Tang T.Y.,
Kullar P.,
et al.
(2008) Ischaemic preconditioning during cardiac surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of perioperative outcomes in randomised clinical trials. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 34:985–994.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[323] Walsh S.R.,

[324] Tang T.Y.,

[325] Kullar P.,

[326] et al.

[327] 74.↵
Hausenloy D.J.,
Mwamure P.K.,
Venugopal V.,
et al.
(2007) Effect of remote ischaemic preconditioning on myocardial injury in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a randomised controlled trial. Lancet 370:575–579.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[328] Hausenloy D.J.,

[329] Mwamure P.K.,

[330] Venugopal V.,

[331] et al.

[332] 75.
Rahman I.A.,
Mascaro J.G.,
Steeds R.P.,
et al.
(2010) Remote ischemic preconditioning in human coronary artery bypass surgery: from promise to disappointment? Circulation 122(Suppl):S53–S59.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[333] Rahman I.A.,

[334] Mascaro J.G.,

[335] Steeds R.P.,

[336] et al.

[337] 76.
Venugopal V.,
Hausenloy D.J.,
Ludman A.,
et al.
(2009) Remote ischaemic preconditioning reduces myocardial injury in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cold-blood cardioplegia: a randomised controlled trial. Heart 95:1567–1571.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[338] Venugopal V.,

[339] Hausenloy D.J.,

[340] Ludman A.,

[341] et al.

[342] 77.↵
Luo W.,
Li B.,
Chen R.,
et al.
(2008) Effect of ischemic postconditioning in adult valve replacement. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 33:203–208.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[343] Luo W.,

[344] Li B.,

[345] Chen R.,

[346] et al.

[347] 78.
Ovize M.,
Baxter G.F.,
Di Lisa F.,
et al.
(2010) Postconditioning and protection from reperfusion injury: where do we stand?: Position paper from the Working Group of Cellular Biology of the Heart of the European Society of Cardiology. Cardiovasc Res 87:406–423.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[348] Ovize M.,

[349] Baxter G.F.,

[350] Di Lisa F.,

[351] et al.

[352] 79.↵
Alexiou K.,
Kappert U.,
Staroske A.,
et al.
(2008) Coronary surgery for acute coronary syndrome: which determinants of outcome remain? Clin Res Cardiol 97:601–608.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[353] Alexiou K.,

[354] Kappert U.,

[355] Staroske A.,

[356] et al.

[357] 80.
Chiu F.C.,
Chang S.N.,
Lin J.W.,
et al.
(2009) Coronary artery bypass graft surgery provides better survival in patients with acute coronary syndrome or ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction experiencing cardiogenic shock after percutaneous coronary intervention: a propensity score analysis. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 138:1326–1330.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[358] Chiu F.C.,

[359] Chang S.N.,

[360] Lin J.W.,

[361] et al.

[362] 81.
DeWood M.A.,
Spores J.,
Berg R. Jr..,
et al.
(1983) Acute myocardial infarction: a decade of experience with surgical reperfusion in 701 patients. Circulation 68:II8–II16.
OpenUrl PubMed

[363] DeWood M.A.,

[364] Spores J.,

[365] Berg R. Jr..,

[366] et al.

[367] 82.↵
Donatelli F.,
Benussi S.,
Triggiani M.,
et al.
(1997) Surgical treatment for life-threatening acute myocardial infarction: a prospective protocol. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 11:228–233.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[368] Donatelli F.,

[369] Benussi S.,

[370] Triggiani M.,

[371] et al.

[372] 83.
Filizcan U.,
Kurc E.,
Cetemen S.,
et al.
(2011) Mortality predictors in ST-elevated myocardial infarction patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. Angiology 62:68–73.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[373] Filizcan U.,

[374] Kurc E.,

[375] Cetemen S.,

[376] et al.

[377] 84.↵
Chevalier P.,
Burri H.,
Fahrat F.,
et al.
(2004) Perioperative outcome and long-term survival of surgery for acute post-infarction mitral regurgitation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 26:330–335.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[378] Chevalier P.,

[379] Burri H.,

[380] Fahrat F.,

[381] et al.

[382] 85.
Lemery R.,
Smith H.C.,
Giuliani E.R.,
et al.
(1992) Prognosis in rupture of the ventricular septum after acute myocardial infarction and role of early surgical intervention. Am J Cardiol 70:147–151.
OpenUrl PubMed

[383] Lemery R.,

[384] Smith H.C.,

[385] Giuliani E.R.,

[386] et al.

[387] 86.
Russo A.,
Suri R.M.,
Grigioni F.,
et al.
(2008) Clinical outcome after surgical correction of mitral regurgitation due to papillary muscle rupture. Circulation 118:1528–1534.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[388] Russo A.,

[389] Suri R.M.,

[390] Grigioni F.,

[391] et al.

[392] 87.
Shamshad F.,
Kenchaiah S.,
Finn P.V.,
et al.
(2010) Fatal myocardial rupture after acute myocardial infarction complicated by heart failure, left ventricular dysfunction, or both: the VALsartan In Acute myocardial iNfarcTion Trial (VALIANT). Am Heart J 160:145–151.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[393] Shamshad F.,

[394] Kenchaiah S.,

[395] Finn P.V.,

[396] et al.

[397] 88.
Tavakoli R.,
Weber A.,
Brunner-La Rocca H.,
et al.
(2002) Results of surgery for irreversible moderate to severe mitral valve regurgitation secondary to myocardial infarction. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 21:818–824.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[398] Tavakoli R.,

[399] Weber A.,

[400] Brunner-La Rocca H.,

[401] et al.

[402] 89.
Hochman J.S.,
Sleeper L.A.,
Webb J.G.,
et al.
(1999) Early revascularization in acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: SHOCK Investigators: Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock. N Engl J Med 341:625–634.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[403] Hochman J.S.,

[404] Sleeper L.A.,

[405] Webb J.G.,

[406] et al.

[407] 90.
Mehta R.H.,
Lopes R.D.,
Ballotta A.,
et al.
(2010) Percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass surgery for cardiogenic shock and multivessel coronary artery disease? Am Heart J 159:141–147.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[408] Mehta R.H.,

[409] Lopes R.D.,

[410] Ballotta A.,

[411] et al.

[412] 91.
White H.D.,
Assmann S.F.,
Sanborn T.A.,
et al.
(2005) Comparison of percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting after acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: results from the Should We Emergently Revascularize Occluded Coronaries for Cardiogenic Shock (SHOCK) trial. Circulation 112:1992–2001.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[413] White H.D.,

[414] Assmann S.F.,

[415] Sanborn T.A.,

[416] et al.

[417] 92.↵
Ngaage D.L.,
Cale A.R.,
Cowen M.E.,
et al.
(2008) Early and late survival after surgical revascularization for ischemic ventricular fibrillation/tachycardia. Ann Thorac Surg 85:1278–1281.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[418] Ngaage D.L.,

[419] Cale A.R.,

[420] Cowen M.E.,

[421] et al.

[422] 93.
Parikh S.V.,
de Lemos J.A.,
Jessen M.E.,
et al.
(2010) Timing of in-hospital coronary artery bypass graft surgery for non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction patients results from the National Cardiovascular Data Registry ACTION Registry-GWTG (Acute Coronary Treatment and Intervention Outcomes Network Registry-Get With The Guidelines). J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 3:419–427.
OpenUrl

[423] Parikh S.V.,

[424] de Lemos J.A.,

[425] Jessen M.E.,

[426] et al.

[427] 94.↵
Lim H.S.,
Farouque O.,
Andrianopoulos N.,
et al.
(2009) Survival of elderly patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv 2:146–152.
OpenUrl

[428] Lim H.S.,

[429] Farouque O.,

[430] Andrianopoulos N.,

[431] et al.

[432] 95.
Amin A.P.,
Nathan S.,
Prodduturi P.,
et al.
(2009) Survival benefit from early revascularization in elderly patients with cardiogenic shock after acute myocardial infarction: a cohort study. J Invasive Cardiol 21:305–312.
OpenUrl PubMed

[433] Amin A.P.,

[434] Nathan S.,

[435] Prodduturi P.,

[436] et al.

[437] 96.
Migliorini A.,
Moschi G.,
Valenti R.,
et al.
(2006) Routine percutaneous coronary intervention in elderly patients with cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction. Am Heart J 152:903–908.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[438] Migliorini A.,

[439] Moschi G.,

[440] Valenti R.,

[441] et al.

[442] 97.
Hochman J.S.,
Buller C.E.,
Sleeper L.A.,
et al.
(2000) Cardiogenic shock complicating acute myocardial infarction–etiologies, management and outcome: a report from the SHOCK Trial Registry: SHould we emergently revascularize Occluded Coronaries for cardiogenic shocK? J Am Coll Cardiol 36:1063–1070.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text

[443] Hochman J.S.,

[444] Buller C.E.,

[445] Sleeper L.A.,

[446] et al.

[447] 98.
Dzavik V.,
Sleeper L.A.,
Cocke T.P.,
et al.
(2003) Early revascularization is associated with improved survival in elderly patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: a report from the SHOCK Trial Registry. Eur Heart J 24:828–837.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[448] Dzavik V.,

[449] Sleeper L.A.,

[450] Cocke T.P.,

[451] et al.

[452] 99.↵
Every N.R.,
Fahrenbruch C.E.,
Hallstrom A.P.,
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.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text

[453] Every N.R.,

[454] Fahrenbruch C.E.,

[455] Hallstrom A.P.,

[456] et al.

[457] 100.
Kelly P.,
Ruskin J.N.,
Vlahakes G.J.,
et al.
(1990) Surgical coronary revascularization in survivors of prehospital cardiac arrest: its effect on inducible ventricular arrhythmias and long-term survival. J Am Coll Cardiol 15:267–273.
OpenUrl FREE Full Text

[458] Kelly P.,

[459] Ruskin J.N.,

[460] Vlahakes G.J.,

[461] et al.

[462] 101.↵
Barakate M.S.,
Bannon P.G.,
Hughes C.F.,
et al.
(2003) Emergency surgery after unsuccessful coronary angioplasty: a review of 15 years' experience. Ann Thorac Surg 75:1400–1405.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[463] Barakate M.S.,

[464] Bannon P.G.,

[465] Hughes C.F.,

[466] et al.

[467] 102.
Roy P.,
de Labriolle A.,
Hanna N.,
et al.
(2009) Requirement for emergent coronary artery bypass surgery following percutaneous coronary intervention in the stent era. Am J Cardiol 103:950–953.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[468] Roy P.,

[469] de Labriolle A.,

[470] Hanna N.,

[471] et al.

[472] 103.
Craver J.M.,
Weintraub W.S.,
Jones E.L.,
et al.
(1992) Emergency coronary artery bypass surgery for failed percutaneous coronary angioplasty: a 10-year experience. Ann Surg 215:425–433.
OpenUrl PubMed

[473] Craver J.M.,

[474] Weintraub W.S.,

[475] Jones E.L.,

[476] et al.

[477] 104.
Stamou S.C.,
Hill P.C.,
Haile E.,
et al.
(2006) Clinical outcomes of nonelective coronary revascularization with and without cardiopulmonary bypass. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 131:28–33.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[478] Stamou S.C.,

[479] Hill P.C.,

[480] Haile E.,

[481] et al.

[482] 105.↵
Feit F.,
Brooks M.M.,
Sopko G.,
et al.
(2000) Long-term clinical outcome in the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation Registry: comparison with the randomized trial: BARI Investigators. Circulation 101:2795–2802.
OpenUrl Abstract/FREE Full Text

[483] Feit F.,

[484] Brooks M.M.,

[485] Sopko G.,

[486] et al.

[487] 106.
King S.B.I.,
Barnhart H.X.,
Kosinski A.S.,
et al.
(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: Emory Angioplasty versus Surgery Trial Investigators. Am J Cardiol 79:1453–1459.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[488] King S.B.I.,

[489] Barnhart H.X.,

[490] Kosinski A.S.,

[491] et al.

[492] 107.↵
Serruys P.W.,
Morice M.C.,
Kappetein A.P.,
et al.
(2009) Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 360:961–972.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[493] Serruys P.W.,

[494] Morice M.C.,

[495] Kappetein A.P.,

[496] et al.

[497] 108.↵
Chakravarty T.,
Buch M.H.,
Naik H.,
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.
OpenUrl CrossRef PubMed

[498] Chakravarty T.,

[499] Buch M.H.,

[500] Naik H.,

[501] et al.

User menu

This article has a correction. Please see:

Author + information

Author Information

ACCF/AHA Task Force Members

Table of Contents

Preamble

1 Introduction

1.1 Methodology and Evidence Review

1.2 Organization of the Writing Committee

1.3 Document Review and Approval

2 Procedural Considerations: Recommendations

2.1 Anesthetic Considerations

2.2 Bypass Graft Conduit

2.3 Intraoperative Transesophageal Echocardiography

2.4 Preconditioning/Management of Myocardial Ischemia

2.5 Clinical Subsets

2.5.1 CABG in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction

2.5.2 Life-Threatening Ventricular Arrhythmias

2.5.3 Emergency CABG After Failed PCI

2.5.4 CABG in Association With Other Cardiac Procedures

3 CAD Revascularization: Recommendations

3.1 Heart Team Approach to Revascularization Decisions

3.2 Revascularization to Improve Survival

3.3 Revascularization to Improve Symptoms

3.4 Clinical Factors That May Influence the Choice of Revascularization

3.4.1 Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Compliance and Stent Thrombosis

3.5 Hybrid Coronary Revascularization

4 Perioperative Management: Recommendations

4.1 Preoperative Antiplatelet Therapy

4.2 Postoperative Antiplatelet Therapy

4.3 Management of Hyperlipidemia

4.4 Hormonal Manipulation

4.5 Perioperative Beta Blockers

4.6 Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin-Receptor Blockers

4.7 Smoking Cessation

4.8 Emotional Dysfunction and Psychosocial Considerations

4.9 Cardiac Rehabilitation

4.10 Perioperative Monitoring

4.10.1 Electrocardiographic Monitoring

4.10.2 Pulmonary Artery Catheterization

4.10.3 Central Nervous System Monitoring

5 CABG-Associated Morbidity and Mortality: Occurrence and Prevention: Recommendations

5.1 Public Reporting of Cardiac Surgery Outcomes

5.1.1 Use of Outcomes or Volume as CABG Quality Measures

5.2 Use of Epiaortic Ultrasound Imaging to Reduce Stroke Rates

5.3 The Role of Preoperative Carotid Artery Noninvasive Screening in CABG Patients

5.4 Mediastinitis/Perioperative Infection

5.5 Renal Dysfunction

5.6 Perioperative Myocardial Dysfunction

5.6.1 Transfusion

5.7 Perioperative Dysrhythmias

5.8 Perioperative Bleeding/Transfusion

6 Specific Patient Subsets: Recommendations

6.1 Anomalous Coronary Arteries

6.2 Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease/Respiratory Insufficiency

6.3 Patients With End-Stage Renal Disease on Dialysis

6.4 Patients With Concomitant Valvular Disease

6.5 Patients With Previous Cardiac Surgery

Staff

Appendix 1 Author Relationships With Industry and Other Entities (Relevant)—2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

Appendix 2 Reviewer Relationships With Industry and Other Entitites (Relevant)—2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery

Footnotes

References