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

Go to top of page

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

User menu

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

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

Home
  • ACC.org
  • Guidelines
  • CME/MOC/ECME
  • About
  • Login
  • Home
  • JACC Journals
    • JACC: Basic to Translational Science
    • JACC: CardioOncology
    • JACC: Cardiovascular Imaging
    • JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions
    • JACC: Case Reports
    • JACC: Clinical Electrophysiology
    • JACC: Heart Failure
  • Issues
    • Current
    • Articles in Press
    • Archives
  • Topics
  • Multimedia
    • Cardiology Hour
  • Guidelines
    • Prevention Hub
    • Atrial Fibrillation Hub
    • Cholesterol Hub
    • Bradycardia Hub
    • ACHD Hub
    • VA/SCD Hub
    • High Blood Pressure Hub
  • International
    • Spanish
    • Portuguese
    • Chinese
Journal of the American College of Cardiology
Volume 58, Issue 24, December 2011 DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2011.08.008
PDF Article
Practice Guideline

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.

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

Author Information

  1. L. David Hillis, MD, FACC, Chair, Writing Committee Member†,
  2. Peter K. Smith, MD, FACC, Vice Chair, Writing Committee Member⁎,†,
  3. Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA, Writing Committee Member⁎,‡,
  4. John A. Bittl, MD, FACC, Writing Committee Member§,
  5. Charles R. Bridges, MD, ScD, FACC, FAHA, Writing Committee Member⁎,†,
  6. John G. Byrne, MD, FACC, Writing Committee Member†,
  7. Joaquin E. Cigarroa, MD, FACC, Writing Committee Member†,
  8. Verdi J. DiSesa, MD, FACC, Writing Committee Member†,
  9. Loren F. Hiratzka, MD, FACC, FAHA, Writing Committee Member†,
  10. Adolph M. Hutter Jr, MD, MACC, FAHA, Writing Committee Member†,
  11. Michael E. Jessen, MD, FACC, Writing Committee Member⁎,†,
  12. Ellen C. Keeley, MD, MS, Writing Committee Member†,
  13. Stephen J. Lahey, MD, Writing Committee Member†,
  14. Richard A. Lange, MD, FACC, FAHA, Writing Committee Member†,§,
  15. Martin J. London, MD, Writing Committee Member∥,
  16. Michael J. Mack, MD, FACC, Writing Committee Member⁎,¶,
  17. Manesh R. Patel, MD, FACC, Writing Committee Member†,
  18. John D. Puskas, MD, FACC, Writing Committee Member⁎,†,
  19. Joseph F. Sabik, MD, FACC, Writing Committee Member⁎,#,
  20. Ola Selnes, PhD, Writing Committee Member†,
  21. David M. Shahian, MD, FACC, FAHA, Writing Committee Member⁎⁎,
  22. Jeffrey C. Trost, MD, FACC, Writing Committee Member⁎,† and
  23. Michael D. Winniford, MD, FACC, Writing Committee Member†
Key Words
  • ACCF/AHA Practice Guidelines
  • acute coronary syndromes
  • anticoagulants
  • antiplatelet agents
  • arrhythmias, cardiac
  • coronary angiography
  • coronary artery revascularization interventions: stents
  • drug therapy
  • heart diseases
  • myocardial revasularization
  • platelet aggregation inhibitor
  • ultrasound

ACCF/AHA Task Force Members

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

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

Nancy Albert, PhD, CCNS, CCRN, FAHA

Mark A. Creager, MD, FACC, FAHA

Steven M. Ettinger, MD, FACC

Robert A. Guyton, MD, FACC

Jonathan L. Halperin, MD, FACC, FAHA

Judith S. Hochman, MD, FACC, FAHA

Frederick G. Kushner, MD, FACC, FAHA

E. Magnus Ohman, MD, FACC

William Stevenson, MD, FACC, FAHA

Clyde W. Yancy, MD, FACC, FAHA

Table of Contents

  • Preamble…...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:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 1

Applying Classification of Recommendations and Level of Evidence

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

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

The ACCF/AHA practice guidelines are intended to assist healthcare providers in clinical decision making by describing a range of generally acceptable approaches to the diagnosis, management, and prevention of specific diseases or conditions. The guidelines attempt to define practices that meet the needs of most patients in most circumstances. The ultimate judgment regarding 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:
  • View inline
  • View popup
  • Download powerpoint
Table 2

Revascularization to Improve Survival Compared With Medical Therapy

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

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

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

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 MemberEmployer/TitleConsultantSpeaker's BureauOwnership/ Partnership/ PrincipalPersonal ResearchInstitutional, Organizational, or Other Financial BenefitExpert WitnessVoting Recusals by Section Numbers⁎
L. David Hillis (Chair)University of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio—Professor and Chair of the Department of MedicineNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
Peter K. Smith (Vice Chair)Duke University Medical Center: Private Diagnostic Clinic—Professor of Surgery; Chief of Thoracic Surgery
  • • Eli Lilly

  • • Baxter BioSurgery

NoneNoneNoneNoneNone2.2.3
4.1
4.2
5.2.6
Jeffrey L. AndersonIntermountain Medical Center—Associate Chief of Cardiology
  • • BMS/sanofi-aventis

NoneNone
  • • Toshiba‡

  • • Gilead Pharma

  • • AstraZeneca

NoneNone2.1.6
2.2.3
4.1
4.2
4.3
5.2.6
John A. BittlOcala Heart Institute Munroe Regional Medical Center—Interventional CardiologistNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
Charles R. BridgesUniversity of Pennsylvania Medical Center—Chief of Cardiothoracic Surgery
  • • Baxter BioSurgery‡

  • • Zymogenetics

  • • Bayer Pharmaceuticals

NoneNoneNone
  • • 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. ByrneVanderbilt University Medical Center: Division of Cardiac Surgery—Chairman of Cardiac SurgeryNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
Joaquin E. CigarroaOregon Health and Science University—Associate Professor of MedicineNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
Verdi J. DiSesaJohn Hopkins Hospital, Division of Cardiac Surgery—Clinical AssociateNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
Loren F. HiratzkaCardiac, Vascular and Thoracic Surgeons, Inc.—Medical Director of Cardiac SurgeryNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
Adolph M. Hutter, Jr.Massachusetts General Hospital—Professor of MedicineNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
Michael E. JessenUT Southwestern Medical Center—Professor of Cardiothoracic Surgery
  • • Quest Medical‡

NoneNoneNoneNoneNone2.1.8
Ellen C. KeeleyUniversity of Virginia—Associate Professor of Internal MedicineNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
Stephen J. LaheyUniversity of Connecticut—Professor and Chief of Cardiothoracic SurgeryNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
  • • Defendant, mitral valve replacement, 2009

None
Richard A. LangeUniversity of Texas Health Science Center at San Antonio—Professor of MedicineNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
Martin J. LondonUniversity of California San Francisco, Veterans Affairs Medical Center—Professor of Clinical AnesthesiaNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
Michael J. MackThe Heart Hospital Baylor Plano—Cardiovascular Surgery, Medical Director
  • • Cordis

  • • Marquett

  • • Medtronic

  • • Edwards Lifesciences‡

NoneNoneNoneNoneNone2.1.3
2.2.1
5.2.1.1
5.2.1.2
Manesh R. PatelDuke University Medical Center—Associate Professor of MedicineNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
John D. PuskasEmory University/Emory Healthcare—Chief of Cardiac Surgery
  • • Marquett

  • • Medtronic

NoneNone
  • • Marquett†

  • • Medtronic†

NoneNone2.1.3
2.2.1
2.2.2
Joseph F. SabikCleveland Clinic Foundation—Professor of Surgery
  • • Edwards Lifesciences

  • • Medtronic

NoneNoneNoneNoneNone2.2.2
5.2.1.1
5.2.1.2
Ola SelnesJohn Hopkins Hospital, Department of Neurology—Professor of NeurologyNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
David M. ShahianMassachusetts General Hospital—Professor of SurgeryNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
Jeffrey C. TrostJohn Hopkins School of Medicine—Assistant Professor of MedicineNoneNoneNone
  • • Toshiba†

NoneNone2.1.7
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. WinnifordUniversity of Mississippi Medical Center—Professor of MedicineNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone

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 ReviewerRepresentationConsultantSpeaker's BureauOwnership/ Partnership/ PrincipalPersonal ResearchInstitutional, Organizational, or Other Financial BenefitExpert Witness
    Robert GuytonOfficial Reviewer—ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice GuidelinesNoneNoneNone
    • • Edwards Lifesciences

    NoneNone
    Jeffrey JacobsOfficial Reviewer—ACCF/AHA Task Force on Data StandardsNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
    L. Kristin NewbyOfficial Reviewer—AHA
    • • AstraZeneca

    NoneNone
    • • Eli Lilly⁎

    • • GlaxoSmithKline†

    NoneNone
    Eric D. PetersonOfficial Reviewer—ACCF/AHA Task Force on Performance Measures
    • • AstraZeneca

    NoneNone
    • • BMS/sanofi-aventis†

    • • Eli Lilly†

    NoneNone
    Richard J. SheminOfficial Reviewer—AHA
    • • Edwards Lifesciences

    NoneNoneNoneNoneNone
    Hector VenturaOfficial Reviewer—ACCF Board of GovernorsNone
    • • Actelion

    • • Gilead

    NoneNoneNoneNone
    Thad F. WaitesOfficial Reviewer—ACCF Board of TrusteesNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
    T. Bruce Ferguson, Jr.Organizational Reviewer—STSNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
    Stephen E. FremesOrganizational Reviewer—AATSNoneNoneNoneNoneMerck
    • • Defendant, leaking thoracic aortic aneurysm, 2009

    • • Defendant, aortic dissection, 2009

    Colleen G. KochOrganizational Reviewer—SCANoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
    Harold L. LazarOrganizational Reviewer—AATSNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
    Walter H. MerrillOrganizational Reviewer—STSNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
    Stanton K. ShernanOrganizational Reviewer—SCANone
    • • Philips Healthcare

    NoneNoneNone
    • • Plaintiff, communication of echocardiography results, 2010

    Joseph S. AlpertContent Reviewer
    • • Bayer

    • • Sanofi-aventis

    NoneNoneNoneNoneNone
    Robert M. CaliffContent Reviewer
    • • AstraZeneca

    • • Daiichi-Sankyo

    • • GlaxoSmithKline

    • • Medtronic

    • • Sanofi-aventis

    NoneNone
    • • Eli Lilly†

    • • Bayer

    NoneNone
    Robbin G. CohenContent ReviewerNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
    • • Defendant, death after minimally invasive heart surgery, 2011

    • • Defendant, diagnosis of aortic dissection, 2010

    • • Plaintiff, renal failure and Aprotinin, 2010

    Mark A. CreagerContent Reviewer—ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines
    • • AstraZeneca

    • • Genzyme

    • • Merck

    • • Roche

    • • Vascutek

    NoneNone
    • • Merck

    None
    • • Plaintiff, Fasudil Development: Asahi Pharma v Actelion, 2010

    Steven M. EttingerContent Reviewer— ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice GuidelinesNoneNoneNone
    • • Medtronic

    NoneNone
    David P. FaxonContent Reviewer
    • • Sanofi-aventis

    NoneNoneNoneNone
    • • Defendant, cath vascular access site complication, 2009

    Kirsten E. FleischmannContent ReviewerNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
    Lee FleisherContent ReviewerNoneNoneNone
    • • Pfizer

    • • AstraZeneca†

    • • Defendant, perioperative stroke, 2009

    Anthony P. FurnaryContent Reviewer—ACCF Surgeons' Scientific CouncilNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
    • • Defendant, Bayer Corp. Trasylol litigation, 2009 to 2011

    Valentin FusterContent ReviewerNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
    John W. Hirshfeld, Jr.Content Reviewer
    • • GlaxoSmithKline

    NoneNoneNoneNoneNone
    Judith S. HochmanContent Reviewer—ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines
    • • Eli Lilly

    • • GlaxoSmithKline

    NoneNoneNoneNoneNone
    James L. Januzzi, Jr.Content Reviewer
    • • Roche

    NoneNone
    • • Roche

    NoneNone
    Frederick G. KushnerContent Reviewer—Vice Chair, 2012 STEMI Guideline Writing CommitteeNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
    Glenn LevineContent Reviewer—Chair, 2011 PCI Guideline Writing CommitteeNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
    Donald LikoskyContent ReviewerNoneNoneNone
    • • Maquet†

    • • Medtronic†

    NoneNone
    James J. LivesayContent Reviewer—Southern Thoracic Surgical AssociationNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
    • • Defendant, acute aortic dissection, 2011

    • • Defendant, cardiac mortality review, 2010

    • • Defendant, heparin induced thrombocytopenia, 2010

    Bruce W. LytleContent Reviewer—2004 CABG Guideline Writing CommitteeNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
    Robert A. MarlowContent Reviewer—2004 CABG Guideline Writing CommitteeNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
    Rick A. NishimuraContent Reviewer—ACCF Board of TrusteesNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
    Patrick O'GaraContent Reviewer—Chair, 2012 STEMI Guideline Writing CommitteeNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
    E. Magnus OhmanContent 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

    NoneNone
    John D. RutherfordContent ReviewerNoneNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
    George A. StoufferContent ReviewerNoneNoneNoneNoneNone
    • • Defendant, review of malpractice claim, 2010

    Mathew WilliamsContent Reviewer—ACCF Interventional Scientific Council
    • • Edwards Lifesciences

    • • Medtronic

    NoneNoneNoneNoneNone

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

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

    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.↵
      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. 2.↵
      1. Institute of Medicine
      (2011) Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC).
    3. 3.
      1. Institute of Medicine
      (2011) Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust (The National Academies Press, Washington, DC).
    4. 4.↵
      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. 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. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    7. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    8. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    9. 9.
      1. Brennan F.,
      2. Carr D.B.,
      3. Cousins M.
      (2007) Pain management: a fundamental human right. Anesth Analg 105:205–221.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    10. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    11. 11.
      1. Serfontein L.
      (2010) Awareness in cardiac anesthesia. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol 23:103–108.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    12. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    13. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    14. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    15. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    16. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    17. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    18. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    19. 19.
      1. Thys D.M.
      (2009) Cardiac anesthesia: thirty years later—the second annual Arthur E. Weyman lecture. Anesth Analg 109:1782–1790.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    20. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    21. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    22. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    23. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    24. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    25. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    26. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    27. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    28. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    29. 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.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    30. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    31. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    32. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    33. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    34. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    35. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    36. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    37. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    38. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    39. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    40. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    41. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    42. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    43. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    44. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    45. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    46. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    47. 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.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    48. 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.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    49. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    50. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    51. 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.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    52. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    53. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    54. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    55. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    56. 56.↵
      1. Slogoff S.,
      2. Keats A.S.
      (1985) Does perioperative myocardial ischemia lead to postoperative myocardial infarction? Anesthesiology 62:107–114.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    57. 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.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    58. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    59. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    60. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    61. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    62. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    63. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    64. 64.
      1. Buckberg G.D.
      (2010) Controlled reperfusion after ischemia may be the unifying recovery denominator. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 140:12–18.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    65. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    66. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    67. 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.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    68. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    69. 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.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    70. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    71. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    72. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    73. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    74. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    75. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    76. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    77. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    78. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    79. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    80. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    81. 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.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    82. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    83. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    84. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    85. 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.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    86. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    87. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    88. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    89. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    90. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    91. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    92. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    93. 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. 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. 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.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    96. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    97. 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.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    98. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    99. 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.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    100. 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.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    101. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    102. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    103. 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.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    104. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    105. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    106. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    107. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    108. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    109. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    110. 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. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    112. 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. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    114. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    115. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    116. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    117. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    118. 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.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    119. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    120. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    121. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    122. 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. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    124. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    125. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    126. 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.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    127. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    128. 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.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    129. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    130. 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. 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.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    132. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    133. 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. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    135. 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.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    136. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    137. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    138. 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. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    140. 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. 141.
      Deleted in proof.
    142. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    143. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    144. 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. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    146. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    147. 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.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    148. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    149. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    150. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    151. 151.
      Deleted in proof.
    152. 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.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    153. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    154. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    155. 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.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    156. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    157. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    158. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    159. 159.
      1. Phillips H.R.,
      2. O'Connor C.M.,
      3. Rogers J.
      (2007) Revascularization for heart failure. Am Heart J 153:65–73.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    160. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    161. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    162. 162.
      Deleted in proof.
    163. 163.
      Deleted in proof.
    164. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    165. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    166. 166.
      Deleted in proof.
    167. 167.
      Deleted in proof.
    168. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    169. 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.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    170. 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.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    171. 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.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    172. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    173. 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.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    174. 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.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    175. 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.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    176. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    177. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    178. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    179. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    180. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    181. 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.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    182. 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.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    183. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    184. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    185. 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.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    186. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    187. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    188. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    189. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    190. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    191. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    192. 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.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    193. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    194. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    195. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    196. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    197. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    198. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    199. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    200. 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.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    201. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    202. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    203. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    204. 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.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    205. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    206. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    207. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    208. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    209. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    210. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    211. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    212. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    213. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    214. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    215. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    216. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    217. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    218. 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.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    219. 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.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    220. 220.
      1. Simoons M.L.
      (1996) Myocardial revascularization–bypass surgery or angioplasty? N Engl J Med 335:275–277.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    221. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    222. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    223. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    224. 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.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    225. 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.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    226. 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.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    227. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    228. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    229. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    230. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    231. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    232. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    233. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    234. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    235. 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.
      OpenUrlFREE Full Text
    236. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    237. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    238. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    239. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    240. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    241. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    242. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    243. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    244. 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.
      OpenUrlAbstract/FREE Full Text
    245. 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.
      OpenUrlCrossRefPubMed
    246. 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.
      OpenUrlPubMed
    247. 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.