What is the evidence for percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass graft in ischemic cardiomyopathy?
Coronary artery disease has supplanted hypertension as the leading cause of congestive heart failure in the United States. The recognition that contraction abnormalities could accrue from gradual stunning, or longer-term ‘hibernation,’ raised the possibility that revascularization of viable but hypocontractile elements could improve myocardial performance. This review focuses on the data from randomized trials and registries regarding the potential benefits and risks of either coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction secondary to coronary artery disease. For patients with medically refractory angina and ischemic cardiomyopathy, revascularization with CABG or percutaneous coronary intervention is recommended. The ongoing National Institutes of Health-sponsored Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure (STICH) trial, a multicenter, prospective, randomized trial comparing contemporary medical the
Related Questions
- Should coronary artery bypass graft surgery patients with mild or moderate aortic stenosis undergo concomitant aortic valve replacement?
- when is it the time for medical treatment, percutaneous coronary intervention or aortocoronary bypass surgery?
- Who is a candidate for coronary artery bypass graft surgery?
