p.67 抽出テキスト
Lawton et al 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Coronary Revascularization Guideline January 18, 2022 Circulation. 2022;145:e18–e114. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001038 e84 CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES 26 Kipp R, Lehman J, Israel J, et al. Patient preferences for coronary artery bypass graft surgery or percutaneous intervention in multivessel coronary artery disease. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2013;82:212–218. 27. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. Patient Decision Aids: Implementation Toolkit. 2014. Accessed June 25, 2021. Available at: https://decisionaid. ohri.ca/implement.html 28. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. The SHARE Approach—Es- sential Steps of Shared Decisionmaking: Quick Reference Guide. 2020. Accessed June 25, 2021. Available at: https://www.ahrq.gov/health-literacy/ professional-training/shared-decision/tools/resource-1.html 3.1 The Heart Team 1 Bonzel T, Schächinger V, Dörge H. Description of a Heart Team approach to coronary revascularization and its beneficial long-term effect on clinical events after PCI. Clin Res Cardiol. 2016;105:388–400. 2. Chu D, Anastacio MM, Mulukutla SR, et al. Safety and efficacy of implementing a multidisciplinary heart team approach for revascularization in patients with complex coronary artery disease: an observational cohort pilot study. JAMA Surg. 2014;149:1109–1112. 3. Leonardi S, Marino M, Crimi G, et al. APpropriAteness of percutaneous Coronary interventions in patients with ischaemic HEart disease in Italy: the APACHE pilot study. BMJ Open. 2017;7: e016909. 4. Pavlidis AN, Perera D, Karamasis GV, et al. Implementation and consistency of Heart Team decision-making in complex coronary revascularisation. Int J Cardiol. 2016;206:37–41. 5. Sanchez CE, Dota A, Badhwar V, et al. Revascularization heart team recommendations as an adjunct to appropriate use criteria for coronary revascularization in patients with complex coronary artery disease. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;88:e103–e112. 6. Yamasaki M, Abe K, Horikoshi R, et al. Enhanced outcomes for coronary artery disease obtained by a multidisciplinary heart team approach. Gen Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019;67:841–848. 7. Patterson T, McConkey HZR, Ahmed-Jushuf F, et al. Long-term outcomes following heart team revascularization recommendations in complex coronary artery disease. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8: e011279. 8. Mohr FW, Morice M-C, Kappetein AP, et al. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with threevessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year follow-up of the randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial. Lancet. 2013;381:629–638. 9. Ram E, Goldenberg I, Kassif Y, et al. Comparison of patients with multivessel disease treated at centers with and without on-site cardiac surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018;155:865–873.e3. 10. King SB 3rd, Barnhart HX, Kosinski AS, et al. 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. 1997;79:1453–1459. 11. Feit F, Brooks MM, Sopko G, et al. Long-term clinical outcome in the Bypass Angioplasty Revascularization Investigation Registry: comparison with the randomized trial. BARI Investigators. Circulation. 2000;101:2795–2802. 3.2 Predicting Patient Risk of Death With CABG 1 Osnabrugge RL, Speir AM, Head SJ, et al. Performance of EuroSCORE II in a large US database: implications for transcatheter aortic valve implantation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2014;46:400–408. 2. Ad N, Holmes SD, Patel J, et al. Comparison of EuroSCORE II, Original EuroSCORE, and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Risk Score in Cardiac Surgery Patients. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;102:573–579. 3. O’Brien SM, Feng L, He X, et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2018 adult cardiac surgery risk models: part 2-statistical methods and results. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;105:1419–1428. 4. Shahian DM, Jacobs JP, Badhwar V, et al. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2018 adult cardiac surgery risk models: part 1-background, design considerations, and model development. Ann Thorac Surg. 2018;105:1411–1418. 5. Nashef SA, Roques F, Sharples LD, et al. EuroSCORE II. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2012;41:734–744. discussion 44–5. 6. Thielmann M, Mechmet A, Neuhäuser M, et al. Risk prediction and outcomes in patients with liver cirrhosis undergoing open-heart surgery. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2010;38:592–599. 7. Modi A, Vohra HA, Barlow CW. Do patients with liver cirrhosis undergo- ing cardiac surgery have acceptable outcomes? Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2010;11:630–634. 8. Reichart D, Rosato S, Nammas W, et al. Clinical frailty scale and outcome af- ter coronary artery bypass grafting. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2018;54:1102– 1109. 9. Sündermann S, Dademasch A, Rastan A, et al. One-year follow-up of patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery assessed with the Comprehensive Assessment of Frailty test and its simplified form. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2011;13:119–123; discussion 23. 10. Sündermann SH, Dademasch A, Seifert B, et al. Frailty is a predictor of short- and mid-term mortality after elective cardiac surgery independently of age. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2014;18:580–585. 11. Afilalo J, Eisenberg MJ, Morin JF, et al. Gait speed as an incremental predictor of mortality and major morbidity in elderly patients undergoing cardiac surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56:1668–1676. 12. Afilalo J, Mottillo S, Eisenberg MJ, et al. Addition of frailty and disability to cardiac surgery risk scores identifies elderly patients at high risk of mortality or major morbidity. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2012;5:222–228. 13. Lytwyn J, Stammers AN, Kehler DS, et al. The impact of frailty on functional survival in patients 1 year after cardiac surgery. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2017;154:1990–1999. 14. Sepehri A, Beggs T, Hassan A, et al. The impact of frailty on outcomes after cardiac surgery: a systematic review. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2014;148:3110–3117. 15. Ringaitienė D, Gineitytė D, Vicka V, et al. Impact of malnutrition on postoperative delirium development after on pump coronary artery bypass grafting. J Cardiothorac Surg. 2015;10:74. 16. Lomivorotov VV, Efremov SM, Boboshko VA, et al. Prognostic value of nutritional screening tools for patients scheduled for cardiac surgery. Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg. 2013;16:612–618. 17. Bayir H, Yildiz I. Malnutrition and adverse effects in cardiac surgery. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2015;63:349–350. 4.1 Angiography to Define Anatomy and Assess Lesion Severity 1. Adjedj J, Xaplanteris P, Toth G, et al. Visual and quantitative assessment of coronary stenoses at angiography versus fractional flow reserve: the impact of risk factors. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging. 2017;10:e006243. 2. Beauman GJ, Vogel RA. Accuracy of individual and panel visual interpretations of coronary arteriograms: implications for clinical decisions. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1990;16:108–113. 3. Fleming RM, Kirkeeide RL, Smalling RW, et al. Patterns in visual interpretation of coronary arteriograms as detected by quantitative coronary arteriography. J Am Coll Cardiol. 1991;18:945–951. 4. Goldberg RK, Kleiman NS, Minor ST, et al. Comparison of quantitative coronary angiography to visual estimates of lesion severity pre and post PTCA. Am Heart J. 1990;119:178–184. 5. Nallamothu BK, Spertus JA, Lansky AJ, et al. Comparison of clinical in- terpretation with visual assessment and quantitative coronary angiography in patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention in contemporary practice: the Assessing Angiography (A2) project. Circulation. 2013;127:1793–1800. 4.2. Defining Coronary Artery Lesion Complexity: Calculation of the SYNTAX (Synergy Between PCI With TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery) Score 1 Sianos G, Morel M-A, Kappetein AP, et al. The SYNTAX Score: an angio- graphic tool grading the complexity of coronary artery disease. EuroIntervention. 2005;1:219–227. 2. Garg S, Serruys PW, Silber S, et al. The prognostic utility of the SYNTAX score on 1-year outcomes after revascularization with zotarolimus- and everolimus-eluting stents: a substudy of the RESOLUTE All Comers Trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4:432–441. 3. Wykrzykowska JJ, Garg S, Girasis C, et al. Value of the SYNTAX score for risk assessment in the all-comers population of the randomized multicenter LEADERS (Limus Eluted from A Durable versus ERodable Stent coating) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56:272–277. 4. Cavalcante R, Sotomi Y, Mancone M, et al. Impact of the SYNTAX scores I and II in patients with diabetes and multivessel coronary disease: a pooled analysis of patient level data from the SYNTAX, PRECOMBAT, and BEST trials. Eur Heart J. 2017;38:1969–1977. 5. Farooq V, van Klaveren D, Steyerberg EW, et al. Anatomical and clinical characteristics to guide decision making between coronary artery bypass Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on October 7, 2026