p.68 抽出テキスト

Lawton et al 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Coronary Revascularization Guideline

Circulation. 2022;145:e18–e114. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001038 January 18, 2022 e85 CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention for individual patients: development and validation of SYNTAX score II. Lancet. 2013;381:639–650. 6.	 Takahashi K, Serruys PW, Fuster V, et al. Redevelopment and validation of the SYNTAX score II to individualise decision making between percutaneous and surgical revascularisation in patients with complex coronary artery disease: secondary analysis of the multicentre randomised controlled SYN- TAXES trial with external cohort validation. Lancet. 2020;396:1399–1412. 7.	 Généreux P, Palmerini T, Caixeta A, et al. SYNTAX score reproducibility and variability between interventional cardiologists, core laboratory technicians, and quantitative coronary measurements. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4:553–561. 8.	 Zhang Y-J, Iqbal J, Campos CM, et al. Prognostic value of site SYNTAX

score and rationale for combining anatomic and clinical factors in decision making: insights from the SYNTAX trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:423– 432.

4.3 Use of Coronary Physiology to Guide Revascularization With PCI

1 Tonino PAL, De Bruyne B, Pijls NHJ, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus

angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:213–224. 2.	 De Bruyne B, Pijls NHJ, Kalesan B, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:991–1001. 3.	 De Bruyne B, Fearon WF, Pijls NHJ, et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI for stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2014;371:1208– 1217. 4.	 Davies JE, Sen S, Dehbi H-M, et al. Use of the instantaneous wave-free ratio or fractional flow reserve in PCI. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1824–1834. 5.	 Xaplanteris P, Fournier S, Pijls NHJ, et al. Five-year outcomes with PCI guided by fractional flow reserve. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:250–259. 6.	 Götberg M, Christiansen EH, Gudmundsdottir IJ, et al. Instantaneous wave-free ratio versus fractional flow reserve to guide PCI. N Engl J Med. 2017;376:1813–1823. 7.	 Zimmermann FM, Ferrara A, Johnson NP, et al. Deferral vs. performance of percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally non-significant coronary stenosis: 15-year follow-up of the DEFER trial. Eur Heart J. 2015;36:3182– 3188. 8.	 Pijls NHJ, van Schaardenburgh P, Manoharan G, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention of functionally nonsignificant stenosis: 5-year follow-up of the DEFER study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:2105–2111. 9.	 Pijls NHJ, Fearon WF, Tonino PAL, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: 2-year follow-up of the FAME (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;56:177–184. 10.	 Escaned J, Ryan N, Mejía-Rentería H, et al. Safety of the deferral of coronary revascularization on the basis of instantaneous wave-free ratio and fractional flow reserve measurements in stable coronary artery disease and acute coronary syndromes. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2018;11:1437–1449. 11.	 Bruno F, D’Ascenzo F, Marengo G, et al. Fractional flow reserve guided versus angiographic guided surgical revascularization: a meta-analysis. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2020;98:e18–e23. 12.	 Timbadia D, Ler A, Sazzad F, et al. FFR-guided versus coronary angiogramguided CABG: a review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials. J Card Surg. 2020;35:2785–2793. 13.	 Thuesen AL, Riber LP, Veien KT, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiographically-guided coronary artery bypass grafting. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72:2732–2743. 14.	 Toth GG, De Bruyne B, Kala P, et al. Graft patency after FFR-guided versus

angiography-guided coronary artery bypass grafting: the GRAFFITI trial. EuroIntervention. 2019;15:e999–e1005.

4.4 Intravascular Ultrasound to Assess Lesion Severity

1 de la Torre Hernandez JM, Hernandez Hernandez F, Alfonso F, et al. Pro-

spective application of pre-defined intravascular ultrasound criteria for assessment of intermediate left main coronary artery lesions results from the multicenter LITRO study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2011;58:351–358. 2.	 Fassa AA, Wagatsuma K, Higano ST, et al. Intravascular ultrasound-guided

treatment for angiographically indeterminate left main coronary artery disease: a long-term follow-up study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2005;45:204–211. 3 Park SJ, Ahn JM, Kang SJ, et al. Intravascular ultrasound-derived minimal

lumen area criteria for functionally significant left main coronary artery stenosis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2014;7:868–874. 4.	 Jasti V, Ivan E, Yalamanchili V, et al. Correlations between fractional flow reserve and intravascular ultrasound in patients with an ambiguous left main coronary artery stenosis. Circulation. 2004;110:2831–2836. 5.	 Kang SJ, Lee JY, Ahn JM, et al. Intravascular ultrasound-derived predictors for fractional flow reserve in intermediate left main disease. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4:1168–1174. 6.	 Waksman R, Legutko J, Singh J, et al. FIRST: Fractional Flow Reserve and Intravascular Ultrasound Relationship Study. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;61:917–923. 7.	 Koo BK, Yang HM, Doh JH, et al. Optimal intravascular ultrasound criteria and their accuracy for defining the functional significance of intermediate coronary stenoses of different locations. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2011;4:803–811. 8.	 Kubo T, Akasaka T, Shite J, et al. OCT compared with IVUS in a coronary

lesion assessment: the OPUS-CLASS study. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging. 2013;6:1095–1104.

5.1 Revascularization of the Infarct Artery in Patients With STEMI

1 Keeley EC, Boura JA, Grines CL. Primary angioplasty versus intravenous

thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials. Lancet. 2003;361:13–20. 2.	 Zijlstra F, Hoorntje JC, de Boer MJ, et al. Long-term benefit of primary angioplasty as compared with thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1999;341:1413–1419. 3.	 Global Use of Strategies to Open Occluded Coronary Arteries in Acute Coronary Syndromes (GUSTO IIb) Angioplasty Substudy Investigators. A clinical trial comparing primary coronary angioplasty with tissue plasminogen activator for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 1997;336:1621– 1628. 4.	 Andersen HR, Nielsen TT, Rasmussen K, et al. A comparison of coronary angioplasty with fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2003;349:733–742. 5.	 Grines CL, Browne KF, Marco J, et al. A comparison of immediate angioplasty with thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. The Primary Angioplasty in Myocardial Infarction Study Group. N Engl J Med. 1993;328:673–679. 6.	 Hochman JS, Sleeper LA, Webb JG, et al. 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. 1999;341:625–634. 7.	 Mehta RH, Lopes RD, Ballotta A, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass surgery for cardiogenic shock and multivessel coronary artery disease? Am Heart J. 2010;159:141–147. 8.	 Chevalier P, Burri H, Fahrat F, et al. Perioperative outcome and long-term survival of surgery for acute post-infarction mitral regurgitation. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2004;26:330–335. 9.	 Russo A, Suri RM, Grigioni F, et al. Clinical outcome after surgical correction of mitral regurgitation due to papillary muscle rupture. Circulation. 2008;118:1528–1534. 10.	 Gershlick AH, Stephens-Lloyd A, Hughes S, et al. Rescue angioplasty after failed thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:2758–2768. 11.	 Sutton AGC, Campbell PG, Graham R, et al. A randomized trial of rescue angioplasty versus a conservative approach for failed fibrinolysis in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the Middlesbrough Early Revascularization to Limit INfarction (MERLIN) trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2004;44:287– 296. 12.	 Wijeysundera HC, Vijayaraghavan R, Nallamothu BK, et al. Rescue angioplasty or repeat fibrinolysis after failed fibrinolytic therapy for ST-segment myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis of randomized trials. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2007;49:422–430. 13.	 Collet J-P, Montalescot G, Le May M, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention after fibrinolysis: a multiple meta-analyses approach according to the type of strategy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2006;48:1326–1335. 14.	 Madan M, Halvorsen S, Di Mario C, et al. Relationship between time to in-

vasive assessment and clinical outcomes of patients undergoing an early invasive strategy after fibrinolysis for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a patient-level analysis of the randomized early routine invasive clinical trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2015;8:166–174.

Downloaded from http://ahajournals.org by on October 7, 2026