p.70 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 e87 CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Data Standards (Writing Committee to Develop Clinical Data Standards for Coronary Revascularization). Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2020;13:e000059. 14.	 STS. ACSD Training Manual. 2019. Accessed March 30, 2021. Available at https://www.sts.org/sites/default/files/ACSD_TrainingManualV2-9_ July2019.pdf 15.	 Eagle KA, Guyton RA, Davidoff R, et al. ACC/AHA 2004 guideline update

for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to Update the 1999 Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery). Circulation. 2004;110:e340–e437.

6.1 Coronary Angiography and Revascularization in Patients With NSTE-ACS

1 Cannon CP, Weintraub WS, Demopoulos LA, et al. Comparison of early in-

vasive and conservative strategies in patients with unstable coronary syndromes treated with the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofiban. N Engl J Med. 2001;344:1879–1887. 2.	 Fox KA, Poole-Wilson PA, Henderson RA, et al. Interventional versus conservative treatment for patients with unstable angina or non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation RITA 3 randomised trial. Randomized Intervention Trial of unstable Angina. Lancet. 2002;360:743–751. 3.	 Invasive compared with non-invasive treatment in unstable coronary-artery disease: FRISC II prospective randomised multicentre study. FRagmin and Fast Revascularisation during InStability in Coronary artery disease Investigators. Lancet. 1999;354:708–715. 4.	 Mehta SR, Cannon CP, Fox KAA, et al. Routine vs selective invasive strategies in patients with acute coronary syndromes: a collaborative meta-analysis of randomized trials. JAMA. 2005;293:2908–2917. 5.	 Liakopoulos OJ, Schlachtenberger G, Wendt D, et al. Early clinical outcomes of surgical myocardial revascularization for acute coronary syndromes complicated by cardiogenic shock: a report from the North-Rhine-Westphalia Surgical Myocardial Infarction Registry. J Am Heart Assoc. 2019;8: e012049. 6.	 Acharya D, Gulack BC, Loyaga-Rendon RY, et al. Clinical characteristics and outcomes of patients with myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery: data from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database. Ann Thorac Surg. 2016;101:558–566. 7.	 Mehta RH, Grab JD, O’Brien SM, et al. Clinical characteristics and in-hospital outcomes of patients with cardiogenic shock undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery: insights from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Cardiac Database. Circulation. 2008;117:876–885. 8.	 White HD, Assmann SF, Sanborn TA, et al. 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. 2005;112:1992–2001. 9.	 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. 10.	 Kolte D, Khera S, Dabhadkar KC, et al. Trends in coronary angiography, revascularization, and outcomes of cardiogenic shock complicating non-STelevation myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol. 2016;117:1–9. 11.	 Jobs A, Mehta SR, Montalescot G, et al. Optimal timing of an invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: a metaanalysis of randomised trials. Lancet. 2017;390:737–746. 12.	 Kofoed KF, Kelbæk H, Hansen PR, et al. Early versus standard care invasive examination and treatment of patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome. Circulation. 2018;138:2741–2750. 13.	 Milosevic A, Vasiljevic-Pokrajcic Z, Milasinovic D, et al. Immediate versus delayed invasive intervention for non-STEMI patients: the RIDDLE-NSTEMI study. JACC Cardiovasc Interv. 2016;9:541–549. 14.	 Reuter P-G, Rouchy C, Cattan S, et al. Early invasive strategy in high-risk acute coronary syndrome without ST-segment elevation. The Sisca randomized trial. Int J Cardiol. 2015;182:414–418. 15.	 Deharo P, Ducrocq G, Bode C, et al. Timing of angiography and outcomes in high-risk patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction managed invasively: insights from the TAO trial (Treatment of Acute Coronary Syndrome With Otamixaban). Circulation. 2017;136:1895–1907. 16.	 Mehta SR, Granger CB, Boden WE, et al. Early versus delayed invasive in-

tervention in acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med. 2009;360:2165– 2175. 17 Axelsson TA, Mennander A, Malmberg M, et al. Is emergency and sal-

vage coronary artery bypass grafting justified? The Nordic Emergency/ Salvage Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;49:1451–1456. 18.	 Thiele H, Akin I, Sandri M, et al. PCI strategies in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 2017;377:2419–2432. 19.	 Thiele H, Akin I, Sandri M, et al. One-year outcomes after PCI strategies in cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med. 2018;379:1699–1710. 20.	 Qayyum R, Khalid MR, Adomaityte J, et al. Systematic review: comparing routine and selective invasive strategies for the acute coronary syndrome. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:186–196. 21.	 Fox KAA, Clayton TC, Damman P, et al. Long-term outcome of a routine versus selective invasive strategy in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome a meta-analysis of individual patient data. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2010;55:2435–2445. 22.	 de Araújo Gonçalves P, Ferreira J, Aguiar C, et al. TIMI, PURSUIT, and GRACE risk scores: sustained prognostic value and interaction with revascularization in NSTE-ACS. Eur Heart J. 2005;26:865–872. 23.	 Fox KAA, Fitzgerald G, Puymirat E, et al. Should patients with acute coronary disease be stratified for management according to their risk? Derivation, external validation and outcomes using the updated GRACE risk score. BMJ Open. 2014;4: e004425. 24.	 Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events (GRACE). The GRACE ACS Risk Score Calculator 2.0; 2021. Accessed June 9, 2021. Available at https:// www.outcomes-umassmed.org/grace/acs_risk2/index.html. 25.	 TIMI Study Group. TIMI Risk Score Calculator for UA/NSTEMI; 2020. Accessed June 9, 2021. Available at https://timi.org/calculators/timi-riskscore-calculator-for-ua-nstemi/. 26.	 Antman EM, Cohen M, Bernink PJ, et al. The TIMI risk score for unstable angina/non-ST elevation MI: a method for prognostication and therapeutic decision making. JAMA. 2000;284:835–842. 27.	 Wan Y-D, Sun T-W, Kan Q-C, et al. The effects of intra-aortic balloon pumps on mortality in patients undergoing high-risk coronary revascularization: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials of coronary artery bypass grafting and stenting era. PLoS One. 2016;11: e0147291. 28.	 Awan A, Ogunti R, Fatima U, et al. Timing of percutaneous coronary intervention in non-ST elevation acute coronary syndrome—meta-analysis and systematic review of literature. Cardiovasc Revasc Med. 2020;21:1398– 1404. 29.	 Badings EA, The SHK, Dambrink J-HE, et al. Early or late intervention in high-risk non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes: results of the ­ELISA-3 trial. EuroIntervention. 2013;9:54–61. 30.	 Navarese EP, Gurbel PA, Andreotti F, et al. Optimal timing of coronary invasive strategy in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2013;158:261–270. 31.	 Gore J, Fox KAA. GRACE ACS Risk and Mortality Calculator. 2021, Ac-

cessed September 20, 2019. Available at https://www.mdcalc.com/graceacs-risk-mortality-calculator

7.1 Revascularization to Improve Survival in SIHD Compared With Medical Therapy

1 Velazquez EJ, Lee KL, Jones RH, et al. Coronary-artery bypass surgery in

patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy. N Engl J Med. 2016;374:1511– 1520. 2.	 Gaudino M, Hameed I, Khan FM, et al. Treatment strategies in ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction: a network meta-analysis. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2021;59:293–301. 3.	 Coronary artery surgery study (CASS): a randomized trial of coronary artery bypass surgery: survival data. Circulation. 1983;68:939–950. 4.	 Marui A, Kimura T, Nishiwaki N, et al. Comparison of five-year outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with left ventricular ejection fractions ≤50% versus >50% (from the CREDO-Kyoto PCI/CABG Registry Cohort-2). Am J Cardiol. 2014;114:988–996. 5.	 Zhang D, Lyu S, Song X, et al. Coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with left ventricular systolic dysfunction: a meta-analysis. Angiology. 2017;68:19–28. 6.	 Orlandini A, Castellana N, Pascual A, et al. Myocardial viability for decisionmaking concerning revascularization in patients with left ventricular dysfunction and coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of non-randomized and randomized studies. Int J Cardiol. 2015;182:494–499. 7.	 Wolff G, Dimitroulis D, Andreotti F, et al. Survival benefits of invasive ver-

sus conservative strategies in heart failure in patients with reduced ejec-

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