p.78 抽出テキスト

CLINICAL STATEMENTS AND GUIDELINES

April 1, 2025 Circulation. 2025;151:e771–e862. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000001309 e848

17 Puymirat E, Cayla G, Simon T, et al. Multivessel PCI guided by FFR or angi-

ography for myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2021;385:297–308. 18.	 Lee JM, Kim HK, Park KH, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography-guided strategy in acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: a randomized trial. Eur Heart J. 2023;44:473–484. 19.	 Reddy RK, Howard JP, Jamil Y, et al. Percutaneous coronary revascularization strategies after myocardial infarction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2024;84:276–294. 20.	 Farkouh ME, Domanski M, Sleeper LA, et al. Strategies for multivessel revascularization in patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:2375– 2384. 21.	 Kappetein AP, Head SJ, Morice MC, et al. Treatment of complex coronary artery disease in patients with diabetes: 5-year results comparing outcomes of bypass surgery and percutaneous coronary intervention in the SYNTAX trial. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2013;43:1006–1013. 22.	 Head SJ, Milojevic M, Daemen J, et al. Mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting for coronary artery disease: a pooled analysis of individual patient data. Lancet. 2018;391:939–948. 23.	 Morice MC, Serruys PW, Kappetein AP, et al. Five-year outcomes in patients with left main disease treated with either percutaneous coronary intervention or coronary artery bypass grafting in the synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with taxus and cardiac surgery trial. Circulation. 2014;129:2388–2394. 24.	 Mohr FW, Morice MC, 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. 7.4.2. Management of Multivessel CAD in NSTE-ACS 1.	 Biscaglia S, Guiducci V, Escaned J, et al. Complete or culprit-only PCI in older patients with myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2023;389:889– 898. 2.	 Rathod KS, Koganti S, Jain AK, et al. Complete versus culprit-only lesion intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2018;72:1989–1999. 3.	 Siebert VR, Borgaonkar S, Jia X, et al. Meta-analysis comparing multivessel versus culprit coronary arterial revascularization for patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. Am J Cardiol. 2019;124:1501–1511. 4.	 Sardella G, Lucisano L, Garbo R, et al. Single-staged compared with multistaged PCI in multivessel NSTEMI patients: the SMILE trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016;67:264–272. 5.	 Diletti R, den Dekker WK, Bennett J, et al. Immediate versus staged complete revascularisation in patients presenting with acute coronary syndrome and multivessel coronary disease (BIOVASC): a prospective, open-label, non-inferiority, randomised trial. Lancet. 2023;401:1172–1182. 6.	 Reddy RK, Howard JP, Jamil Y, et al. Percutaneous coronary revascularization strategies after myocardial infarction: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2024;84:276–294. 7.	 Sels JW, Tonino PA, Siebert U, et al. Fractional flow reserve in unstable angina and non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction experience from the FAME (Fractional flow reserve versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation) study. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2011;4:1183–1189. 8.	 Layland J, Oldroyd KG, Curzen N, et al. Fractional flow reserve vs. angiography in guiding management to optimize outcomes in non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: the British Heart Foundation FAMOUS- NSTEMI randomized trial. Eur Heart J. 2015;36:100–111. 9.	 Lee JM, Kim HK, Park KH, et al. Fractional flow reserve versus angiography-guided strategy in acute myocardial infarction with multivessel disease: a randomized trial. Eur Heart J. 2023;44:473–484. 10.	 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. 11.	 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. 12.	 Lawton JS, Tamis-Holland JE, Bangalore S, et al. 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI guideline for coronary artery revascularization: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2022;145:e18–e114. 13.	 Heitner JF, Senthilkumar A, Harrison JK, et al. Identifying the infarct-related artery in patients with non-ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2019;12:e007305. 14.	 Deleted in proof. 15 Brener SJ, Milford-Beland S, Roe MT, et al. Culprit-only or multivessel re-

vascularization in patients with acute coronary syndromes: an American College of Cardiology National Cardiovascular Database Registry report. Am Heart J. 2008;155:140–146. 16.	 Hanratty CG, Koyama Y, Rasmussen HH, et al. Exaggeration of nonculprit stenosis severity during acute myocardial infarction: implications for immediate multivessel revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2002;40:911–916. 17.	 Van Belle E, Baptista SB, Raposo L, et al. Impact of routine fractional flow reserve on management decision and 1-year clinical outcome of patients with acute coronary syndromes: PRIME-FFR (Insights from the POST-IT [Portuguese Study on the Evaluation of FFR-Guided Treatment of Coronary Disease] and R3F [French FFR Registry] Integrated Multicenter Registries- Implementation of FFR [Fractional Flow Reserve] in Routine Practice). Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:e004296. 18.	 Head SJ, Milojevic M, Daemen J, et al. Mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting for coronary artery disease: a pooled analysis of individual patient data. Lancet. 2018;391:939–948. 19.	 Sabatine MS, Bergmark BA, Murphy SA, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting in left main coronary artery disease: an individual patient data meta-analysis. Lancet. 2021;398:2247–2257. 20.	 Farkouh ME, Domanski M, Sleeper LA, et al. Strategies for multivessel revascularization in patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med. 2012;367:2375– 2384. 21.	 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. 22.	 Parikh SV, de Lemos JA, Jessen ME, et al. 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. 2010;3:419–427. 23.	 Davierwala PM, Verevkin A, Leontyev S, et al. Does timing of coronary artery bypass surgery affect early and long-term outcomes in patients with non- ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction? Circulation. 2015;132:731– 740. 24.	 Nichols EL, McCullough JN, Ross CS, et al. Optimal timing from myocardial infarction to coronary artery bypass grafting on hospital mortality. Ann Thorac Surg. 2017;103:162–171. 25.	 Elscot JJ, Kakar H, Scarparo P, et al. Timing of complete multivessel re-

vascularization in patients presenting with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome. J Am Coll Cardiol Intv. 2024;17:771–782. 8.1. Revascularization in ACS With Cardiogenic Shock 1.	 Scholz KH, Maier SKG, Maier LS, et al. Impact of treatment delay on mortality in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) patients presenting with and without haemodynamic instability: results from the German prospective, multicentre FITT-STEMI trial. Eur Heart J. 2018;39:1065–1074. 2.	 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. 3.	 Axelsson TA, Mennander A, Malmberg M, et al. Is emergency and salvage coronary artery bypass grafting justified? The Nordic emergency/ salvage coronary artery bypass grafting study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2016;49:1451–1456. 4.	 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. 5.	 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. 6.	 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. 7.	 Kolte D, Sardar P, Khera S, et al. Culprit vessel-only versus multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating ST-segment-elevation myocardial infarction: a collaborative metaanalysis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2017;10:e005582. 8.	 Lawton JS, Tamis-Holland JE, Bangalore S, et al. 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI

guideline for coronary artery revascularization: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2022;145:e18–e114.

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