Complete revascularization is considered superior to incomplete revascularization (IR), with better long-term survival and a lower rate of reintervention. However, it has yet to be established whether this difference is due directly to IR as a surgical strategy or whether this approach is merely a marker of more severe coronary disease and more rapid progression. We believe that IR is a prognostic marker for a more complex coronary pathology, and adverse effects are probably due to the preoperative condition of the patient. In fact, although IR may negatively affect long-term outcomes, it may be, when wisely chosen, the ideal treatment strategy in selected high-risk patients. IR can derive from a surgical strategy of target vessel revascularization, where the impact of surgery is minimized to reduce perioperative mortality and morbidity, aiming to achieve the best feasible safe revascularization.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3279977 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.1093/icvts/ivr080 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!