TY - JOUR
T1 - Percutaneous Coronary Revascularization: JACC Historical Breakthroughs in Perspective
AU - Serruys, Patrick W.
AU - Ono, Masafumi
AU - Garg, Scot
AU - Hara, Hironori
AU - Kawashima, Hideyuki
AU - Pompilio, Giulio
AU - Andreini, Daniele
AU - Holmes, David R.
AU - Onuma, Yoshinobu
AU - King III, Spencer B.
N1 - Funding Information: Dr Serruys has received personal fees from Biosensors, Micel Technologies, Sinomedical Sciences Technology, Philips/Volcano, Xeltis, and HeartFlow outside of the submitted work. Dr Hara has received a grant for studying overseas from the Japanese Circulation Society, a grant-in-Aid for JSPS Fellows, and a grant from the Fukuda Foundation for Medical Technology. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose. Publisher Copyright: © 2021 American College of Cardiology Foundation
PY - 2021/7/27
Y1 - 2021/7/27
N2 - Over the last 4 decades, percutaneous coronary intervention has evolved dramatically and is now an acceptable treatment option for patients with advanced coronary artery disease. However, trialists have struggled to establish the respective roles for percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery, especially in patients with multivessel disease and unprotected left-main stem coronary artery disease. Several pivotal trials and meta-analyses comparing these 2 revascularization strategies have enabled the relative merits of each technique to be established with regard to the type of ischemic syndrome, the coronary anatomy, and the patient's overall comorbidity. Precision medicine with individualized prognosis is emerging as an important method of selecting treatment. However, the never-ending advancement of technology, in conjunction with the emergence of novel pharmacological agents, will in the future continue to force us to reconsider the evolving question: “Which treatment strategy is better and for which patient?”
AB - Over the last 4 decades, percutaneous coronary intervention has evolved dramatically and is now an acceptable treatment option for patients with advanced coronary artery disease. However, trialists have struggled to establish the respective roles for percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery, especially in patients with multivessel disease and unprotected left-main stem coronary artery disease. Several pivotal trials and meta-analyses comparing these 2 revascularization strategies have enabled the relative merits of each technique to be established with regard to the type of ischemic syndrome, the coronary anatomy, and the patient's overall comorbidity. Precision medicine with individualized prognosis is emerging as an important method of selecting treatment. However, the never-ending advancement of technology, in conjunction with the emergence of novel pharmacological agents, will in the future continue to force us to reconsider the evolving question: “Which treatment strategy is better and for which patient?”
KW - coronary artery bypass graft
KW - coronary artery disease
KW - drug-eluting stent
KW - percutaneous coronary intervention
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85109836462&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2021.05.024
DO - https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jacc.2021.05.024
M3 - Review article
C2 - 34294273
SN - 0735-1097
VL - 78
SP - 384
EP - 407
JO - Journal of the American College of Cardiology
JF - Journal of the American College of Cardiology
IS - 4
ER -