Skip to main content
Hauptrubriken
CME Facharzt-Training Webinare Zeitschriften Bücher e.Medpedia Podcast
Service
Jobbörse Info & Hilfe
Fachgebiete
Anästhesiologie Allgemeinmedizin Arbeitsmedizin Augenheilkunde Chirurgie Dermatologie Gynäkologie und Geburtshilfe HNO Innere Medizin Kardiologie Neurologie Onkologie und Hämatologie Orthopädie und Unfallchirurgie Pädiatrie Pathologie Psychiatrie Radiologie Rechtsmedizin Urologie Zahnmedizin
Themen
Klimawandel und Gesundheit Neues aus dem Markt COVID-19 Praxis und Beruf Seltene Erkrankungen GOÄ & EBM Panorama
Sammlungen
Kasuistiken Algorithmen & Infografiken Blickdiagnosen Arthropedia FlapFinder (für Dermatochirurgen) Videos Kongressberichterstattung Medizin für Apothekerinnen und Apotheker Für Ärztinnen und Ärzte in Weiterbildung Für Medizinstudierende

Klimawandel und Gesundheit: Was Sie in der Hausarztpraxis wissen müssen und tun können

Die Folgen des Klimwandels haben einen direkten Einfluss auf die Primärversorgung in Deutschland: Hitzeschutz insbesondere bei älteren Patienten, die Zunahme von Infektionen und die Verlängerung der Allergiesesaison spielen medizinisch eine bedeutsame Rolle. Aber auch in der Prävention und der Aufklärung der Patienten kommt den Hausärztinnen und -ärzten eine besondere Rolle zu. Direkt aus der Praxis berichtet im Live-Webinar am 13. Mai von 18 bis 19 Uhr unser Experte Dr. med. Robin Maitra.
Erweiterte Suche
Anmelden
nach oben
Die Kardiologie
Erschienen in: Die Kardiologie 6/2021

21.09.2021 | Koronare Herzerkrankung | Curriculum Zur Zeit gratis

Manual der Arbeitsgruppe Interventionelle Kardiologie (AGIK) der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kardiologie – Herz- und Kreislaufforschung e.V. (DGK)

Teil 2: „Durchführung der perkutanen Koronarintervention“

verfasst von: Prof. Dr. med. Holger M. Nef, Stephan Achenbach, Ralf Birkemeyer, Alexander Bufe, Oliver Dörr, Albrecht Elsässer, Luise Gaede, Tommaso Gori, Hans M. Hoffmeister, Felix J. Hofmann, Hugo A. Katus, Christoph Liebetrau, Steffen Massberg, Matthias Pauschinger, Thomas Schmitz, Tim Süselbeck, Wolfram Voelker, Jens Wiebe, Ralf Zahn, Christian Hamm, Andreas M. Zeiher, Helge Möllmann

Erschienen in: Die Kardiologie | Ausgabe 6/2021

Einloggen, um Zugang zu erhalten

Zusammenfassung

Dieses Manual zur interventionellen Therapie (Teil 2) ist eine Anwendungsempfehlung für interventionell tätige Ärzte, die den gegenwärtigen Kenntnisstand unter Berücksichtigung neuester Studienergebnisse wiedergibt. Hierzu wurde in den einzelnen Kapiteln speziell auf die Alltagstauglichkeit der Empfehlungen geachtet, sodass dieses Manual jedem interventionell tätigen Kardiologen als Entscheidungshilfe im Herzkatheterlabor dienen soll. Trotz der von vielen Experten eingebrachten praktischen Hinweise kann dieses Manual dennoch nicht die ärztliche Evaluation des individuellen Patienten ersetzen und damit eine Anpassung der Diagnostik bzw. Therapie ersetzen.
Anhänge
Nur mit Berechtigung zugänglich
Literatur
1.
Deutsche Herzstiftung (2018) Deutscher Herzbericht Bd. 30
2.
3.
Bonzel T et al (2008) Percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI). Clin Res Cardiol 97(8):513–547PubMed
4.
Hamm CW et al (2008) Diagnostic heart catheterization. Clin Res Cardiol 97(8):475–512PubMed
5.
Patil D et al (2017) Appropriateness of elective percutaneous coronary intervention and impact of government health insurance scheme—A tertiary centre experience from Western India. Indian Heart J 69(5):600–606PubMedPubMedCentral
6.
Neumann FJ et al (2019) 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J 40(2):87–165PubMed
7.
Schachinger V et al (2015) Guidelines to establish and operate catheterization laboratories and hybrid operating rooms/hybrid laboratories (3rd edition 2015). Kardiologe 9(1):89–123
8.
Bonzel T, Wollschlager H, Just H (1986) A new catheter system for the mechanical dilatation of coronary stenoses with exchangeable intracoronary catheters, fast flow of the contrast agent and improved control. Biomed Tech 31(9):195–200
9.
Brophy JM, Belisle P, Joseph L (2003) Evidence for use of coronary stents. A hierarchical bayesian meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med 138(10):777–786PubMed
10.
Carrie D et al (2001) Comparison of direct coronary stenting with and without balloon predilatation in patients with stable angina pectoris. Am J Cardiol 87(6):693–698PubMed
11.
Ijsselmuiden AJ et al (2003) Direct coronary stenting compared with stenting after predilatation is feasible, safe, and more cost-effective in selected patients: evidence to date indicating similar late outcomes. Int J Cardiovasc Intervent 5(3):143–150PubMed
12.
Ijsselmuiden AJJ et al (2003) Direct coronary stent implantation does not reduce the incidence of in-stent restenosis or major adverse cardiac events: six month results of a randomized trial. Eur Heart J 24(5):421–429PubMed
13.
Bondesson P et al (2012) Comparison of two drug-eluting balloons: a report from the SCAAR registry. EuroIntervention 8(4):444–449PubMed
14.
Scheller B et al (2006) Treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis with a paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter. N Engl J Med 355(20):2113–2124PubMed
15.
Habara S et al (2011) Effectiveness of paclitaxel-eluting balloon catheter in patients with sirolimus-eluting stent restenosis. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 4(2):149–154PubMed
16.
Rittger H et al (2012) A randomized, multicenter, single-blinded trial comparing paclitaxel-coated balloon angioplasty with plain balloon angioplasty in drug-eluting stent restenosis: the PEPCAD-DES study. J Am Coll Cardiol 59(15):1377–1382PubMed
17.
Habara S et al (2013) A multicenter randomized comparison of paclitaxel-coated balloon catheter with conventional balloon angioplasty in patients with bare-metal stent restenosis and drug-eluting stent restenosis. Am Heart J 166(3):527–533PubMed
18.
Byrne RA et al (2013) Paclitaxel-eluting balloons, paclitaxel-eluting stents, and balloon angioplasty in patients with restenosis after implantation of a drug-eluting stent (ISAR-DESIRE 3): a randomised, open-label trial. Lancet 381(9865):461–467PubMed
19.
Alfonso F et al (2015) A prospective randomized trial of drug-eluting balloons versus everolimus-eluting stents in patients with in-stent restenosis of drug-eluting stents: the RIBS IV randomized clinical trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 66(1):23–33PubMed
20.
Cortese B et al (2010) Paclitaxel-coated balloon versus drug-eluting stent during PCI of small coronary vessels, a prospective randomised clinical trial. The PICCOLETO study. Heart 96(16):1291–1296PubMed
21.
Latib A et al (2012) A randomized multicenter study comparing a paclitaxel drug-eluting balloon with a paclitaxel-eluting stent in small coronary vessels: the BELLO (Balloon Elution and Late Loss Optimization) study. J Am Coll Cardiol 60(24):2473–2480PubMed
22.
Stella PR et al (2012) A multicenter randomized comparison of drug-eluting balloon plus bare-metal stent versus bare-metal stent versus drug-eluting stent in bifurcation lesions treated with a single-stenting technique: six-month angiographic and 12-month clinical results of the drug-eluting balloon in bifurcations trial. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 80(7):1138–1146PubMed
23.
Lee MS et al (2002) Cutting balloon angioplasty. J Invasive Cardiol 14(9):552–556PubMed
24.
Abdel-Wahab M et al (2013) High-speed rotational atherectomy before paclitaxel-eluting stent implantation in complex calcified coronary lesions: the randomized ROTAXUS (Rotational Atherectomy Prior to Taxus Stent Treatment for Complex Native Coronary Artery Disease) trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 6(1):10–19PubMed
25.
Ali ZA et al (2017) Optical coherence tomography characterization of coronary lithoplasty for treatment of calcified lesions: first description. JACC Cardiovasc Imaging 10(8):897–906PubMed
26.
Brinton TJ et al (2019) Feasibility of shockwave coronary intravascular lithotripsy for the treatment of calcified coronary stenoses. Circulation 139(6):834–836PubMed
27.
Watkins S et al (2019) Intravascular lithotripsy to treat a severely underexpanded coronary stent. EuroIntervention 15(1):124–125PubMed
28.
Lassen JF et al (2018) Percutaneous coronary intervention for the left main stem and other bifurcation lesions: 12th consensus document from the European Bifurcation Club. EuroIntervention 13(13):1540–1553PubMed
29.
Nef HM et al (2016) Bifurcation lesions: how should they be assessed and treated? Herz 41(7):572–578PubMed
30.
31.
Galassi AR et al (2019) Percutaneous recanalisation of chronic total occlusions: 2019 consensus document from the EuroCTO Club. EuroIntervention 15(2):198–208PubMed
32.
Morino Y et al (2011) Predicting successful guidewire crossing through chronic total occlusion of native coronary lesions within 30 minutes: the J‑CTO (Multicenter CTO Registry in Japan) score as a difficulty grading and time assessment tool. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 4(2):213–221PubMed
33.
Oreglia JA et al (2018) Dual lumen microcatheters for complex percutaneous coronary interventions. Cardiovasc Revasc Med 19(3 Pt A):298–305PubMed
34.
Maeremans J et al (2016) The hybrid algorithm for treating chronic total occlusions in Europe: the RECHARGE registry. J Am Coll Cardiol 68(18):1958–1970PubMed
35.
Albiero R et al (2004) Cutting balloon versus conventional balloon angioplasty for the treatment of in-stent restenosis: results of the restenosis cutting balloon evaluation trial (RESCUT). J Am Coll Cardiol 43(6):943–949PubMed
36.
Giacoppo D et al (2020) Drug-coated balloon angioplasty versus drug-eluting stent implantation in patients with coronary stent restenosis. J Am Coll Cardiol 75(21):2664–2678PubMed
37.
Leborgne L et al (2003) Effect of direct stenting on clinical outcome in patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention on saphenous vein graft. Am Heart J 146(3):501–506PubMed
38.
Okabe T et al (2008) Can direct stenting in selected saphenous vein graft lesions be considered an alternative to percutaneous intervention with a distal protection device? Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 72(6):799–803PubMed
39.
Baim DS et al (2002) Randomized trial of a distal embolic protection device during percutaneous intervention of saphenous vein aorto-coronary bypass grafts. Circulation 105(11):1285–1290PubMed
40.
Brennan JM et al (2015) Three-year outcomes associated with embolic protection in saphenous vein graft intervention: results in 49 325 senior patients in the Medicare-linked National Cardiovascular Data Registry CathPCI Registry. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 8(3):e1403PubMed
41.
42.
Ng AK, Jim M-H (2016) Percutaneous coronary intervention for bifurcation: how can we outperform the provisional strategy? Clin Cardiol 39(11):684–691PubMedPubMedCentral
43.
De Maria GL, Scarsini R, Banning AP (2019) Management of calcific coronary artery lesions: is it time to change our interventional therapeutic approach? JACC Cardiovasc Interv 12(15):1465–1478PubMed
44.
Genereux P et al (2017) Two-year outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention of calcified lesions with drug-eluting stents. Int J Cardiol 231:61–67PubMed
45.
46.
Ibanez B et al (2018) 2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: The Task Force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 39(2):119–177PubMed
47.
48.
Jolicoeur EM et al (2013) A phase II, sham-controlled, double-blinded study testing the safety and efficacy of the coronary sinus reducer in patients with refractory angina: study protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Trials 14:46PubMedPubMedCentral
49.
Gallone G et al (2019) Coronary sinus reducer implantation to reduce the ischemic burden in refractory angina. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 12(2):e11–e13PubMed
50.
Giannini F et al (2019) Patterns of regional myocardial perfusion following coronary sinus reducer implantation. Circ Cardiovasc Imaging 12(9):e9148PubMedPubMedCentral
51.
Parisi AF, Folland ED, Hartigan P (1992) A comparison of angioplasty with medical therapy in the treatment of single-vessel coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 326(1):10–16PubMed
52.
Pepine CJ et al (1994) The Asymptomatic Cardiac Ischemia Pilot (ACIP) study: design of a randomized clinical trial, baseline data and implications for a long-term outcome trial. J Am Coll Cardiol 24(1):1–10PubMed
53.
RITA‑2 trial participants (1997) Coronary angioplasty versus medical therapy for angina: the second Randomised Intervention Treatment of Angina (RITA-2) trial. Lancet 350(9076):461–468
54.
Bucher HC et al (2000) Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty versus medical treatment for non-acute coronary heart disease: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ 321(7253):73–77PubMedPubMedCentral
55.
Pfisterer M (2004) Long-term outcome in elderly patients with chronic angina managed invasively versus by optimized medical therapy: four-year follow-up of the randomized Trial of Invasive versus Medical therapy in Elderly patients (TIME). Circulation 110(10):1213–1218PubMed
56.
Windecker S et al (2014) Revascularisation versus medical treatment in patients with stable coronary artery disease: network meta-analysis. BMJ 348:g3859PubMedPubMedCentral
57.
Bangalore S et al (2020) Routine revascularization versus initial medical therapy for stable ischemic heart disease: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Circulation 142(9):841–857PubMed
58.
Al-Lamee R et al (2018) Percutaneous coronary intervention in stable angina (ORBITA): a double-blind, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 391(10115):31–40PubMed
59.
De Bruyne B et al (2012) Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus medical therapy in stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 367(11):991–1001PubMed
60.
Xaplanteris P et al (2018) Five-year outcomes with PCI guided by fractional flow reserve. N Engl J Med 379(3):250–259PubMed
61.
Boden WE et al (2007) Optimal medical therapy with or without PCI for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 356(15):1503–1516PubMed
62.
Shaw LJ et al (2008) Optimal medical therapy with or without percutaneous coronary intervention to reduce ischemic burden: results from the Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation (COURAGE) trial nuclear substudy. Circulation 117(10):1283–1291PubMed
63.
Maron DJ et al (2020) Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med 382(15):1395–1407PubMedPubMedCentral
64.
De Bruyne B et al (2014) Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI for stable coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 371(13):1208–1217PubMed
65.
Garcia S et al (2013) Outcomes after complete versus incomplete revascularization of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: a meta-analysis of 89,883 patients enrolled in randomized clinical trials and observational studies. J Am Coll Cardiol 62(16):1421–1431PubMed
66.
Farooq V et al (2013) Quantification of incomplete revascularization and its association with five-year mortality in the synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with taxus and cardiac surgery (SYNTAX) trial validation of the residual SYNTAX score. Circulation 128(2):141–151PubMed
67.
Park SJ et al (2015) Trial of everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for coronary disease. N Engl J Med 372(13):1204–1212PubMed
68.
Head SJ et al (2018) Mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting for coronary artery disease: a pooled analysis of individual patient data. Lancet 391(10124):939–948PubMed
69.
Tonino PA et al (2009) Fractional flow reserve versus angiography for guiding percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 360(3):213–224PubMed
70.
Gaede L et al (2019) Coronary angiography with pressure wire and fractional flow reserve: state of the art in the diagnosis of coronary stenosis. Dtsch Arztebl Int 116(12):205–211PubMedPubMedCentral
71.
Ahn JM et al (2015) Randomized trial of stents versus bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease: 5‑year outcomes of the PRECOMBAT study. J Am Coll Cardiol 65(20):2198–2206PubMed
72.
Makikallio T et al (2016) Percutaneous coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting in treatment of unprotected left main stenosis (NOBLE): a prospective, randomised, open-label, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 388(10061):2743–2752PubMed
73.
Mohr FW et al (2013) Coronary artery bypass graft surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5‑year follow-up of the randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial. Lancet 381(9867):629–638PubMed
74.
Stone GW et al (2016) Everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for left main coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med 375(23):2223–2235PubMed
75.
Giacoppo D et al (2017) Percutaneous coronary intervention vs coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with left main coronary artery stenosis: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA Cardiol 2(10):1079–1088PubMedPubMedCentral
76.
77.
Brener SJ et al (2004) Propensity analysis of long-term survival after surgical or percutaneous revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and high-risk features. Circulation 109(19):2290–2295PubMed
78.
Hoffman SN et al (2003) A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials comparing coronary artery bypass graft with percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty: one- to eight-year outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol 41(8):1293–1304PubMed
79.
Farkouh ME et al (2012) Strategies for multivessel revascularization in patients with diabetes. N Engl J Med 367(25):2375–2384PubMed
80.
Nashef SA et al (2012) EuroSCORE II. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 41(4):734–744 (discussion 744–5)PubMed
81.
Shahian DM et al (2009) The Society of Thoracic Surgeons 2008 cardiac surgery risk models: part 1 – coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. Ann Thorac Surg 88(1 Suppl):S2–S22PubMed
82.
Velicki L et al (2014) Clinical performance of the EuroSCORE II compared with the previous EuroSCORE iterations. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 62(4):288–297PubMed
83.
Savage MP et al (1997) Stent placement compared with balloon angioplasty for obstructed coronary bypass grafts. N Engl J Med 337(11):740–747PubMed
84.
Al-Lamee R et al (2010) Clinical and angiographic outcomes after percutaneous recanalization of chronic total saphenous vein graft occlusion using modern techniques. Am J Cardiol 106(12):1721–1727PubMed
85.
Galassi AR et al (2016) Appropriateness of percutaneous revascularization of coronary chronic total occlusions: an overview. Eur Heart J 37(35):2692–2700PubMed
86.
Jeroudi OM et al (2014) Prevalence and management of coronary chronic total occlusions in a tertiary Veterans Affairs hospital. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 84(4):637–643PubMed
87.
Christakopoulos GE et al (2015) Meta-analysis of clinical outcomes of patients who underwent percutaneous coronary interventions for chronic total occlusions. Am J Cardiol 115(10):1367–1375PubMed
88.
Lee SW et al (2019) Randomized trial evaluating percutaneous coronary intervention for the treatment of chronic total occlusion. Circulation 139(14):1674–1683PubMed
89.
Werner GS et al (2018) A randomized multicentre trial to compare revascularization with optimal medical therapy for the treatment of chronic total coronary occlusions. Eur Heart J 39(26):2484–2493PubMed
90.
Morino Y et al (2011) Predicting successful guidewire crossing through chronic total occlusion of native coronary lesions within 30 minutes: the J‑CTO (Multicenter CTO Registry in Japan) score as a difficulty grading and time assessment tool. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 4(2):213–221PubMed
91.
Moscucci M, Eagle KA (2004) Coronary revascularization before noncardiac surgery. N Engl J Med 351:2861–2863PubMed
92.
Rissanen TT et al (2019) Drug-coated balloon for treatment of de-novo coronary artery lesions in patients with high bleeding risk (DEBUT): a single-blind, randomised, non-inferiority trial. Lancet 394(10194):230–239PubMed
93.
Urban P et al (2015) Polymer-free drug-coated coronary stents in patients at high bleeding risk. N Engl J Med 373(21):2038–2047PubMed
94.
Varenne O et al (2018) Drug-eluting stents in elderly patients with coronary artery disease (SENIOR): a randomised single-blind trial. Lancet 391(10115):41–50PubMed
95.
Jolly SS et al (2011) Radial versus femoral access for coronary angiography and intervention in patients with acute coronary syndromes (RIVAL): a randomised, parallel group, multicentre trial. Lancet 377(9775):1409–1420PubMed
96.
Rao SV et al (2014) A registry-based randomized trial comparing radial and femoral approaches in women undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: the SAFE-PCI for Women (Study of Access Site for Enhancement of PCI for Women) trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 7(8):857–867PubMed
97.
Valgimigli M et al (2015) Radial versus femoral access in patients with acute coronary syndromes undergoing invasive management: a randomised multicentre trial. Lancet 385(9986):2465–2476PubMed
98.
Ando G, Capodanno D (2016) Radial access reduces mortality in patients with acute coronary syndromes: results from an updated trial sequential analysis of randomized trials. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 9(7):660–670PubMed
99.
Valgimigli M et al (2018) Radial versus femoral access and bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin in invasively managed patients with acute coronary syndrome (MATRIX): final 1‑year results of a multicentre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 392(10150):835–848PubMed
100.
Le May M (2019) The safety and afficacy of femoral access vs radial access in STEMI. In: ACC Congr
101.
Sgarbossa EB, Birnbaum Y, Parrillo JE (2001) Electrocardiographic diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction: current concepts for the clinician. Am Heart J 141(4):507–517PubMed
102.
de Winter RJ et al (2008) A new ECG sign of proximal LAD occlusion. n Engl J Med 359:2071–2073PubMed
103.
Kurisu S et al (2004) Electrocardiographic features in patients with acute myocardial infarction associated with left main coronary artery occlusion. Heart 90:1059–1060PubMedPubMedCentral
104.
Roffi M et al (2016) 2015 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation: Task Force for the Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes in Patients Presenting without Persistent ST-Segment Elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). Eur Heart J 37(3):267–315PubMed
105.
Thiele H et al (2012) Optimal timing of invasive angiography in stable non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the Leipzig Immediate versus early and late PercutaneouS coronary Intervention triAl in NSTEMI (LIPSIA-NSTEMI Trial). Eur Heart J 33(16):2035–2043PubMed
106.
Kastrati A et al (2011) Abciximab and heparin versus bivalirudin for non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 365(21):1980–1989PubMed
107.
Virmani R et al (2006) Pathology of the vulnerable plaque. J Am Coll Cardiol 47(8 Suppl):C13–C18PubMed
108.
Cheruvu PK et al (2007) Frequency and distribution of thin-cap fibroatheroma and ruptured plaques in human coronary arteries: a pathologic study. J Am Coll Cardiol 50(10):940–949PubMed
109.
Goldstein JA et al (2000) Multiple complex coronary plaques in patients with acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 343(13):915–922PubMed
110.
Kerensky RA et al (2002) Revisiting the culprit lesion in non-Q-wave myocardial infarction. Results from the VANQWISH trial angiographic core laboratory. J Am Coll Cardiol 39(9):1456–1463PubMed
111.
Shishehbor MH et al (2007) In unstable angina or non-ST-segment acute coronary syndrome, should patients with multivessel coronary artery disease undergo multivessel or culprit-only stenting? J Am Coll Cardiol 49(8):849–854PubMed
112.
Smits PC et al (2017) Fractional flow reserve-guided multivessel angioplasty in myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 376(13):1234–1244PubMed
113.
Cannon CP et al (2001) Comparison of early invasive and conservative strategies in patients with unstable coronary syndromes treated with the glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitor tirofiban. N Engl J Med 344(25):1879–1887PubMed
114.
Fox KA et al (2005) 5‑year outcome of an interventional strategy in non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome: the British Heart Foundation RITA 3 randomised trial. Lancet 366(9489):914–920PubMed
115.
Wallentin L et al (2000) Outcome at 1 year after an invasive compared with a non-invasive strategy in unstable coronary-artery disease: the FRISC II invasive randomised trial. Lancet 356(9223):9–16PubMed
116.
Curtis JP et al (2009) All-cause readmission and repeat revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention in a cohort of medicare patients. J Am Coll Cardiol 54(10):903–907PubMed
117.
Genereux P et al (2012) Quantification and impact of untreated coronary artery disease after percutaneous coronary intervention: the residual SYNTAX (Synergy Between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score. J Am Coll Cardiol 59(24):2165–2174PubMedPubMedCentral
118.
Ben-Gal Y et al (2010) Surgical versus percutaneous revascularization for multivessel disease in patients with acute coronary syndromes: analysis from the ACUITY (Acute Catheterization and Urgent Intervention Triage Strategy) trial. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 3(10):1059–1067PubMed
119.
Ranasinghe I et al (2011) Risk stratification in the setting of non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes 1999–2007. Am J Cardiol 108(5):617–624PubMed
120.
Andersen HR et al (2003) A comparison of coronary angioplasty with fibrinolytic therapy in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 349(8):733–742PubMed
121.
Widimsky P et al (2003) Long distance transport for primary angioplasty vs immediate thrombolysis in acute myocardial infarction. Final results of the randomized national multicentre trial—PRAGUE‑2. Eur Heart J 24(1):94–104PubMed
122.
Keeley EC, Boura JA, Grines CL (2003) Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials. Lancet 361(9351):13–20PubMed
123.
Zijlstra F et al (1999) Long-term benefit of primary angioplasty as compared with thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 341(19):1413–1419PubMed
124.
Scholz KH et al (2018) 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 39(13):1065–1074PubMedPubMedCentral
125.
Borgia F et al (2010) Early routine percutaneous coronary intervention after fibrinolysis vs. standard therapy in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis. Eur Heart J 31(17):2156–2169PubMed
126.
D’Souza SP et al (2011) Routine early coronary angioplasty versus ischaemia-guided angioplasty after thrombolysis in acute ST-elevation myocardial infarction: a meta-analysis. Eur Heart J 32(8):972–982PubMed
127.
Hochman JS et al (2006) Coronary intervention for persistent occlusion after myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 355(23):2395–2407PubMedPubMedCentral
128.
Engstrom T et al (2015) Complete revascularisation versus treatment of the culprit lesion only in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease (DANAMI-3-PRIMULTI): an open-label, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 386(9994):665–671PubMed
129.
Kelly DJ et al (2013) Complete Versus culprit-Lesion only PRimary PCI Trial (CVLPRIT): a multicentre trial testing management strategies when multivessel disease is detected at the time of primary PCI: rationale and design. EuroIntervention 8(10):1190–1198PubMed
130.
Wald DS et al (2013) Randomized trial of preventive angioplasty in myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 369(12):1115–1123PubMed
131.
Mehta SR et al (2019) Complete revascularization with multivessel PCI for myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 381(15):1411–1421PubMed
132.
Frobert O et al (2013) Thrombus aspiration during ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 369(17):1587–1597PubMed
133.
Jolly SS et al (2015) Randomized trial of primary PCI with or without routine manual thrombectomy. N Engl J Med 372(15):1389–1398PubMedPubMedCentral
134.
Jolly SS et al (2015) Stroke in the TOTAL trial: a randomized trial of routine thrombectomy vs. percutaneous coronary intervention alone in ST elevation myocardial infarction. Eur Heart J 36(35):2364–2372PubMedPubMedCentral
135.
Holmes DR Jr. et al (1999) Cardiogenic shock in patients with acute ischemic syndromes with and without ST-segment elevation. Circulation 100(20):2067–2073PubMed
136.
Babaev A et al (2005) Trends in management and outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock. JAMA 294(4):448–454PubMed
137.
Thiele H et al (2017) PCI strategies in patients with acute myocardial infarction and cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 377(25):2419–2432PubMed
138.
Thiele H et al (2012) Intraaortic balloon support for myocardial infarction with cardiogenic shock. N Engl J Med 367(14):1287–1296PubMed
139.
Hayes SN et al (2018) Spontaneous coronary artery dissection: current state of the science: a scientific statement from the American Heart Association. Circulation 137(19):e523–e557PubMedPubMedCentral
140.
Saw J et al (2017) Spontaneous coronary artery dissection: clinical outcomes and risk of recurrence. J Am Coll Cardiol 70(9):1148–1158PubMed
141.
Saw J et al (2019) Canadian spontaneous coronary artery dissection cohort study: in-hospital and 30-day outcomes. Eur Heart J 40(15):1188–1197PubMedPubMedCentral
142.
Nef HM et al (2017) Medikamentenfreisetzende Koronarstents/-scaffolds und medikamentenbeschichtete Ballonkatheter. Kardiologe 12(1):26–52
143.
Alfonso F et al (2018) 3‑year clinical follow-up of the RIBS IV clinical trial: a prospective randomized study of drug-eluting balloons versus everolimus-eluting stents in patients with in-stent restenosis in coronary arteries previously treated with drug-eluting stents. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 11(10):981–991PubMed
144.
Hamm CW et al (2020) A multicentre, randomised controlled clinical study of drug-coated balloons for the treatment of coronary in-stent restenosis. EuroIntervention 16(4):e328–e334PubMed
145.
Savage MP et al (1995) Effect of thromboxane A2 blockade on clinical outcome and restenosis after successful coronary angioplasty. Multi-Hospital Eastern Atlantic Restenosis Trial (M-HEART II). Circulation 92(11):3194–3200PubMed
146.
Antithrombotic Trialists’ Collaboration (2002) Collaborative meta-analysis of randomised trials of antiplatelet therapy for prevention of death, myocardial infarction, and stroke in high risk patients. BMJ 324(7329):71–86
147.
Patrono C et al (2004) Expert consensus document on the use of antiplatelet agents. The task force on the use of antiplatelet agents in patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular disease of the European society of cardiology. Eur Heart J 25(2):166–181PubMed
148.
Steg PG et al (2013) Effect of cangrelor on periprocedural outcomes in percutaneous coronary interventions: a pooled analysis of patient-level data. Lancet 382(9909):1981–1992PubMed
149.
Harrington RA et al (2009) Platelet inhibition with cangrelor in patients undergoing PCI. N Engl J Med 361(24):2318–2329PubMed
150.
Kaluski E et al (2000) Minimal heparinization in coronary angioplasty—how much heparin is really warranted? Am J Cardiol 85(8):953–956PubMed
151.
Montalescot G et al (2006) Enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin in elective percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 355(10):1006–1017PubMed
152.
Kastrati A et al (2008) Bivalirudin versus unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention. N Engl J Med 359(7):688–696PubMed
153.
Wiviott SD et al (2007) Prasugrel versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 357(20):2001–2015PubMed
154.
Wallentin L et al (2009) Ticagrelor versus clopidogrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 361(11):1045–1057PubMed
155.
Montalescot G et al (2014) Prehospital ticagrelor in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med 371(11):1016–1027PubMed
156.
Montalescot G et al (2013) Pretreatment with prasugrel in non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 369(11):999–1010PubMed
157.
Schupke S et al (2019) Ticagrelor or prasugrel in patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 381(16):1524–1534PubMed
158.
ten Berg JM et al (2010) Effect of early, pre-hospital initiation of high bolus dose tirofiban in patients with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction on short- and long-term clinical outcome. J Am Coll Cardiol 55(22):2446–2455PubMed
159.
Montalescot G et al (2011) Intravenous enoxaparin or unfractionated heparin in primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-elevation myocardial infarction: the international randomised open-label ATOLL trial. Lancet 378(9792):693–703PubMed
160.
Silvain J et al (2012) Efficacy and safety of enoxaparin versus unfractionated heparin during percutaneous coronary intervention: systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ 344:e553PubMedPubMedCentral
161.
Capodanno D et al (2016) Bivalirudin versus heparin with or without glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors in patients with STEMI undergoing primary PCI: an updated meta-analysis of 10,350 patients from five randomized clinical trials. Eur Heart J Acute Cardiovasc Care 5(3):253–262PubMed
162.
Stone GW et al (2006) Bivalirudin for patients with acute coronary syndromes. N Engl J Med 355(21):2203–2216PubMed
163.
Valgimigli M, MATRIX investigators (2014) Design and rationale for the Minimizing Adverse haemorrhagic events by TRansradial access site and systemic Implementation of angioX program. Am Heart J 168(6):838–845PubMed
164.
Shahzad A et al (2014) Unfractionated heparin versus bivalirudin in primary percutaneous coronary intervention (HEAT-PPCI): an open-label, single centre, randomised controlled trial. Lancet 384(9957):1849–1858PubMed
165.
Leonardi S et al (2016) Bivalirudin or unfractionated heparin in patients with acute coronary syndromes managed invasively with and without ST elevation (MATRIX): randomised controlled trial. BMJ i4935:354
166.
Cannon CP et al (2017) Dual antithrombotic therapy with dabigatran after PCI in atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 377(16):1513–1524PubMed
167.
Gibson CM et al (2016) Prevention of bleeding in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing PCI. N Engl J Med 375(25):2423–2434PubMed
168.
Lopes RD et al (2019) Antithrombotic therapy after acute coronary syndrome or PCI in atrial fibrillation. N Engl J Med 380(16):1509–1524PubMed
169.
Dash D (2013) Complications of coronary intervention: abrupt closure, dissection, perforation. Heart Asia 5(1):61–65PubMedPubMedCentral
170.
Giannini F et al (2018) A practical approach to the management of complications during percutaneous coronary intervention. JACC Cardiovasc Interv 11(18):1797–1810PubMed
171.
Albertal M et al (2001) Uncomplicated moderate coronary artery dissections after balloon angioplasty: good outcome without stenting. Heart 86(2):193–198PubMedPubMedCentral
172.
Huber MS et al (1991) Use of a morphologic classification to predict clinical outcome after dissection from coronary angioplasty. Am J Cardiol 68(5):467–471PubMed
173.
Gibson CM et al (2000) Relationship of TIMI myocardial perfusion grade to mortality after administration of thrombolytic drugs. Circulation 101(2):125–130PubMed
174.
Muller O et al (2008) Management of two major complications in the cardiac catheterisation laboratory: the no-reflow phenomenon and coronary perforations. EuroIntervention 4(2):181–183PubMed
175.
Niccoli G et al (2009) Myocardial no-reflow in humans. J Am Coll Cardiol 54(4):281–292PubMed
176.
Ross AM et al (2005) A randomized, double-blinded, placebo-controlled multicenter trial of adenosine as an adjunct to reperfusion in the treatment of acute myocardial infarction (AMISTAD-II). J Am Coll Cardiol 45(11):1775–1780PubMed
177.
Farouque HM et al (2005) Risk factors for the development of retroperitoneal hematoma after percutaneous coronary intervention in the era of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors and vascular closure devices. J Am Coll Cardiol 45(3):363–368PubMed
178.
Maluenda G et al (2012) Retroperitoneal hemorrhage after percutaneous coronary intervention in the current practice era: clinical outcomes and prognostic value of abdominal/pelvic computed tomography. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 80(1):29–36PubMed
179.
Tiroch KA et al (2008) Risk predictors of retroperitoneal hemorrhage following percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol 102(11):1473–1476PubMed
180.
181.
Shimony A et al (2011) Coronary artery perforation during percutaneous coronary intervention: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Can J Cardiol 27(6):843–850PubMed
182.
Dippel EJ et al (2001) Coronary perforation during percutaneous coronary intervention in the era of abciximab platelet glycoprotein IIb/IIIa blockade: an algorithm for percutaneous management. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 52(3):279–286PubMed
183.
Ellis SG et al (1988) Angiographic and clinical predictors of acute closure after native vessel coronary angioplasty. Circulation 77(2):372–379PubMed
184.
Ellis SG et al (1994) Increased coronary perforation in the new device era. Incidence, classification, management, and outcome. Circulation 90(6):2725–2730PubMed
185.
Brilakis ES et al (2005) Incidence, retrieval methods, and outcomes of stent loss during percutaneous coronary intervention: a large single-center experience. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 66(3):333–340PubMed
186.
Colkesen AY et al (2007) Coronary and systemic stent embolization during percutaneous coronary interventions: a single center experience. Int Heart J 48(2):129–136PubMed
187.
Alomar ME et al (2013) Stent loss and retrieval during percutaneous coronary interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Invasive Cardiol 25(12):637–641PubMed
188.
Meller J et al (1976) Coronary artery dissection—a complication of cardiac catheterization without sequelae: case report and review of the literature. Cathet Cardiovasc Diagn 2(3):301–308PubMed
189.
Gomez-Moreno S et al (2006) Iatrogenic dissection of the ascending aorta following heart catheterisation: incidence, management and outcome. EuroIntervention 2(2):197–202PubMed
190.
Dunning DW et al (2000) Iatrogenic coronary artery dissections extending into and involving the aortic root. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv 51(4):387–393PubMed
191.
Röther J, Laufs U, Böhm M, Willems S, Scheller B, Borggrefe M, Darius H, Endres M, Zeymer U, Diener HC, Grond M, Hacke W, Forsting M, Schumacher M, Hennerici M (2009) Konsensuspapier „Peri- und postinterventioneller Schlaganfall bei Herzkatheterprozeduren“. Kardiologe (3):375–387
192.
Aggarwal A et al (2009) Incidence and predictors of stroke associated with percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol 104(3):349–353PubMed
193.
Dukkipati S et al (2004) Characteristics of cerebrovascular accidents after percutaneous coronary interventions. J Am Coll Cardiol 43(7):1161–1167PubMed
194.
München O (2010) Urt. v. 18.11.2010 – 1 U 5334/09, GesR 2011, 235, 236 = juris Nr. 35, 37, 44, 45: Bei Aufklärung durch Assistenzarzt
195.
Frahm, Nixdorf, Walter (2013) 5. Aufl., Rz. 215 zu § 630 e II 1 Nr. 1 BGB
196.
Martis, Winkhart (2014) 4. Aufl., Rz. A 1757 ff. und Rz. P 44, P 48
197.
Montalescot G et al (2013) 2013 ESC guidelines on the management of stable coronary artery disease: the Task Force on the management of stable coronary artery disease of the European Society of Cardiology. Eur Heart J 34(38):2949–3003PubMed
198.
Campeau L (1976) Letter: grading of angina pectoris. Circulation 54(3):522–523PubMed
199.
200.
Sianos G et al (2005) The SYNTAX Score: an angiographic tool grading the complexity of coronary artery disease. EuroIntervention 1(2):219–227PubMed
201.
Medina A, Suarez de Lezo J, Pan M (2006) A new classification of coronary bifurcation lesions. Rev Esp Cardiol 59(2):183PubMed
202.
Mehran R et al (1999) Angiographic patterns of in-stent restenosis: classification and implications for long-term outcome. Circulation 100(18):1872–1878PubMed
203.
Rentrop KP et al (1985) Changes in collateral channel filling immediately after controlled coronary artery occlusion by an angioplasty balloon in human subjects. J Am Coll Cardiol 5(3):587–592PubMed
Metadaten
Titel
Manual der Arbeitsgruppe Interventionelle Kardiologie (AGIK) der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kardiologie – Herz- und Kreislaufforschung e.V. (DGK)
Teil 2: „Durchführung der perkutanen Koronarintervention“
verfasst von
Prof. Dr. med. Holger M. Nef
Stephan Achenbach
Ralf Birkemeyer
Alexander Bufe
Oliver Dörr
Albrecht Elsässer
Luise Gaede
Tommaso Gori
Hans M. Hoffmeister
Felix J. Hofmann
Hugo A. Katus
Christoph Liebetrau
Steffen Massberg
Matthias Pauschinger
Thomas Schmitz
Tim Süselbeck
Wolfram Voelker
Jens Wiebe
Ralf Zahn
Christian Hamm
Andreas M. Zeiher
Helge Möllmann
Publikationsdatum
21.09.2021
Verlag
Springer Medizin
Erschienen in
Die Kardiologie / Ausgabe 6/2021
Print ISSN: 2731-7129
Elektronische ISSN: 2731-7137
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12181-021-00504-6

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2021

Die Kardiologie 6/2021 Zur Ausgabe

Journal Club

Nach Reanimation sofort Herzkatheter oder nicht?

Wie lautet Ihre Diagnose?

Die Dyspnoe beginnt im Sitzen

Originalien

Luftverschmutzung als wichtiger Kofaktor bei COVID-19-Sterbefällen

Erratum

Erratum zu: Hypertriglyzeridämie verstehen

Praxiswissen EKG-Interpretation

Wiederholte Ohnmachtsanfälle bei 27-Jährigem – diese EKG-Zeichen verraten die Ursache

CME

Künstliche Intelligenz in der kardialen Computertomographie

Passend zum Thema

ANZEIGE

SGLT-2-Inhibitoren für alle Patient:innen mit chronischer Herzinsuffizienz empfohlen

Niere und Herz

Das ESC-Leitlinien-Update 2023 bedeutet einen Paradigmenwechsel in der Behandlung der Herzinsuffizienz (HF), denn nun werden SGLT-2i sowohl für HFrEF, als auch für HFmrEF und HFpEF empfohlen. Somit können jetzt alle Patient:innen mit HF von SGLT-2i als zentralem Bestandteil der Therapie profitieren.

ANZEIGE

Dapagliflozin als neue Therapieoption zur Behandlung einer Herzinsuffizienz unabhängig von der Ejektionsfraktion

Niere und Herz

Dapagliflozin ist nun zur Behandlung aller Patient:innen mit chronischer symptomatischer Herzinsuffizienz zugelassen und bietet somit auch neue Hoffnung für die Therapie von jenen mit HFpEF. In der DELIVER-Studie zeigte der SGLT-2-Inhibitor eine signifikante Reduktion von Herzinsuffizienz-Hospitalisierungen und CV-Todesfällen.

ANZEIGE

ACS-Erstlinientherapie: Konsensbeschluss rät zur DAPT mit Ticagrelor

Niere und Herz

Ein Konsortium führender Fachgesellschaften erarbeitete jüngst auf Basis umfangreicher Metaanalysen einen Konsens für die Therapie koronarer Herzkrankheiten. Was dabei auffiel: Die duale Plättchenhemmung (DAPT) mit Ticagrelor ist die bevorzugte Therapieoption für das akute Koronarsyndrom (ACS).

Bildnachweise