English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

OBJECTIVES The aim of this study is to evaluate the immediate and mid-term effects of omitting coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with moderate coronary artery stenosis who have a primary indication for valvular surgery. METHODS We included 77 consecutive patients admitted to our Institution for aortic or mitral valve surgery between June 2012 and June 2017 in whom a de novo diagnosis of ≥50%, but &amp;lt;70% coronary stenosis was made. In this cohort, the myocardial revascularization was omitted. All these patients were free from angina and ischaemia on echo and ECG. RESULTS There were no in-hospital deaths. In only 1 patient, acute myocardial infarction occurred postoperatively, which was immediately treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). The 6-year overall survival was 94.7 ± 2.59%. At 6 years, no cardiac deaths were recorded. At follow-up, 4 patients underwent elective PCI after a positive stress myocardial perfusion test. Only 1 patient underwent urgent PCI due to acute coronary syndrome. At 6 years, the cumulative incidence function of PCI, with death as competing risk, was 8 ± 3.9%. CONCLUSIONS In our experience, moderate coronary stenosis, occasionally discovered at the time of valvular heart surgery, can be safely overlooked and do not need any further treatment at follow-up in the majority of cases. Our results open up the opportunity to apply this ‘intentional omission strategy’ in different situations, such as minimally invasive heart surgery, percutaneous procedures and complex patients.

Is myocardial revascularization really necessary in patients with ≥50% but &lt;70% coronary stenosis undergoing valvular surgery?

Is myocardial revascularization really necessary in patients with ≥50% but <70% coronary stenosis undergoing valvular surgery?