RESUMO
Treatment of stable coronary artery disease (CAD) relies on improved prognosis and relief of symptoms. National and international guidelines on CAD support the indication of revascularization in patients with limiting symptoms and refractory to optimal medical treatment, as well as in clinical situations where there is a prognostic benefit of interventional treatment. Most of the studies that support the guidelines for indication of revascularization date back to the 1980s and1990s of the last century. Recent studies have revisited the theme and brought a new breath. The present review provides a critical analysis of classic indications for revascularization, reviewing evidence from the studies of the 1970s to the recent controversial ORBITA study.
Assuntos
Doença da Artéria Coronariana/cirurgia , Revascularização Miocárdica/normas , Tomada de Decisão Clínica , Humanos , Revascularização Miocárdica/métodos , Prognóstico , Medição de Risco , Fatores de RiscoRESUMO
SUMMARY Treatment of stable coronary artery disease (CAD) relies on improved prognosis and relief of symptoms. National and international guidelines on CAD support the indication of revascularization in patients with limiting symptoms and refractory to optimal medical treatment, as well as in clinical situations where there is a prognostic benefit of interventional treatment. Most of the studies that support the guidelines for indication of revascularization date back to the 1980s and1990s of the last century. Recent studies have revisited the theme and brought a new breath. The present review provides a critical analysis of classic indications for revascularization, reviewing evidence from the studies of the 1970s to the recent controversial ORBITA study.
RESUMO O tratamento da doença arterial coronariana estável (DAC) se baseia na melhora do prognóstico e alívio de sintomas. Diretrizes nacionais e internacionais sobre a DAC respaldam a indicação de revascularização em pacientes com sintomas limitantes e refratários ao tratamento medicamentoso, bem como em situações clínicas nas quais há benefício prognóstico do tratamento intervencionista. Grande parte dos estudos que norteiam as diretrizes de indicação de revascularização data das décadas de 1980 e 1990. Estudos recentes têm revisitado o tema e trazido novo fôlego. A presente revisão faz uma análise crítica das indicações clássicas de revascularização, revisando a evidência desde os estudos da década de 1970 ao recente e polêmico estudo Orbita.
Assuntos
Humanos , Doença da Artéria Coronariana/cirurgia , Revascularização Miocárdica/normas , Prognóstico , Fatores de Risco , Medição de Risco , Tomada de Decisão Clínica , Revascularização Miocárdica/métodosRESUMO
Treatment of stable coronary artery disease (CAD) relies on improved prognosis and relief of symptoms. National and international guidelines on CAD support the indication for revascularization in patients with limiting symptoms and refractory to drug treatment. Previous studies attested the efficacy of angioplasty to improve angina as well as the functional capacity of patients with symptomatic stable CAD. The ORBITA trial, recently published in an international journal, showed no benefit in terms of exercise tolerance compared to a placebo procedure in a population of single-vessel patients undergoing contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention. In this point of view article, the authors discuss the ORBITA trial regarding methodological issues, limitations and clinical applicability.
