Coronary Revascularisation

l65195 bman2700 fiona8989 952 Users are discussing this topic

PatientPlus articles are written by UK doctors and are based on research evidence, UK and European Guidelines. They are designed for health professionals to use, so you may find the language more technical than the condition leaflets.

See also: Heart Attack (Myocardial Infarction) written for patients

There are three management options for patients with ischaemic heart disease:

  • Medical therapy and risk factor modification:
    This is the main option for stable, low-risk patients, and should be given to all patients with ischaemic heart disease (see separate articles Cardiovascular Risk Assessment and Cardiac Rehabilitation). In low-risk patients with stable coronary artery disease, aggressive lipid-lowering therapy is at least as effective as angioplasty in reducing the incidence of ischaemic events.

  • Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery:
    This has been shown to produce better survival rates compared with medical therapy in certain patient groups. See separate article Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for full details.
  • Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI):
    This is generally for patients with isolated coronary artery disease. See separate article Percutaneous Coronary Intervention for full details.

Also, see separate articles Acute Coronary Syndrome, Acute Myocardial Infarction, Acute Myocardial Infarction Management, Stable Angina and Cardiac Catheterisation.

NEW - log your activity

  • Notes
    Add notes to any clinical page and create a reflective diary
  • Track
    Automatically track and log every page you have viewed
  • Print
    Print and export a summary to use in your appraisal
Click to find out more »

Coronary revascularisation is not without risks; thus, determining the risk/benefits prior to revascularisation is important. Risk assessment is undertaken using scoring systems. There are a number of various scoring models - for example:

  • The Ontario scoring system: designed to assess the urgency of intervention.[2] The three main urgency determinants are severity and stability of symptoms of angina, coronary anatomy from angiographic studies, and results of non-invasive tests for risk of ischaemia.
  • The European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE): the EuroSCORE is a similar European system for cardiac operative risk evaluation based on a large database. It can be used to predict the risk of revascularisation regardless of whether surgery or PCI is considered.
  • The SYNTAX score: predicts the risks associated with PCI, thus stratifying patients into those who are most likely to have adverse effects. Other scoring systems for PCI include the National Cardiovascular Database Registry (NCDR) CathPCI risk score.
  • The Society of Thoracic Surgeons score and Age, Creatinine, and Ejection Fraction score: these are both used to determine surgical risk.

Special considerations[1] 

A number of important factors influence the likely balance of risks and benefits. These include:

  • Smoking: this is associated with poorer long-term survival after CABG. Those who stop smoking are less likely to undergo repeat surgery or to have a heart attack.
  • Diabetes mellitus: patients have poorer long-term survival after revascularisation and a higher risk of re-stenosis.[1] Good control of diabetes and hypertension reduces the rate of progression of vascular disease.
  • Impaired left ventricular function: despite a higher operative mortality, they also obtain greater long-term survival benefit from revascularisation than people without impaired left ventricular function.
  • Advanced age: the procedure-associated risk rises rapidly with age.
  • Gender: women may have a higher procedure-associated mortality compared with men.[3]
  • Recent myocardial infarction or episode of unstable angina: recent coronary events increase procedural risk.
  • Unfavourable coronary anatomy: extensive disease in the distal parts of coronary arteries reduces the likely benefits of intervention.
  • Results of pre-intervention tests: eg, myocardial perfusion scanning or cardiac MRI.
  • Presence of chronic kidney disease: CABG is superior to PCI where the eGFR is between 30-90 mL/min/1.73 m2. In severe chronic kidney disease and end-stage renal disease or haemodialysis there is no such evidence and thus deciding between CABG and PCI is based on the individual patient.[1] 

Any decision should be made within a multidisciplinary team and patients should take an active role in the decision-making process. Obviously this may not be possible in the acutely unwell patient.

This is required when:

  • the patient has persisting symptoms (medical therapy should be optimised), and/or
  • anatomical disease which, if intervened upon, will improve prognosis - eg, left main stem disease or proximal left anterior descending artery disease or a large area of ischaemia.

In this group revascularisation is undertaken usually for both symptomatic relief and improvement in outcomes. This is the largest group of patients requiring PCI but the prognosis is very variable and, as such, scoring systems are also used in acute coronary syndrome to determine the risk:benefit ratio. The European Society of Cardiology recommend the use of the Global Registry of Acute Coronary Events score (GRACE score) in acute coronary syndrome patients. This determines the long-term risks and helps decisions regarding which patient should undergo invasive PCI. The GRACE score is discussed more fully in the separate article Acute Coronary Syndrome.

Patients with ongoing chest pain and ongoing ischaemia on the ECG may need urgent PCI (within two hours). Those with a very high GRACE score (>140), recurrent symptoms or significant inducible ischaemia on stress testing should have PCI. If the GRACE score is >140, PCI should be undertaken within 24 hours. Patients with lower scores should have PCI within 72 hours, usually as part of their inpatient stay.

Primary PCI in dedicated centres should be undertaken if possible in ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. If this can not occur within 120 minutes of the ECG diagnosis then immediate fibrinolysis should be performed and if this is successful, PCI should be undertaken within 24 hours. If, however, fibrinolysis is unsuccessful then rescue PCI will be required immediately.

Further reading & references

  1. Guidelines for Myocardial Revascularisation, European Society of Cardiology (2010)
  2. Naylor CD, Baigrie RS, Goldman BS, et al; Assessment of priority for coronary revascularisation procedures. Lancet. 1990 May 5;335(8697):1070-3.
  3. Mikhail GW; Coronary revascularisation in women. Heart. 2006 May;92 Suppl 3:iii19-23.
  4. Management of Acute Coronary Syndromes (ACS) in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation; European Society of Cardiology (2011)
  5. Acute coronary syndromes; Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network - SIGN (Feb 2013)
  6. Unstable angina and NSTEMI; NICE Clinical Guideline (March 2010)

Disclaimer: This article is for information only and should not be used for the diagnosis or treatment of medical conditions. EMIS has used all reasonable care in compiling the information but make no warranty as to its accuracy. Consult a doctor or other health care professional for diagnosis and treatment of medical conditions. For details see our conditions.

Original Author:
Dr Colin Tidy
Current Version:
Peer Reviewer:
Dr John Cox
Document ID:
2010 (v24)
Last Checked:
Next Review:

Did you find this health information useful?

Yes No

Thank you for your feedback!

Subcribe to the Patient newsletter for healthcare and news updates.

We would love to hear your feedback!

Patient Access app - find out more Patient facebook page - Like our page