争议:针具试验和可行性评估的批判性回顾。《回到未来》又或者不是

Q4 Medicine
V. Grigorov, E. Grigorov
{"title":"争议:针具试验和可行性评估的批判性回顾。《回到未来》又或者不是","authors":"V. Grigorov, E. Grigorov","doi":"10.2478/amb-2022-0011","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Abstract The management of patients with coronary artery disease and heart failure has been debated for years. In the 1980’s Braunwald coined the words “viability” and “stunning”. Multiple trials have been done since then. Since the early eighties coronary bypass grafting was considered as gold standard for patients with impaired left ventricular fraction and coronary artery disease. Since then, nuclear imaging studies have been used to evaluate the “viability” of the impaired areas and to decide if revascularisation would be reasonable. Beginning with the CASS study and ending with the more recent STICH study we aim to provide a “bird’s eye view” of the pros and cons for revascularisation. In addition, we aim to shed some light on the daily advancements in medical management, including devices and not just medication. We therefore chose the title “Back to the future” or maybe not.","PeriodicalId":35746,"journal":{"name":"Acta Medica Bulgarica","volume":"49 1","pages":"63 - 68"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2022-04-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"Controversy: Critical Review of the Stich Trial and Assessment of Viability. “Back to the Future” Or Maybe Not\",\"authors\":\"V. Grigorov, E. Grigorov\",\"doi\":\"10.2478/amb-2022-0011\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"Abstract The management of patients with coronary artery disease and heart failure has been debated for years. In the 1980’s Braunwald coined the words “viability” and “stunning”. Multiple trials have been done since then. Since the early eighties coronary bypass grafting was considered as gold standard for patients with impaired left ventricular fraction and coronary artery disease. Since then, nuclear imaging studies have been used to evaluate the “viability” of the impaired areas and to decide if revascularisation would be reasonable. Beginning with the CASS study and ending with the more recent STICH study we aim to provide a “bird’s eye view” of the pros and cons for revascularisation. In addition, we aim to shed some light on the daily advancements in medical management, including devices and not just medication. We therefore chose the title “Back to the future” or maybe not.\",\"PeriodicalId\":35746,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Acta Medica Bulgarica\",\"volume\":\"49 1\",\"pages\":\"63 - 68\"},\"PeriodicalIF\":0.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2022-04-01\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Acta Medica Bulgarica\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"1085\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://doi.org/10.2478/amb-2022-0011\",\"RegionNum\":0,\"RegionCategory\":null,\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q4\",\"JCRName\":\"Medicine\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Acta Medica Bulgarica","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.2478/amb-2022-0011","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q4","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

冠状动脉疾病合并心力衰竭患者的治疗已经争论多年。在20世纪80年代,布劳恩瓦尔德创造了“生存能力”和“惊人”这两个词。从那时起,已经进行了多次试验。自八十年代初以来,冠状动脉旁路移植术被认为是治疗左室分数受损和冠状动脉疾病患者的金标准。从那时起,核成像研究已被用于评估受损区域的“生存能力”,并决定是否应该进行血管重建。从CASS研究开始,到最近的STICH研究结束,我们的目标是提供血管重建的利弊的“鸟瞰图”。此外,我们的目标是阐明医疗管理的日常进步,包括设备,而不仅仅是药物。因此,我们选择了“回到未来”的标题,也许不是。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
Controversy: Critical Review of the Stich Trial and Assessment of Viability. “Back to the Future” Or Maybe Not
Abstract The management of patients with coronary artery disease and heart failure has been debated for years. In the 1980’s Braunwald coined the words “viability” and “stunning”. Multiple trials have been done since then. Since the early eighties coronary bypass grafting was considered as gold standard for patients with impaired left ventricular fraction and coronary artery disease. Since then, nuclear imaging studies have been used to evaluate the “viability” of the impaired areas and to decide if revascularisation would be reasonable. Beginning with the CASS study and ending with the more recent STICH study we aim to provide a “bird’s eye view” of the pros and cons for revascularisation. In addition, we aim to shed some light on the daily advancements in medical management, including devices and not just medication. We therefore chose the title “Back to the future” or maybe not.
求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Acta Medica Bulgarica
Acta Medica Bulgarica Medicine-Medicine (all)
CiteScore
0.30
自引率
0.00%
发文量
33
审稿时长
25 weeks
期刊介绍: About 30 years ago - in 1973, on the initiative of the Publishing House „Medicine and Physical Culture", namely its former director Mr. Traian Ivanov, the Ministry of Health set up and accepted to subsidize a new medical magazine that was to be published only in the English language and had to reflect the status and the achievements of the Bulgarian medical science. Thus the language barrier was overcome and stable relations were established with the international medical society, large libraries, and university centers. The famous internationally known scientist professor Assen A. Hadjiolov was elected edition-in-chief by the first editorial staff and the magazine was named Acta Medica Bulgarica.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信