Download PDF
Aktuelle Kardiologie 2020; 9(03): 236-253
DOI: 10.1055/a-1179-5728
Kurzübersicht
Georg Thieme Verlag KG Stuttgart · New York

Die chronische koronare Herzkrankheit/das chronische Koronarsyndrom – Was sagen die deutschen und die europäischen Leitlinien?

Chronic Coronary Heart Disease/Chronic Coronary Syndromes – What Do the German and the European Guidelines Tell Us?
Karl Werdan
1   Universitätsklinik und Poliklinik für Innere Medizin III, Universitätsklinikum Halle (Saale) der Martin-Luther-Universität Halle-Wittenberg, Halle (Saale)
,
Ursula Müller-Werdan
2   Klinik für Geriatrie und Altersmedizin der Charité – Universitätsmedizin Berlin, und Evangelisches Geriatriezentrum Berlin
,
Stefan Perings
3   MVZ Cardio Centrum Düsseldorf
› Author Affiliations
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
30 June 2020 (online)

Also available at
    Permissions and Reprints

Zusammenfassung

Von der Volkskrankheit „koronare Herzkrankheit“ (KHK) ist jeder zehnte 40- bis 79-Jährige in Deutschland betroffen. Basierend auf den Leitlinien der Europäischen Gesellschaft für Kardiologie zu chronischen Koronarsyndromen (CCS) und zur Myokardrevaskularisation sowie der Nationalen VersorgungsLeitlinie (NVL) „Chronische KHK“ werden evidenz- und expertenbasierte Empfehlungen zur Diagnosestellung sowie zur Behandlung und Betreuung der KHK-/CCS-Patienten dargestellt, mit Fokus auf nichtinvasive und invasive Myokardischämiediagnostik sowie medikamentöse und myokardrevaskularisierende Maßnahmen. Voneinander abweichende Empfehlungen der einzelnen Leitlinien in seltenen Fällen erweitern den Ermessensspielraum des Arztes. Das Aufzeigen des Notwendigen und Angemessenen sind wesentliche Intentionen dieser Leitlinien, mit dem Ziel, die Qualität der Patientenversorgung auf bestmöglichem Niveau zu halten.

Abstract

Widespread “coronary heart disease” affects one in ten of the population of the 40 – 79-year-old in Germany. The European ESC-Guidelines on “Diagnosis and treatment of patients with chronic coronary syndromes” as well as on “Myocardial revascularization” and also the German National Disease Management Guideline “Chronic Coronary Artery Disease” comprise evidence- and expert-based recommendations for diagnosis and treatment and care of patients with stable coronary artery disease/chronic coronary syndromes. The focus is on non-invasive and invasive diagnosis of myocardial ischaemia, on medical treatment and on myocardial revascularization. Recommendations of the respective guidelines telling us various “truths” in rare cases broaden the decision latitude of the physician. Defining mandatory and appropriate measures are essential aims of these guidelines to keep patient care on its best level.

Was ist wichtig?

  • Als Kardiologe wird man von der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kardiologie (DGK) und European Society of Cardiology (ESC) zeitnah mit aktuellen Leitlinien versorgt. Warum soll man sich also dann noch mit der Nationalen VersorgungsLeitlinie „Chronische KHK“ (NVL KHK) [1] beschäftigen? Der Anreiz dafür ist weniger die auf Deutsch abgefasste Leitlinie und auch nicht die sehr hohe Methodenqualität. Vielmehr sind es die intersektorale Ausrichtung und die Einbindung der Patienten.

  • Bei der 2019 erschienenen 5. Auflage der NVL KHK [1] haben Delegierte von 15 Fachgesellschaften und Organisationen mitgearbeitet. Neben einer Lang- sowie Kurzfassung und Praxishilfen gibt es auch eine NVL-PatientenLeitlinie.

  • Auch die ESC hat ihre entsprechende Leitlinie aktualisiert [2].

  • Die Methodik der Evidenz- und Empfehlungsgraduierung der NVL KHK weicht mit ihren Empfehlungsgraden von der uns Kardiologen bekannten Graduierung der ESC-Leitlinien ab ([Tab. 1]).

Schlüsselwörter

ESC-Leitlinie Chronische Koronarsyndrome - Nationale VersorgungsLeitlinie Chronische KHK (NVL KHK) - ESC-Leitlinie Myokardrevaskularisation

Key words

ESC Guidelines for the Diagnosis and Management of Chronic Coronary Syndromes - ESC/EACTS Guidelines on Myocardial Revascularization - German National Disease Management Guideline on Stable Coronary Artery Disease
 

  • Literatur

  • 1 Bundesärztekammer (BÄK); Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung (KBV), Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF). Nationale VersorgungsLeitlinie Chronische KHK – Langfassung, 5. Aufl. Version 1. 2019 DOI: 10.6101/AZQ/000419
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Knuuti J, Wijns W, Saraste A. et al. 2019 ESC Guidelines for the diagnosis and management of chronic coronary syndromes. Eur Heart J 2020; 41: 407-477
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Haasenritter J, Bosner S, Vaucher P. et al. Ruling out coronary heart disease in primary care: External validation of a clinical prediction rule. Br J Gen Pract 2012; 62: e415
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Taylor A, Yang E. Comparing American and European Guidelines for the Initial Diagnosis of Stable ischaemic Heart Disease. A Paradigm Shift from Exercise ECG Testing to Imaging-based Modalities. Eur Heart J 2020; 41: 811-815
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Hagendorff A, Metze M, Neef M. et al. Stress-Echokardiografie. Aktuel Kardiol 2020; 9: 50-59
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Adamson PD, Williams MC, Dweck M. et al. Guiding Therapy by Coronary CT Angiography Improves Outcomes in Patients With Stable Chest Pain. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019; 74: 2058-2070
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Zacharias K, Ahmed A, Shah BN. et al. Relative clinical and economic impact of exercise echocardiography vs. exercise electrocardiography, as first line investigation in patients without known coronary artery disease and new stable angina: a randomized prospective study. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Imaging 2017; 18: 195-202
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Albus C, Waller C, Fritzsche K. et al. Bedeutung von psychosozialen Faktoren in der Kardiologie – Update 2018. Positionspapier der Deutschen Gesellschaft für Kardiologie. Kardiologe 2018; 12: 312-331
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Antithrombotic Trialistsʼ (ATT) Collaboration. Baigent C, Blackwell L, Collins R. et al. Aspirin in the primary and secondary prevention of vascular disease: collaborative meta-analysis of individual participant data from randomised trials. Lancet 2009; 373: 1849-1860
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). NICE guideline CG172. Appendix A: Summary of new evidence from 4-year surveillance of myocardial infarction; 2016. Im Internet (Stand: 11.05.2020) https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg172/evidence/appendix-a-summary-of-new-evidence-pdf-4479686174
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Arzneimittelbrief. Koronare Herzkrankheit mit Vorhofflimmern: endgültiges Aus für die antithrombotische Tripel-Therapie?. AMB 2019; 53: 81-82
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Verma S, Goodman SG, Mehta SR. et al. Should dual antiplatelet therapy be used in patients following coronary artery bypass surgery? A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. BMC Surg 2015; 15: 112
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Chowdhury R, Khan H, Heydon E. et al. Adherence to cardiovascular therapy: a meta-analysis of prevalence and clinical consequences. Eur Heart J 2013; 34: 2940-2948
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Lipp HP. Auswahl von Statinen vor dem Hintergrund neu verfasster Lipidleitlinien – Stellenwert von generischem Rosuvastatin. Arzneimitteltherapie 2020; 38: 117-124
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Schade DS, Shey L, Eaton RP. Prescribing Statins to Reduce Cardiovascular Disease: 10 Common Misconceptions. Am J Med 2019; 132: 897-899
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Werdan K, Baldus S, Frey N. et al. Klug-entscheiden-Empfehlungen in der Kardiologie. Internist 2017; 58: 556-567
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Mach F, Baigent C, Catapano AL. et al. 2019 ESC/EAS Guidelines for the management of dyslipidaemias: lipid modification to reduce cardiovascular risk. Eur Heart J 2020; 41: 111-188
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Navarese EP, Robinson JG, Kowalewski M. et al. Association Between Baseline LDL-C Level and Total and Cardiovascular Mortality After LDL-C Lowering – A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA 2018; 319: 1566-1579
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Silverman MG, Ference BA, Im K. et al. Association between lowering LDL-C and cardiovascular risk reduction among different therapeutic interventions: a systematic review and meta-analysis. JAMA 2016; 316: 1289-1297
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Cholesterol Treatment Trialistsʼ (CTT) Collaboration. Herrington WG, Emberson J, Mihaylova B. et al. Impact of renal function on the effects of LDL-cholesterol lowering with statin-based regimens: A meta-analysis of individual participant data from 28 randomised trials. Lancet Diabetes Endocrinol 2016; 4: 829-839
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 21 Kjekshus J, Appetrei E, Barrios V. et al. Rosuvastatin in older patients with systolic heart failure. N Engl J Med 2007; 357: 2248-2261
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 22 Neumann A, Maura G, Weill A. et al. Clinical Events After Discontinuation of β-Blockers in Patients Without Heart Failure Optimally Treated After Acute Myocardial Infarction A Cohort Study on the French Healthcare Databases. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2018; 11: e004356
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 23 Cannon CP, Blazing MA, Giugliano RP. et al. Ezetimibe Added to Statin Therapy after Acute Coronary Syndrome. N Engl J Med 2015; 372: 2387-2397
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 24 Pandor A, Ara RM, Tumur I. et al. Ezetimibe monotherapy for cholesterol lowering in 2,722 people: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. J Intern Med 2009; 265: 568-580
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 25 Sabatine MS, Giugliano RP, Keech AC. et al. Evolocumab and Clinical Outcomes in Patients with Cardiovascular Disease. N Engl J Med 2017; 376: 1713-1722
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 26 Schwartz GG, Steg PG, Szarek M. et al. Alirocumab and Cardiovascular Outcomes after Acute Coronary Syndrome. N Engl J Med 2018; 379: 2097-2107
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 27 Lee WP, Datta BN, Ong BB. et al. Defining the Role of Lipoprotein Apheresis in the Management of Familial Hypercholesterolemia. Am J Cardiovasc Drugs 2011; 11: 363-370
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 28 Leebmann J, Roeseler E, Julius U. et al. Lipoprotein apheresis in patients with maximally tolerated lipid-lowering therapy, lipoprotein(a)-hyperlipoproteinemia, and progressive cardiovascular disease: Prospective observational multicenter study. Circulation 2013; 128: 2567-2576
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 29 Bangalore S, Makani H, Radford M. et al. Clinical outcomes with β-blockers for myocardial infarction: A meta-analysis of randomized trials. Am J Med 2014; 127: 939-953
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 30 Aarvik MD, Sandven I, Dondo TB. et al. Effect of oral beta-blocker treatment on mortality in contemporary post-myocardial infarction patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J Cardiovasc Pharmacother 2019; 5: 12-20
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 31 Tsujimoto T, Kajio H, Shapiro MF. et al. Risk of all-cause mortality in diabetic patients taking beta-blockers. Mayo Clin Proc 2018; 93: 409-418
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 32 Andersson C, Shilane D, Go AS. et al. β-blocker therapy and cardiac events among patients with newly diagnosed coronary heart disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2014; 64: 247-252
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 33 Bangalore S, Bhatt DL, Steg PG. et al. Beta-blockers and cardiovascular events in patients with and without myocardial infarction: post hoc analysis from the CHARISMA trial. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2014; 7: 872-881
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 34 Hwang D, Lee JM, Kim HK. et al. Prognostic impact of beta-blocker dose after acute myocardial infarction. Circ J 2019; 83: 410-417
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 35 Hong J, Barry AR. Long-term beta-blocker therapy, after myocardial infarction in the reperfusion era: a systematic review. Pharmacotherapy 2018; 38: 546-554
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 36 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). MI – Secondary prevention. Secondary prevention in primary and seondary care for patients following a myocardial infarction. Partial update of NICE CG48. Methods, evidence and recommendations; 2013. Im Internet (Stand: 11.05.2020): https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg172/evidence/myocardial-infarction-secondary-prevention-full-guideline-pdf-248682925
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 37 National Institute for Health and Care Excellence (NICE). Clinical guideline [CG126]. Stable angina: management; 2011. Last Update: August 2016. Im Internet (Stand: 11.05.2020): https://www.nice.org.uk/guidance/cg126
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 38 Dahai K, Hendrani A, Sharma SP. et al. Aldosterone Antagonist Therapy and Mortality in Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction Without Heart Failure: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis. JAMA Intern Med 2018; 178: 913-920
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 39 Belsey J, Savelieva I, Mugelli A. et al. Relative efficacy of antianginal drugs used as add-on therapy in patients with stable angina: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur J Prev Cardiol 2015; 22: 837-848
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 40 Pepine CJ, Handberg EM, Cooper-DeHoff RM. et al. A calcium antagonist vs. a non-calcium antagonist hypertension treatment strategy for patients with coronary artery disease. The international Verapamil-Trandolapril Study (INVEST): A randomized controlled trial. JAMA 2003; 290: 2805-2816
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 41 Heidenreich PA, McDonald KM, Hastie T. et al. Meta-analysis of trials comparing beta-blockers, calcium antagonists, and nitrates for stable angina. JAMA 1999; 281: 1927-1936
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 42 Ruzyllo W, Tendera M, Ford I. et al. Antianginal efficacy and safety of ivabradine compared with amlodipine in patients with stable effort angina pectoris: a 3-month randomised, double-blind, multicentre, noninferior trial. Drugs 2007; 67: 393-405
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 43 Tardif JC, Ford I, Tendera M. et al. Efficacy of ivabradine, a new selective I(f) inhibitor, compared with atenolol in patients with chronic stable angina. Eur Heart J 2005; 26: 2529-2536
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 44 Salazar CA, Basilio Flores JE, Veramendi Espinoza LE. et al. Ranolazine for stable angina pectoris. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2017; (02) CD011747
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 45 Werdan K, Perings S, Köster R. et al. Effectiveness of Ivabradine Treatment in Different Subpopulations with Stable Angina in Clinical Practice: A Pooled Analysis of Observational Studies. Cardiology 2016; 135: 141-150
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 46 Kwong JC, Schwartz KL, Campitelli MA. et al. Acute Myocardial Infarction after Laboratory-Confirmed Influenza Infection. N Engl J Med 2018; 378: 345-353
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 47 Figulla HR, Lauten A, Maier LS. et al. Perkutane Koronarintervention bei stabiler koronarer Herzkrankheit – Ist weniger mehr?. Dtsch Arztebl Int 2020; 117: 137-144
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 48 Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A. et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. The Task Force on myocardial revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS). Eur Heart J 2019; 40: 87-165
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 49 Yusuf S, Zucker D, Peduzzi P. et al. Effect of coronary artery bypass graft surgery on survival: overview of 10-year results from randomised trials by the Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Trialists Collaboration. Lancet 1994; 344: 563-570
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 50 Hueb W, Lopes N, Gersh BJ. et al. Ten-Year Follow-Up Survival of the Medicine, Angioplasty, or Surgery Study (MASS II) – A Randomized Controlled Clinical Trial of 3 Therapeutic Strategies for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease. Circulation 2010; 122: 949-957
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 51 Zhang Z, Jones P, Weintraub WS. et al. Predicting the Benefits of Percutaneous Intervention on 1-Year Angina and Quality of Life in Stable Ischemic Heart Disease: Risk Models from the COURAGE Trial (Clinical Outcomes Utilizing Revascularization and Aggressive Drug Evaluation). Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes 2018; 11: e003971
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 52 Fearon WF, Nishi T, De Bruyne B. et al. Clinical Outcomes and Cost-Effectiveness of Fractional Flow Reserve-Guided Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Patients With Stable Coronary Artery Disease. Three-Year Follow-Up of the FAME 2 Trial (Fractional Flow Reserve Versus Angiography for Multivessel Evaluation). Circulation 2018; 137: 480-487
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 53 Al-Lamee R, Howard JP, Shun-Shin MJ. et al. Fractional Flow Reserve and Instantenous Wave-Free Ratio as Predictors of the Placebo-Controlled Response to Percutaneous Coronary Intervention in Stable Single-Vessel Coronary Artery Disease. Physiology-Stratified Analysis of ORBITA. Circulation 2018; 138: 1780-1792
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 54 Spertus JA, Jones PG, Maron DJ. et al. Health-Status Outcomes with Invasive or Conservative Care in Coronary Disease. N Engl J Med 2020; 382: 1408-1419
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 55 Jeremias A, Kaul S, Rosengart TK. et al. The Impact of Revascularization on Mortality in Patients with Nonacute Coronary Artery Disease. Am J Med 2009; 122: 152-161
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 56 Velazquez EJ, Lee KL, Deja MA. et al. Coronary-Artery Bypass Surgery in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction. N Engl J Med 2011; 364: 1607-1616
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 57 Mancini GBJ, Farkouh ME, Brooks MM. et al. Medical Treatment and Revascularization Options in Patients With Type 2 Diabetes and Coronary Disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2016; 68: 985-995
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 58 BARI 2D Study Group. Frye RL, August P, Brooks MM. et al. A Randomized Trial of Therapies for Type 2 Diabetes and Coronary Artery Disease. N Engl J Med 2009; 360: 2503-2515
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 59 Farkouh ME, Boden WE, Sleeper LA. et al. Strategies for Multivessel Revascularization in Patients with Diabetes. N Engl J Med 2012; 367: 2375-2384
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 60 Doenst T, Bargenda S, Kirov H. et al. Cardiac Surgery 2018 reviewed. Clin Res Cardiol 2019; 108: 974-989
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 61 Doenst T, Haverich A, Serruys P. et al. PCI and CABG for Treating Stable Coronary Artery Disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019; 73: 964-976
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 62 Windecker S, Stortecky S, Stefanini GG. et al. Revascularization versus medical treatment in patients with stable coronary artery disease: Network meta-analysis. BMJ 2014; 348: g3859
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 63 Zimmermann FM, Omerovic E, Fournier S. et al. Fractional flow-reserve-guided percutaneous coronary intervention vs. medical therapy for patients with stable coronary lesions: meta-analysis of individual patient data. Eur Heart J 2019; 40: 180-186
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 64 Maron DJ, Hochman JS, Reynolds HR. et al. Initial Invasive or Conservative Strategy for Stable Coronary Disease. N Engl J Med 2020; 382: 1395-1407
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 65 AWMF. S3-Leitlinie zur kardiologischen Rehabilitation (LL-KardReha) im deutschsprachigen Raum Europas Deutschland, Österreich, Schweiz (D-A-CH), Langversion – Teil 1. Version 1.1 (07.01.2020). AWMF-Registernummer: 133-001. Im Internet (Stand: 11.05.2020): https://www.awmf.org/uploads/tx_szleitlinien/133-001l_S3-Kardiologische-Rehabilitation-in-D-A-CH_2020-04.pdf
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 66 Dewey M, Siebes M, Kachelrieß M. et al. Clinical quantitative cardiac imaging for the assessment of myocardial ischaemia. Nature Rev Cardiol 2020; DOI: 10.1038/s41569-020-0341-8.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 67 Genders TS, Steyerberg ES, Alkadhi H. et al. A clinical prediction rule for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease: validation, updating, and extension. Eur Heart J 2011; 32: 1316-1330
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 68 Diamond GA, Forrester JS. Analysis of probability as an aid in the clinical diagnosis of coronary-artery disease. N Engl J Med 1979; 300: 1350-1358
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 69 Sianos G, Morel MA, Kappetein AP. et al. The SYNTAX Score: An angiographic tool grading the complexity of coronary artery disease. EuroIntervention 2005; 1: 219-227
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 70 Arif R, Farag M, Gertner V. et al. Female gender and differences in outcome after isolated coronary artery bypass graft surgery: does age play a role?. PLoS One 2016; 3: e0145371
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 71 Filardo G, Hamman BL, Pollock BD. et al. Excess short-term mortality in women after isolated coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Open Heart 2016; 3: e000386
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 72 Sun LY, Gaudino M, Chen RJ. et al. Long-Term Outcomes in Patients With Severely Reduced Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction Undergoing Percutaneous Coronary Intervention vs. Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting. JAMA Cardiol 2020; DOI: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.0239.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 73 Rocha RV, Tam DY, Karkhanis R. et al. Long-term Outcomes Associated With Total Arterial Revascularization vs. Non-Total Arterial Revascularization. JAMA Cardiol 2020; DOI: 10.1001/jamacardio.2019.6104.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 74 Bundesärztekammer (BÄK); Kassenärztliche Bundesvereinigung (KBV), Arbeitsgemeinschaft der Wissenschaftlichen Medizinischen Fachgesellschaften (AWMF). Nationale VersorgungsLeitlinie Chronische Herzinsuffizienz – Langfassung, 3. Aufl. 2019 DOI: 10.6101/AZQ/000465
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 75 Bates ER. Antiplatelet Therapy in Patients with Coronary Disease and Type 2 Diabetes. N Engl J Med 2019; 381: 1373-1375
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 76 Van Belle E, Cosenza A, Baptista SB. et al. Usefulness of Routine Fractional Flow Reserve for Clinical Management of Coronary Artery Disease in Patients With Diabetes. JAMA Cardiol 2020; 5: 272-281
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 77 Bangalore S, Maron DJ, OʼBrien SM. et al. Management of Coronary Disease in Patients with Advanced Kidney Disease. N Engl J Med 2020; 382: 1608-1618
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 78 Spertus JA, Jones PG, Maron DJ. et al. Health Status after Invasive or Conservative Care in Coronary and Advanced Kidney Disease. N Engl J Med 2020; 382: 1408-1419
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 79 Gorenoi V, Schönermark MP, Hagen A. CT coronary angiography vs. invasive coronary angiography in CHD. GMS Health Technol Assess 2012; 8: Doc02
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 80 Mendirichaga R, Jacobs AK. Sex Differences in Ischemic Heart Disease – the Paradox Persists. JAMA Cardiol 2020; DOI: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.0819.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 81 Reynolds HR, Shaw LJ, Min JK. et al. Association of Sex With Severity of Coronary Artery Disease, Ischemia, and Symptom Burden in Patients With Moderate or Severe Ischemia – Secondary Analysis of the ISCHEMIA Randomized Clinical Trial. JAMA Cardiol 2020; DOI: 10.1001/jamacardio.2020.0822.
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 82 Fulcher J, OʼConnell R, Voysey M. et al. Efficacy and safety of LDL-lowering therapy among men and women: Meta-analysis of individual data from 174,000 participants in 27 randomised trials. Lancet 2015; 385: 1397-1405
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 83 Morice MC, Mikhail GW, Mauri i Ferré F. et al. SPIRIT Women, evaluation of the safety and efficacy of the XIENCE V everolimus-eluting stent system in female patients: referral time for coronary intervention and 2-year clinical outcomes. EuroIntervention 2012; 8: 325-335
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 84 Duvernoy CS, Smith DE, Manohar P. et al. Gender differences in adverse outcomes after contemporary percutaneous coronary intervention: an analysis from the Blue Cross Blue Shield of Michigan Cardiovascular Consortium (BMC2) percutaneous coronary intervention registry. Am Heart J 2010; 159: 677-683
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 85 Giustino G, Baber U, Salianski O. et al. Safety and efficacy of new-generation drug-eluting stents in woman at high risk for atherothrombosis: from the Women in Innovation and Drug-Eluting Stents collaborative patient-level pooled analysis. Circ Cardiovasc Interv 2016; 9: e00386
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 86 Thürmann PA. Medizinische Versorgung im Alter – welche Evidenz brauchen wir? Empfehlungen der Leopoldina. Drug Res 2019; 69: S12
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 87 Wehling M. Negativlisten und Positivlisten in der Pharmakotherapie älterer Patienten. Drug Res 2019; 69: S16
    Article in Thieme ConnectPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 88 Cholesterol Treatment Trialistʼs (CTT) Collaboration. Baigent C, Blackwell L, Emberson J. et al. Efficacy and safety of more intensive lowering of LDL cholesterol: A meta-analysis of data from 170,000 participants in 28 randomized trials. Lancet 2010; 376: 1670-1681
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 89 Cholesterol Treatment Trialistʼs Collaboration. Efficacy and safety of statin therapy in older people: a meta-analysis of individual participant data from 28 randomised controlled trials. Lancet 2019; 393: 407-415
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 90 Samaras K, Makkar SR, Crawford JD. et al. Effects of Statins on Memory, Cognition, and Brain Volume in the Elderly. J Am Coll Cardiol 2019; 74: 2554-2568
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 91 Giral P, Neumann A, Weill A. et al. Cardiovascular effect of discontinuing statins for primary prevention at the age of 75 years: a nationwide population-based cohort study in France. Eur Heart J 2019; 40: 3516-3525
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 92 Schlieper G. Kardiovaskuläre Diagnostik bei höhergradiger Niereninsuffizienz-welche Verfahren sind sinnvoll?. Internist 2020; 61: 349-356
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 93 Lopau K, Wanner C. Therapie der koronaren Herzkrankheit bei Niereninsuffizienz. Internist 2020; 61: 362-367
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar