HomeCirculationVol. 124, No. 232011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: Executive Summary Free AccessResearch ArticlePDF/EPUBAboutView PDFView EPUBSections ToolsAdd to favoritesDownload citationsTrack citationsPermissionsDownload Articles + Supplements ShareShare onFacebookTwitterLinked InMendeleyReddit Jump toSupplementary MaterialsFree AccessResearch ArticlePDF/EPUB2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: Executive SummaryA Report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines Writing Committee Members* L. David Hillis, MD, FACC, Peter K. Smith, MD, FACC, Jeffrey L. Anderson, MD, FACC, FAHA, John A. Bittl, MD, FACC, Charles R. Bridges, MD, SCD, FACC, FAHA, John G. Byrne, MD, FACC, Joaquin E. Cigarroa, MD, FACC, Verdi J. DiSesa, MD, FACC, Loren F. Hiratzka, MD, FACC, FAHA, Adolph M. HutterJr, MD, MACC, FAHA, Michael E. Jessen, MD, FACC, Ellen C. Keeley, MD, MS, Stephen J. Lahey, MD, Richard A. Lange, MD, FACC, FAHA, Martin J. London, MD, Michael J. Mack, MD, FACC, Manesh R. Patel, MD, FACC, John D. Puskas, MD, FACC, Joseph F. Sabik, MD, FACC, Ola Selnes, PhD, David M. Shahian, MD, FACC, FAHA, Jeffrey C. Trost, MD, FACC and Michael D. Winniford, MD, FACC Writing Committee Members* , L. David HillisL. David Hillis , Peter K. SmithPeter K. Smith Appendix 1 , Jeffrey L. AndersonJeffrey L. Anderson Appendix 1 , John A. BittlJohn A. Bittl , Charles R. BridgesCharles R. Bridges Appendix 1 , John G. ByrneJohn G. Byrne , Joaquin E. CigarroaJoaquin E. Cigarroa , Verdi J. DiSesaVerdi J. DiSesa , Loren F. HiratzkaLoren F. Hiratzka , Adolph M. HutterJrAdolph M. HutterJr , Michael E. JessenMichael E. Jessen Appendix 1 , Ellen C. KeeleyEllen C. Keeley , Stephen J. LaheyStephen J. Lahey , Richard A. LangeRichard A. Lange , Martin J. LondonMartin J. London , Michael J. MackMichael J. Mack Appendix 1 , Manesh R. PatelManesh R. Patel , John D. PuskasJohn D. Puskas Appendix 1 , Joseph F. SabikJoseph F. Sabik Appendix 1 , Ola SelnesOla Selnes , David M. ShahianDavid M. Shahian , Jeffrey C. TrostJeffrey C. Trost Appendix 1 and Michael D. WinnifordMichael D. Winniford Originally published7 Nov 2011https://doi.org/10.1161/CIR.0b013e31823b5feeCirculation. 2011;124:2610–2642is corrected byCorrectionCorrectionOther version(s) of this articleYou are viewing the most recent version of this article. Previous versions: January 1, 2011: Previous Version 1 Table of ContentsPreamble. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2611 Introduction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2613 1.1. Methodology and Evidence Review. . . . . . .26131.2. Organization of the Writing Committee. . . .26141.3. Document Review and Approval. . . . . . . . .2614Procedural Considerations: Recommendations. . . .2614 2.1. Anesthetic Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . .26142.2. Bypass Graft Conduit. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26142.3. Intraoperative Transesophageal Echocardiography. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26152.4. Preconditioning/Management of Myocardial Ischemia. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26152.5. Clinical Subsets. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2615 2.5.1. CABG in Patients With Acute Myocardial Infarction. . . . . . . . . . . . .26152.5.2. Life-Threatening Ventricular Arrhythmias. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26162.5.3. Emergency CABG After Failed PCI. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26162.5.4. CABG in Association With Other Cardiac Procedures. . . . . . . . . . . . . .2616CAD Revascularization: Recommendations. . . . . .2616 3.1. Heart Team Approach to Revascularization Decisions. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26183.2. Revascularization to Improve Survival. . . . .26183.3. Revascularization to Improve Symptoms. . .26193.4. Clinical Factors That May Influence the Choice of Revascularization. . . . . . . . . . . . .2620 3.4.1. Dual Antiplatelet Therapy Compliance and Stent Thrombosis. . . . . . . . . . . .26203.5. Hybrid Coronary Revascularization. . . . . . .2620Perioperative Management: Recommendations. . . .2620 4.1. Preoperative Antiplatelet Therapy. . . . . . . . .26204.2. Postoperative Antiplatelet Therapy. . . . . . .26204.3. Management of Hyperlipidemia. . . . . . . . . .26204.4. Hormonal Manipulation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26214.5. Perioperative Beta Blockers. . . . . . . . . . . . .26214.6. Angiotensin-Converting Enzyme Inhibitors and Angiotensin-Receptor Blockers. . . . . . . . . .26214.7. Smoking Cessation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26214.8. Emotional Dysfunction and Psychosocial Considerations. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26214.9. Cardiac Rehabilitation. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26214.10. Perioperative Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2622 4.10.1. Electrocardiographic Monitoring. . .26224.10.2. Pulmonary Artery Catheterization. .26224.10.3. Central Nervous System Monitoring. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2622CABG-Associated Morbidity and Mortality: Occurrence and Prevention: Recommendations. . .2622 5.1. Public Reporting of Cardiac Surgery Outcomes. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2622 5.1.1. Use of Outcomes or Volume as CABG Quality Measures. . . . . . . . . . .26225.2. Use of Epiaortic Ultrasound Imaging to Reduce Stroke Rates. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26225.3. The Role of Preoperative Carotid Artery Noninvasive Screening in CABG Patients. . .26225.4. Mediastinitis/Perioperative Infection. . . . . . . .26235.5. Renal Dysfunction. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26235.6. Perioperative Myocardial Dysfunction. . . . . .2623 5.6.1. Transfusion. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26235.7. Perioperative Dysrhythmias. . . . . . . . . . . . . .26235.8. Perioperative Bleeding/Transfusion. . . . . . . . .2624Specific Patient Subsets: Recommendations. . . . . .2624 6.1. Anomalous Coronary Arteries. . . . . . . . . . . .26246.2. Patients With Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease/Respiratory Insufficiency. . . . . . . . .26246.3. Patients With End-Stage Renal Disease on Dialysis. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26246.4. Patients With Concomitant Valvular Disease. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .26246.5. Patients With Previous Cardiac Surgery. . . .2625References. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .2625Appendix 1. Author Relationships With Industry and Other Entities (Relevant). . . . . . . . . . . .2637Appendix 2. Reviewer Relationships With Industry and Other Entities (Relevant). . . . . . . . .2640Jacobs Alice K., MD, FACC, FAHAPreambleThe medical profession should play a central role in evaluating the evidence related to drugs, devices, and procedures for the detection, management, and prevention of disease. When properly applied, expert analysis of available data on the benefits and risks of these therapies and procedures can improve the quality of care, optimize patient outcomes, and favorably affect costs by focusing resources on the most effective strategies. An organized and directed approach to a thorough review of evidence has resulted in the production of clinical practice guidelines that assist physicians in selecting the best management strategy for an individual patient. Moreover, clinical practice guidelines can provide a foundation for other applications, such as performance measures, appropriate use criteria, and both quality improvement and clinical decision support tools.The American College of Cardiology Foundation (ACCF) and the American Heart Association (AHA) have jointly produced guidelines in the area of cardiovascular disease since 1980. The ACCF/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Task Force), charged with developing, updating, and revising practice guidelines for cardiovascular diseases and procedures, directs and oversees this effort. Writing committees are charged with regularly reviewing and evaluating all available evidence to develop balanced, patient-centric recommendations for clinical practice.Experts in the subject under consideration are selected by the ACCF and AHA to examine subject-specific data and write guidelines in partnership with representatives from other medical organizations and specialty groups. Writing committees are asked to perform a formal literature review; weigh the strength of evidence for or against particular tests, treatments, or procedures; and include estimates of expected outcomes where such data exist. Patient-specific modifiers, comorbidities, and issues of patient preference that may influence the choice of tests or therapies are considered. When available, information from studies on cost is considered, but data on efficacy and outcomes constitute the primary basis for the recommendations contained herein.In analyzing the data and developing recommendations and supporting text, the writing committee uses evidence-based methodologies developed by the Task Force.1 The Class of Recommendation (COR) is an estimate of the size of the treatment effect considering risks versus benefits in addition to evidence and/or agreement that a given treatment or procedure is or is not useful/effective or in some situations may cause harm. The Level of Evidence (LOE) is an estimate of the certainty or precision of the treatment effect. The writing committee reviews and ranks evidence supporting each recommendation with the weight of evidence ranked as LOE A, B, or C according to specific definitions that are included in Table 1. Studies are identified as observational, retrospective, prospective, or randomized where appropriate. For certain conditions for which inadequate data are available, recommendations are based on expert consensus and clinical experience and are ranked as LOE C. When recommendations at LOE C are supported by historical clinical data, appropriate references (including clinical reviews) are cited if available. For issues for which sparse data are available, a survey of current practice among the clinicians on the writing committee is the basis for LOE C recommendations, and no references are cited. The schema for COR and LOE is summarized in Table 1, which also provides suggested phrases for writing recommendations within each COR. A new addition to this methodology is separation of the Class III recommendations to delineate if the recommendation is determined to be of “no benefit” or is associated with “harm” to the patient. In addition, in view of the increasing number of comparative effectiveness studies, comparator verbs and suggested phrases for writing recommendations for the comparative effectiveness of one treatment or strategy versus another have been added for COR I and IIa, LOE A or B only.Table 1. Applying Classification of Recommendations and Level of EvidenceTable 1. Applying Classification of Recommendations and Level of EvidenceA recommendation with Level of Evidence B or C does not imply that the recommendation is weak. Many important clinical questions addressed in the guidelines do not lend themselves to clinical trials.Although randomized trials are unavailable, there may be a very clear clinical consensus that a particular test or therapy is useful or effective.*Data available from clinical trials or registries about the usefulness/efficacy in different subpopulations, such as sex, age, history of diabetes, history of prior myocardial infarction, history of heart failure, and prior aspirin use.†For comparative effectiveness recommendations (Class I and IIa; Level of Evidence A and B only), studies that support the use of comparator verbs should involve direct comparisons of the treatments or strategies being evaluated.In view of the advances in medical therapy across the spectrum of cardiovascular diseases, the Task Force has designated the term guideline–directed medical therapy (GDMT) to represent optimal medical therapy as defined by ACCF/AHA guideline–recommended therapies (primarily Class I). This new term, GDMT, will be used herein and throughout all future guidelines.Because the ACCF/AHA practice guidelines address patient populations (and healthcare providers) residing in North America, drugs that are not currently available in North America are discussed in the text without a specific COR. For studies performed in large numbers of subjects outside North America, each writing committee reviews the potential influence of different practice patterns and patient populations on the treatment effect and relevance to the ACCF/AHA target population to determine whether the findings should inform a specific recommendation.The ACCF/AHA practice guidelines are intended to assist healthcare providers in clinical decision making by describing a range of generally acceptable approaches to the diagnosis, management, and prevention of specific diseases or conditions. The guidelines attempt to define practices that meet the needs of most patients in most circumstances. The ultimate judgment regarding the care of a particular patient must be made by the healthcare provider and patient in light of all the circumstances presented by that patient. As a result, situations may arise for which deviations from these guidelines may be appropriate. Clinical decision making should involve consideration of the quality and availability of expertise in the area where care is provided. When these guidelines are used as the basis for regulatory or payer decisions, the goal should be improvement in quality of care. The Task Force recognizes that situations arise in which additional data are needed to inform patient care more effectively; these areas will be identified within each respective guideline when appropriate.Prescribed courses of treatment in accordance with these recommendations are effective only if followed. Because lack of patient understanding and adherence may adversely affect outcomes, physicians and other healthcare providers should make every effort to engage the patient's active participation in prescribed medical regimens and lifestyles. In addition, patients should be informed of the risks, benefits, and alternatives to a particular treatment and be involved in shared decision making whenever feasible, particularly for COR IIa and IIb, where the benefit-to-risk ratio may be lower.The Task Force makes every effort to avoid actual, potential, or perceived conflicts of interest that may arise as a result of industry relationships or personal interests among the members of the writing committee. All writing committee members and peer reviewers of the guideline are required to disclose all such current relationships, as well as those existing 12 months previously. In December 2009, the ACCF and AHA implemented a new policy for relationships with industry and other entities (RWI) that requires the writing committee chair plus a minimum of 50% of the writing committee to have no relevant RWI (Appendix 1 for the ACCF/AHA definition of relevance). These statements are reviewed by the Task Force and all members during each conference call and meeting of the writing committee and are updated as changes occur. All guideline recommendations require a confidential vote by the writing committee and must be approved by a consensus of the voting members. Members are not permitted to write, and must rescue themselves from voting on, any recommendation or section to which their RWI apply. Members who recused themselves from voting are indicated in the list of writing committee members, and section recusals are noted in Appendix 1. Authors' and peer reviewers' RWI pertinent to this guideline are disclosed in Appendixes 1 and 2, respectively. Additionally, to ensure complete transparency, writing committee members' comprehensive disclosure information—including RWI not pertinent to this document—is available as an online supplement. Comprehensive disclosure information for the Task Force is also available online at www.cardiosource.org/ACC/About-ACC/Leadership/Guidelines-and-Documents-Task-Forces.aspx. The work of the writing committee was supported exclusively by the ACCF and AHA without commercial support. Writing committee members volunteered their time for this activity.In an effort to maintain relevance at the point of care for practicing physicians, the Task Force continues to oversee an ongoing process improvement initiative. As a result, in response to pilot projects, evidence tables (with references linked to abstracts in PubMed) have been added.In April 2011, the Institute of Medicine released 2 reports: Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews and Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust.2,3 It is noteworthy that the ACCF/AHA guidelines are cited as being compliant with many of the proposed standards. A thorough review of these reports and of our current methodology is under way, with further enhancements anticipated.The recommendations in this guideline are considered current until they are superseded by a focused update or the full-text guideline is revised. Guidelines are official policy of both the ACCF and AHA.1. Introduction1.1. Methodology and Evidence ReviewWhenever possible, the recommendations listed in this document are evidence based. Articles reviewed in this guideline revision covered evidence from the past 10 years through January 2011, as well as selected other references through April 2011. Searches were limited to studies, reviews, and evidence conducted in human subjects that were published in English. Key search words included but were not limited to: analgesia, anastomotic techniques, antiplatelet agents, automated proximal clampless anastomosis device, asymptomatic ischemia, Cardica C-port, cost effectiveness, depressed left ventricular (LV) function, distal anastomotic techniques, direct proximal anastomosis on aorta, distal anastomotic devices, emergency coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) and ST-elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI), heart failure, interrupted sutures, LV systolic dysfunction, magnetic connectors, PAS-Port automated proximal clampless anastomotic device, patency, proximal connectors, renal disease, sequential anastomosis, sternotomy, symmetry connector, symptomatic ischemia, proximal connectors, sequential anastomosis, T grafts, thoracotomy, U-clips, Ventrica Magnetic Vascular Port system, Y grafts. Additionally, the committee reviewed documents related to the subject matter previously published by the ACCF and AHA. References selected and published in this document are representative but not all-inclusive.The guideline is focused on the safe, appropriate, and efficacious performance of CABG. The STEMI, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), and CABG guidelines were written concurrently, with additional collaboration from the Stable Ischemic Heart Disease (SIHD) guideline writing committee. This allowed greater collaboration among the different writing committees on topics such as PCI in STEMI and revascularization strategies in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) (including unprotected left main PCI, multivessel disease revascularization, and hybrid procedures).In accordance with the direction of the Task Force and feedback from readers, in this iteration of the guideline, the amount of text has been shortened, and emphasis has been placed on summary statements rather than detailed discussion of numerous individual trials. Online supplemental evidence and summary tables have been created to document the studies and data considered for new or changed guideline recommendations.Because the executive summary contains only the recommendations, the reader is encouraged to consult the full-text guideline4 for additional detail on the recommendations and guidance on the care of the patient undergoing CABG.1.2. Organization of the Writing CommitteeThe committee was composed of acknowledged experts in CABG, interventional cardiology, general cardiology, and cardiovascular anesthesiology. The committee included representatives from the ACCF, AHA, American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS).1.3. Document Review and ApprovalThis document was reviewed by 2 official reviewers, each nominated by both the ACCF and the AHA, as well as 1 reviewer each from the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, and STS, as well as members from the ACCF/AHA Task Force on Data Standards, ACCF/AHA Task Force on Performance Measures, ACCF Surgeons' Scientific Council, ACCF Interventional Scientific Council, and Southern Thoracic Surgical Association. All information on reviewers' RWIs was distributed to the writing committee and is published in this document (Appendix 2). This document was approved for publication by the governing bodies of the ACCF and the AHA and endorsed by the American Association for Thoracic Surgery, Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, and STS.2. Procedural Considerations: Recommendations2.1. Anesthetic ConsiderationsClass IAnesthetic management directed toward early postoperative extubation and accelerated recovery of low- to medium-risk patients undergoing uncomplicated CABG is recommended.5–7(Level of Evidence: B)Multidisciplinary efforts are indicated to ensure an optimal level of analgesia and patient comfort throughout the perioperative period.8–12(Level of Evidence: B)Efforts are recommended to improve interdisciplinary communication and patient safety in the perioperative environment (eg, formalized checklist-guided multidisciplinary communication).13–16(Level of Evidence: B)A fellowship-trained cardiac anesthesiologist (or experienced board-certified practitioner) credentialed in the use of perioperative transesophageal echocardiography is recommended to provide or supervise anesthetic care of patients who are considered to be at high risk.17–19(Level of Evidence: C)Class IIaVolatile anesthestic-based regimens can be useful in facilitating early extubation and reducing patient recall.6,20–22(Level of Evidence: A)Class IIbThe effectiveness of high thoracic epidural anesthesia/analgesia for routine analgesic use is uncertain.23–26(Level of Evidence: B)Class III: HARMCyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors are not recommended for pain relief in the postoperative period after CABG.27,28(Level of Evidence: B)Routine use of early extubation strategies in facilities with limited backup for airway emergencies or advanced respiratory support is potentially harmful. (Level of Evidence: C)2.2. Bypass Graft ConduitClass IIf possible, the left internal mammary artery (LIMA) should be used to bypass the left anterior descending (LAD) artery when bypass of the LAD artery is indicated.29–32(Level of Evidence: B)Class IIaThe right internal mammary artery is probably indicated to bypass the LAD artery when the LIMA is unavailable or unsuitable as a bypass conduit. (Level of Evidence: C)When anatomically and clinically suitable, use of a second internal mammary artery to graft the left circumflex or right coronary artery (when critically stenosed and perfusing LV myocardium) is reasonable to improve the likelihood of survival and to decrease reintervention.33–37(Level of Evidence: B)Class IIbComplete arterial revascularization may be reasonable in patients less than or equal to 60 years of age with few or no comorbidities. (Level of Evidence: C)Arterial grafting of the right coronary artery may be reasonable when a critical (≥90%) stenosis is present.32,36,38(Level of Evidence: B)Use of a radial artery graft may be reasonable when grafting left-sided coronary arteries with severe stenoses (>70%) and right-sided arteries with critical stenoses (≥90%) that perfuse LV myocardium.39–44(Level of Evidence: B)Class III: HARMAn arterial graft should not be used to bypass the right coronary artery with less than a critical stenosis (<90%).32(Level of Evidence: C)2.3. Intraoperative Transesophageal EchocardiographyClass IIntraoperative transesophageal echocardiography should be performed for evaluation of acute, persistent, and life-threatening hemodynamic disturbances that have not responded to treatment.45,46(Level of Evidence: B)Intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography should be performed in patients undergoing concomitant valvular surgery.45,47(Level of Evidence: B)Class IIaIntraoperative transesophageal echocardiography is reasonable for monitoring of hemodynamic status, ventricular function, regional wall motion, and valvular function in patients undergoing CABG.46,48–53(Level of Evidence: B)2.4. Preconditioning/Management of Myocardial IschemiaClass IManagement targeted at optimizing the determinants of coronary arterial perfusion (eg, heart rate, diastolic or mean arterial pressure, and right ventricular or LV end-diastolic pressure) is recommended to reduce the risk of perioperative myocardial ischemia and infarction.54–58(Level of Evidence: B)Class IIaVolatile-based anesthesia can be useful in reducing the risk of perioperative myocardial ischemia and infarction.59–62(Level of Evidence: A)Class IIbThe effectiveness of prophylactic pharmacological therapies or controlled reperfusion strategies aimed at inducing preconditioning or attenuating the adverse consequences of myocardial reperfusion injury or surgically induced systemic inflammation is uncertain.63–70(Level of Evidence: A)Mechanical preconditioning might be considered to reduce the risk of perioperative myocardial ischemia and infarction in patients undergoing off-pump CABG.71–73(Level of Evidence: B)Remote ischemic preconditioning strategies using peripheral-extremity occlusion/reperfusion might be considered to attenuate the adverse consequences of myocardial reperfusion injury.74–76(Level of Evidence: B)The effectiveness of postconditioning strategies to attenuate the adverse consequences of myocardial reperfusion injury is uncertain.77,78(Level of Evidence: C)2.5. Clinical Subsets2.5.1. CABG in Patients With Acute Myocardial InfarctionClass IEmergency CABG is recommended in patients with acute myocardial infarction (MI) in whom 1) primary PCI has failed or cannot be performed, 2) coronary anatomy is suitable for CABG, and 3) persistent ischemia of a significant area of myocardium at rest and/or hemodynamic instability refractory to nonsurgical therapy is present.79–83(Level of Evidence: B)Emergency CABG is recommended in patients undergoing surgical repair of a postinfarction mechanical complication of MI, such as ventricular septal rupture, mitral valve insufficiency because of papillary muscle infarction and/or rupture, or free wall rupture.84–88(Level of Evidence: B)Emergency CABG is recommended in patients with cardiogenic shock and who are suitable for CABG irrespective of the time interval from MI to onset of shock and time from MI to CABG.82,89–91(Level of Evidence: B)Emergency CABG is recommended in patients with life-threatening ventricular arrhythmias (believed to be ischemic in origin) in the presence of left main stenosis greater than or equal to 50% and/or 3-vessel CAD.92(Level of Evidence: C)Class IIaThe use of CABG is reasonable as a revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel CAD with recurrent angina or MI within the first 48 hours of STEMI presentation as an alternative to a more delayed strategy.79,81,83,93(Level of Evidence: B)Early revascularization with PCI or CABG is reasonable for selected patients greater than 75 years of age with ST-segment elevation or left bundle branch block who are suitable for revascularization irrespective of the time interval from MI to onset of shock.94–98(Level of Evidence: B)Class III: HARMEmergency CABG should not be performed in patients with persistent angina and a small area of viable myocardium who are stable hemodynamically. (Level of Evidence: C)Emergency CABG should not be performed in patients with noreflow (successful epicardial reperfusion with unsuccessful microvascular reperfusion). (Level of Evidence: C)2.5.2. Life-Threatening Ventricular ArrhythmiasClass ICABG is recommended in patients with resuscitated sudden cardiac death or sustained ventricular tachycardia thought to be caused by significant CAD (≥50% stenosis of left main coronary artery and/or ≥70% stenosis of 1, 2, or all 3 epicardial coronary arteries) and resultant myocardial ischemia.92,99,100(Level of Evidence: B)Class III: HARMCABG should not be performed in patients with ventricular tachycardia with scar and no evidence of ischemia. (Level of Evidence: C)2.5.3. Emergency CABG After Failed PCIClass IEmergency CABG is recommended after failed PCI in the presence of ongoing ischemia or threatened occlusion with substantial myocardium at risk.101,102(Level of Evidence: B)Emergency CABG is recommended after failed PCI for hemodynamic compromise in patients without impairment of the coagulation system and without a previous sternotomy.101,103,104(Level of Evidence: B)Class IIaEmergency CABG is reasonable after failed PCI for retrieval of a foreign body (most likely a fractured guidewire or stent) in a crucial anatomic location. (Level of Evidence: C)Emergency CABG can be beneficial after failed PCI for hemodynamic compromise in patients with impairment of the coagulation system and without previous sternotomy. (Level of Evidence: C)Class IIbEmergency CABG might be considered after failed PCI for hemodynamic compromise in patients with previous sternotomy. (Level of Evidence: C)Class III: HARMEmergency CABG should not be performed after failed PCI in the absence of ischemia or threatened occlusion. (Level of Evidence: C)Emergency CABG should not be performed after failed PCI if revascularization is impossible because of target anatomy or a no-reflow state. (Level
