Home > Journals > Minerva Cardioangiologica > Past Issues > Minerva Cardioangiologica 2008 October;56(5) > Minerva Cardioangiologica 2008 October;56(5):493-510





A Journal on Heart and Vascular Diseases

Official Journal of the Italian Society of Angiology and Vascular Pathology
Indexed/Abstracted in: EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 0,695




Minerva Cardioangiologica 2008 October;56(5):493-510


language: English

Multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention: a review of the literature and fallacies in its interpretation

Mylotte D., Byrne R. A., Iijima R., Kastrati A.

Deutsches Herzzentrum, Technische Universität Munich, Germany


Since its inception in the 1960s, coronary revascularization has established itself as a fundamental therapy for treating the acute and chronic manifestations of atherosclerotic coronary disease. Catheter-based techniques were realized in the late 1970s and have evolved from balloon dilatation of simple, discrete stenoses to complex, multivessel interventions across the spectrum of coronary disease presentations. In retrospect, there were two defining technological developments – the introduction of coronary stenting which enabled more stable acute outcomes and the evolution of drug-eluting stents which ameliorated the effect of neointimal hyperplasia – the dominant cause of delayed loss of efficacy. The role of catheter-based intervention in multivessel disease is well established in the treatment of ST-elevation myocardial infarction and acute coronary syndromes. On the contrary, in the arena of in stable coronary disease, its utility is keenly debated. The pace of development in cardiovascular pharmacology has rendered early investigation of best treatment strategies largely obsolete, while newer revascularization techniques have successfully extended the remit of catheter-based multivessel intervention strategies to include left main stem disease, bifurcation stenosis and chronic occlusions. Consequently complete revascularization is now available via a percutaneous approach and conventional beliefs relating to choice of revascularization strategy deserve re-assessment. The authors present a contemporary review of the literature and a challenge against fallacies in its interpretation.

top of page

Publication History

Cite this article as

Corresponding author e-mail