EJCTS Click here for details of sales representative
HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced]


     

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Personal Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Author home page(s):
Pierre Voisine
Patrick Mathieu
Daniel Doyle
Jean Perron
Richard Baillot
Gilles Raymond
Jacques Métras
François Dagenais
Right arrow Permission Requests
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Voisine, P.
Right arrow Articles by Dagenais, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Voisine, P.
Right arrow Articles by Dagenais, F.
Related Collections
Right arrow Coronary disease
Right arrow Myocardial infarction

Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2006;29:319-323
© 2006 Elsevier Science NL

Influence of time elapsed between myocardial infarction and coronary artery bypass grafting surgery on operative mortality

Pierre Voisine * , Patrick Mathieu, Daniel Doyle, Jean Perron, Richard Baillot, Gilles Raymond, Jacques Métras, François Dagenais

Division of Cardiac Surgery, Laval Hospital, 2725 chemin Sainte-Foy, Sainte-Foy, Que., Canada G1V 4G5

Received 2 December 2005; accepted 16 December 2005.

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +1 418 656 4717; fax: +1 418 656 4707. (Email: pierre.voisine{at}chg.ulaval.ca).


   Abstract
Top
 Abstract
1. Introduction
 2. Materials and methods
 3. Results
 4. Discussion
 Appendix A
 References
 
Objective: Optimal timing for CABG surgery after myocardial infarction (MI) remains controversial. We examined the influence of patient age and time elapsed between MI and isolated CABG surgery on operative mortality. Methods: Perioperative data of 13,545 patients who underwent isolated CABG surgery from 1991 to 2005 were reviewed. A previous MI was found in 7219 patients, classified among groups A–E whether they underwent surgery less than 6 h (A, n = 26), between 6 and 24 h (B, n = 51), between 1 and 7 days (C, n = 313), between 8 and 30 days (D, n = 917), or more than 30 days (E, n = 5912) after the event. Crude percentages and odds ratio estimates of operative mortality were calculated. Results: In patients who had no history of MI, the mortality rate was 1.7%, while it was, respectively, 19.2, 9.8, 8.6, 3.2, and 2.4% in patients from groups A to E. Among 6589 patients over 65 years of age, 3027 had no history of MI. Their mortality was 2.4%, compared to, respectively, 35.7, 13.8, 11.3, 5.1, and 3.9% for those belonging to groups A–E. Overall odds ratio estimates of operative mortality were 3.92 (p = 0.19), 5.08 (p = 0.002), 4.33 (p = 0.0001), 1.50 (p = 0.08), and 1.18 (p = 0.24) for groups A–E, respectively. Conclusions: Operative mortality is not influenced by a history of MI sustained more than 30 days prior to isolated CABG surgery, but is highly and most significantly increased between 6 h and 1 week after MI, especially in older patients. That critical period should be avoided whenever possible.

Key Words: Myocardial infarction • Coronary artery bypass grafting • Interval • Mortality


   1. Introduction
Top
 Abstract
 1. Introduction
2. Materials and methods
 3. Results
 4. Discussion
 Appendix A
 References
 
With the findings of a recently published meta-analysis [1] including 23 randomized trials comparing primary coronary interventions (PCI) with thrombolysis that showed absolute reductions of 2% in mortality, 4% in non-fatal infarctions and 1% in strokes, cardiologists are sending more and more patients to the catheterization facility in the context of acute myocardial infarction (MI). This approach in turn identifies an increasing number of patients in the peri-infarction period who are candidates for surgical revascularization when PCI is not technically feasible or fails, or when the extent of their coronary artery disease (multivessel and/or left main disease, residual critical stenoses) warrants a surgical procedure. Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery following MI has been associated with conflicting levels of risk, with mortality ranging between 5 and 30% historically [2]. Advocates of aggressive early surgical approaches [3,4] and proponents of safety waiting periods varying between 3 and 7 days before the intervention in such settings [5,6] have supported their suggested strategy with convincing data. Considering the increasing percentage of elderly patients in our surgical clientele and the impact of more frequent PCI for MI, we examined the influence of patient age and time elapsed between MI and CABG surgery on operative mortality in the contemporary experience of a high-volume single institution.


   2. Materials and methods
Top
 Abstract
 1. Introduction
 2. Materials and methods
3. Results
 4. Discussion
 Appendix A
 References
 
2.1 Patients
Perioperative data of 13,545 consecutive patients undergoing first-operation isolated CABG surgery at Laval hospital between 1991 and 2005 were reviewed. All information regarding patients’ demographic data, medical history, operative procedures, and outcome was gathered prospectively in a data bank and analyzed retrospectively. The diagnosis of MI was based on clinical criteria including electrocardiographic evidence and characteristic elevation of serum myocardial enzymes, and no distinction was made between the transmural and subendocardial extent of the lesions. Perioperative mortality was defined as in-hospital death or death after discharge but prior to 30 days after surgery.

A previous MI was found in 7219 patients, classified among groups A–E whether they underwent surgery less than 6 h (group A, n = 26), between 6 and 24 h (group B, n = 51), between 1 and 7 days (group C, n = 313), between 8 and 30 days (group D, n = 917), or more than 30 days (group E, n = 5912) after the event. Among these 7219 patients, 3567 were less than 65 years of age while 3652 were older than 65 years. These patients were, respectively, classified in a similar manner, as follows: patients <65 years: group A, n = 12; group B, n = 22; group C, n = 145; group D, n = 424; and group E, n = 3054. Patients ≥65 years: group A, n = 14; group B, n = 29; group C, n = 168; group D, n = 493; and group E, n = 2858.Groups of patients with no history of MI were used as controls (all ages, n = 6326; patients <65 years, n = 3299; patients ≥65 years, n = 3027).

2.2 Data analysis
Data were expressed using mean ± standard deviation for continuous variable or as percentage for categorical data. Univariate comparisons between continuous variables were made with the Student's t-test, while the Fisher exact test and chi-square test were used for discrete data. Variables with a p-value of less than 0.25 were entered into a stepwise logistic regression model for multivariate analysis. Significance was assumed if p-value was <0.05 and odds ratios are presented with 95% confidence intervals. Data were analyzed using the statistical package program SAS v8.2 (SAS Institute Inc., Cary, NC, USA).


   3. Results
Top
 Abstract
 1. Introduction
 2. Materials and methods
 3. Results
4. Discussion
 Appendix A
 References
 
A total of 13,545 patients underwent first-operation isolated coronary artery bypass grafting surgery at our institution during the study period. Overall operative mortality was 2.3% (318 patients). Among 7219 patients with a history of prior MI, perioperative mortality was 2.9% (210 patients), compared with 1.7% (108 patients) from the remaining 6326 patients (p < 0.001).

Results of multivariate analysis of risk factors of perioperative mortality in patients with a history of MI are shown in Table 1 . Apart from classical risk factors appearing in the upper third of the table, further descriptions of the effects of age as well as time elapsed between MI and surgery are presented. As shown in Fig. 1 , perioperative mortality was, respectively, 19.2% (5/26), 9.8% (5/51), 8.6% (27/313), 3.2% (29/917), and 2.4% (144/5912) for patients from groups A to E. Significant differences compared to the control group of patients with no history of MI were found in all groups except group E, where surgery was performed more than 30 days after the event, and group A where clinically important odds ratio of 3.92 did not reach statistical significance because of a limited number of patients.


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 1. Multivariate analysis of risk factors for patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting surgery following a myocardial infarct
 

Figure 1
View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 1. Perioperative mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) according to timing of intervention, for the entire study population.

 
Analysis of patients’ age at the time of surgery reveals a different pattern of influence of the time elapsed between MI and surgery on perioperative mortality, which is significantly increased in patients over 65 years. In fact, a little more than half of the patients of the cohort were under 65 years of age (6956 patients), while 6589 patients were 65 years or older. In the latter group of patients, overall operative mortality was 3.6% (237/6589), significantly higher in patients who had suffered a prior MI (4.6%; 165/3652) than those who had not (2.4%; 72/3027, p < 0.001). Contrastingly, in the former group or younger patients, overall mortality was 1.2% (81/6956) and was not affected by a history of prior MI (perioperative mortality 1.2% (45/3657) vs 1.1% (36/3299) in patients with no MI history). The results of multivariate analysis of risk factors of perioperative mortality for those subgroups of patients are displayed in Table 2 . Significant risk factors in patients of 65 years or more included a previous stroke, renal failure, peripheral vascular disease, and advanced CCS angina class (Table 2A). In that group, perioperative mortality decreased as time elapsed between MI and surgery increased, as further illustrated in Fig. 2 . In patients under 65 years of age (Table 2B), risk factors of perioperative mortality after a MI were a left ventricular ejection fraction lower than 40%, chronic pulmonary obstructive disease and renal failure. The only time frame after MI where operative mortality was significantly increased in that group was between 1 and 7 days (Fig. 3 ).


View this table:
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Table 2. Multivariate analysis of risk factors for perioperative mortality according to age of the patients at the time of intervention
 

Figure 2
View larger version (18K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 2. Perioperative mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) according to timing of intervention, for patients over 65 years of age.

 

Figure 3
View larger version (17K):
[in this window]
[in a new window]
  		Fig. 3. Perioperative mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) following acute myocardial infarction (AMI) according to timing of intervention, for patients under 65 years.

 

   4. Discussion
Top
 Abstract
 1. Introduction
 2. Materials and methods
 3. Results
 4. Discussion
Appendix A
 References
 
Optimal timing for surgical revascularization after MI remains a matter of debate. Conflicting results with operative mortality ranging from 5 to 30% have been reported [2,7–9]. Theoretical advantages or early intervention include limitation of both infarct expansion and adverse ventricular remodeling [2,10], as well as avoidance of an unnecessary waiting period. During delay for CABG following MI, cardiac events are frequent and tend to occur early, and the associated morbidity and mortality are related to left ventricular dysfunction, heart failure, and time [11]. On the other hand, ischemia–reperfusion injury leading to hemorrhagic infarction and additional myocardial damage constitute possible complications of early surgery [12], as well as exacerbation of the acute systemic inflammatory response [5]. The goal is thus to determine the best window for intervention at a time safe from infarct extension and prior to remodeling, in order to limit myocardial damage while maintaining structural integrity [3,13]. This is especially true in the era of rapid catheterization for ongoing acute MI with the identification of an increasing number of surgical candidates diagnosed in that clinical setting [14]. Newer techniques such as off-pump CABG and better myocardial protection strategies (ante/retrograde perfusion, blood cardioplegia) with intensified hemodynamic support [15,16] as well as improved comprehensive use of intra-aortic balloon pumps [17] have contributed to widen our arsenal for facing early revascularization complications. Other groups have addressed the issue of optimal timing for intervention, but many studies were conducted at a time where surgical techniques did not benefit from the actual developments or were flawed by small number of patients [6,18,19], while others were multicenter-based and prone to bias from heterogeneity in surgical practices.

Results from our contemporary series of patients from a single high-volume institution corroborate previously reported increased overall perioperative mortality for surgical revascularization in the early phase following MI. In contrast with findings from a recent multicenter retrospective study using a large database [5] suggesting that surgical revascularization is safe as early as 3 days after MI, perioperative mortality in our cohort was still significantly increased in the group undergoing surgery between 8 and 30 days following the event and only returned to a level comparable to that of the no-MI control group after that period. However, the risk ratio of 1.5 for mortality in patients operated on during this 8–30 days interval, found in the multivariate analysis, did not reach statistical significance. The usual risk factors for increased mortality were identified and are presented in Table 1.

Analysis of the effect of patients’ age revealed an increasing mortality risk as patients got older, but patients less than 65 years of age had no statistically significant increase of overall perioperative mortality after MI compared to their control group without a history of prior MI. When a separate analysis of patients below and over 65 years was performed, an increase in perioperative mortality in the former group could be found only after a waiting period comprised between 1 and 7 days. Because of the small number of patients undergoing surgical revascularization less than 24 h after MI in that group, the clinically relevant increased risk ratio of 2.14 in that period did not reach statistical significance. Contrastingly, perioperative mortality in the older group was increased at all time points following MI, and the risk was particularly increased in the earlier phases up to 7 days post-MI. Perioperative mortality in that group was also still significantly increased even after a 30-day waiting period when compared to that of patients with no prior MI. However, it was not significantly different than the perioperative mortality observed in the subgroup of patients who underwent surgery between 8 and 30 days after MI, suggesting that there is no added benefit of extending the waiting period beyond 7 days in patients over 65 years of age. As suggested by others [20,21], early revascularization could thus probably be safely performed in selected patients with the potential benefit of avoiding unnecessary delays and their associated complications.

This study bears important limitations. No difference was made between transmural and non-transmural MIs, while there is evidence that the latter are associated with a better prognosis and different response patterns with respect to timing of operation [22]. Details about the urgency of interventions, mostly those performed in the earlier phases, were not accounted for. This has a significant clinical impact since patients who were directed to such an early procedure were more prone to be unstable and have a poorer prognosis, but at the same time represent a population where a conservative approach is not conceivable. However, it is difficult to derive any statistically significant information when these very few patients are excluded.

Despite these limitations, our study underlines the importance of global risk assessment integrating multiple individual factors with the timing of intervention in order to determine the optimal treatment strategy for specific subgroups of patients. Especially over the last 10 years, the surgical literature reports important efforts to circumscribe with more and more precision the safety window for surgical intervention in the context of acute MI. Earlier studies have also identified potential subgroups of patients with better outcome after early revascularization following MI, such as younger [23] male [24] patients, in the absence of the left main involvement [24], with preserved left ventricular function or having suffered a subendocardial instead of transmural MI [18,25]. The results of our study may bring more questions than answers in this regard and illustrate quite clearly that an important inter-individual variability is present. Probably more than the recency of MI, the co-morbidities and the clinical status of the patients (hemodynamic stability, ongoing ischemia with residual angina) constitute significant determinants of perioperative mortality. This emphasizes the importance of a tailored approach for each subgroup of patients and even each patient individually, as well as the need for additional large, contemporary, and randomized studies to further characterize the risk factors for operative mortality after recent MI. This is especially true in the evolving era of rapid catheterization for patients suffering MI, where unwarranted delays in the surgical treatment of lower risk patients need to be avoided.


   Appendix A
Top
 Abstract
 1. Introduction
 2. Materials and methods
 3. Results
 4. Discussion
 Appendix A
References
 
Conference discussion

Dr K. Higuchi (Chiba, Japan): I agree with your opinion. I had better to avoid the operation during a first week after AMI. But if we have patients with left main stenosis and they’re hemodynamically unstable, what can I do? When I have to wait for one week in our institute, I put an IABP and then operate. So what do you think?

Dr Voisine : I think it's a very good strategy. There are different approaches to this problem reported in the literature. Some people are very aggressive in performing very early revascularization and support their strategy with very good results. Others, as you mentioned, favor medical stabilization of the patient, trying to postpone the surgery to a later period, deemed safer.

It's difficult to tell anything from this study of our patients because there was a very small number of patients who were operated in the very early period, between 0 and 24 h. It is thus hard to take out the patients who were unstable hemodynamically and who were at an immediate risk for their life without surgery. Whatever the bias they introduce into the analysis, their exclusion from the statistical analysis results in a number of patients too small to allow any significant conclusion to be drawn.

The take-home message of our study is that there will be more and more patients that will be directed towards surgery because cardiologists found earlier that they have an anatomy that warrants a surgical procedure early on in the course of their myocardial infarct, because they send them earlier to the cath lab.

What we realize is that a better categorization of the patients with an appropriate break down of the risk factors, such as age in this instance, the influence of the recency of the MI may not be significant in terms of mortality for all subgroups. So I think that we have to rethink our strategies for treating these patients. Although it's probably very secure to stabilize the patients and wait before performing the surgery, in very low-risk patients the delay itself in treatment, which is also associated with risk, may not be warranted.

Dr R. Schistek (Salzburg, Austria): What do you think is the reason that the patients that are operated early on die? Is it a coagulation problem or is it due to the damaged myocardium?

Dr Voisine : There are many possibilities. It could be the very systemic inflammatory state in which the patients are. It could be ischemia/reperfusion. It could be the instability of the myocardium and its incapacity to recuperate in this acute setting. It's hard to tell.

But at the time we presented the abstract, we had data from 1991 to 2003. And since then we have added patients from the last 2 years, which have been presented here. When I looked at the differences between these two groups of patients, it became obvious that there was a very significant decrease in mortality over the last years. So now the next thing we are going to do is break down this group of patients into the last 7 or 8 years and compare them to the 7 or 8 years before.

There was actually, I think, 35 patients operated on within the first 24 h after the infarct in the last 2 years and there was no perioperative death in that group. I believe that with the improving surgical techniques and myocardial protection strategies, we can achieve good results even in the earlier phases.


   Footnotes
 
{star} Presented at the joint 19th Annual Meeting of the European Association for Cardio-thoracic Surgery and the 13th Annual Meeting of the European Society of Thoracic Surgeons, Barcelona, Spain, September 25–28, 2005.


   References
Top
 Abstract
 1. Introduction
 2. Materials and methods
 3. Results
 4. Discussion
 Appendix A
 References
 

  1. Keeley EC, Boura JA, Grines CL. Primary angioplasty versus intravenous thrombolytic therapy for acute myocardial infarction: a quantitative review of 23 randomised trials. Lancet 2003;361:13-20.[CrossRef][Medline]
  2. Coleman WS, DeWood MA, Berg Jr. R, Selinger SL, Leonard JJ, Siwek LG. Surgical intervention in acute myocardial infarction: an historical perspective. Semin Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1995;7:176-183.[Medline]
  3. Every NR, Maynard C, Cochran RP, Martin J, Weaver WD. Characteristics, management, and outcome of patients with acute myocardial infarction treated with bypass surgery. Myocardial Infarction Triage and Intervention Investigators. Circulation 1996;94:II81-II86.
  4. Sintek CF, Pfeffer TA, Khonsari S. Surgical revascularization after acute myocardial infarction. Does timing make a difference?. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1994;107:1317-1321discussion 1321–2.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  5. Lee DC, Oz MC, Weinberg AD, Ting W. Appropriate timing of surgical intervention after transmural acute myocardial infarction. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003;125:115-119discussion 119–20.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  6. Deeik RK, Schmitt TM, Ihrig TG, Sugimoto JT. Appropriate timing of elective coronary artery bypass graft surgery following acute myocardial infarction. Am J Surg 1998;176:581-585.[CrossRef][Medline]
  7. Hill JD, Kerth WJ, Kelly JJ, Selzer A, Armstrong W, Popper RW, Langston MF, Cohn KE. Emergency aortocoronary bypass for impending or extending myocardial infarction. Circulation 1971;43:I105-I110.
  8. Sustaita H, Chatterjee K, Matloff JM, Marty AT, Swan HJ, Fields J. Emergency bypass surgery in impending and complicated acute myocardial infarction. Arch Surg 1972;105:30-35.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  9. Dawson JT, Hall RJ, Hallman GL, Cooley DA. Mortality in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery after myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 1974;33:483-486.[CrossRef][Medline]
  10. Weiss JL, Marino PN, Shapiro EP. Myocardial infarct expansion: recognition, significance and pathology. Am J Cardiol 1991;68:35D-40D.[CrossRef][Medline]
  11. Cesena FH, Favarato D, Cesar LA, de Oliveira SA, da Luz PL. Cardiac complications during waiting for elective coronary artery bypass graft surgery: incidence, temporal distribution and predictive factors. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2004;25:196-202.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  12. Roberts CS, Schoen FJ, Kloner RA. Effect of coronary reperfusion on myocardial hemorrhage and infarct healing. Am J Cardiol 1983;52:610-614.[CrossRef][Medline]
  13. Kim CB, Braunwald E. Potential benefits of late reperfusion of infarcted myocardium. The open artery hypothesis. Circulation 1993;88:2426-2436.[Free Full Text]
  14. Antoniucci D, Valenti R, Moschi G, Migliorini A, Trapani M, Santoro GM, Bolognese L, Dovellini EV. Sex-based differences in clinical and angiographic outcomes after primary angioplasty or stenting for acute myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol 2001;87:289-293.[CrossRef][Medline]
  15. Onorati F, De Feo M, Mastroroberto P, di Virgilio A, Esposito A, Polistena M, Renzulli A, Cotrufo M. Unstable angina and non-ST segment elevation: surgical revascularization with different strategies. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2005;27:1043-1050.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  16. Albes JM, Gross M, Franke U, Wippermann J, Cohnert TU, Vollandt R, Wahlers T. Revascularization during acute myocardial infarction: risks and benefits revisited. Ann Thorac Surg 2002;74:102-108.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  17. Creswell LL, Moulton MJ, Cox JL, Rosenbloom M. Revascularization after acute myocardial infarction. Ann Thorac Surg 1995;60:19-26.[Abstract/Free Full Text]
  18. Lee DC, Oz MC, Weinberg AD, Lin SX, Ting W. Optimal timing of revascularization: transmural versus nontransmural acute myocardial infarction. Ann Thorac Surg 2001;71:1197-1202discussion 1202–4.
  19. Gertler JP, Elefteriades JA, Kopf GS, Hashim SW, Hammond GL, Geha AS. Predictors of outcome in early revascularization after acute myocardial infarction. Am J Surg 1985;149:441-444.[CrossRef][Medline]
  20. Selinger SL, Berg Jr. R, Leonard JL, Grunwald RP, O’Grady WP. Surgical treatment of acute evolving anterior myocardial infarction. Circulation 1981;64:II28-II33.
  21. Berg Jr. R, Selinger SL, Leonard JJ, Coleman WS, DeWood M. Acute evolving myocardial infarction. A surgical emergency. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1984;88:902-906.[Abstract]
  22. Braxton JH, Hammond GL, Letsou GV, Franco KL, Kopf GS, Elefteriades JA, Baldwin JC. Optimal timing of coronary artery bypass graft surgery after acute myocardial infarction. Circulation 1995;92:II66-II68.
  23. Applebaum R, House R, Rademaker A, Garibaldi A, Davis Z, Guillory J, Chen A, Hoeksema T. Coronary artery bypass grafting within thirty days of acute myocardial infarction. Early and late results in 406 patients. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1991;102:745-752.[Abstract]
  24. Kouchoukos NT, Murphy S, Philpott T, Pelate C, Marshall Jr. WG. Coronary artery bypass grafting for postinfarction angina pectoris. Circulation 1989;79:I68-I72.
  25. Athanasuleas CL, Geer DA, Arciniegas JG, Cooper TB, Hess RG, MacLean WA, Papapietro SE, Stanley AW, McEachern M. A reappraisal of surgical intervention for acute myocardial infarction. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 1987;93:405-414.[Abstract]



This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Ann. Thorac. Surg.Home page
T. Fukui, T. Shimokawa, S. Manabe, S. Morita, and S. Takanashi
Prior inferior myocardial infarction has worse early outcomes in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting than prior anterior myocardial infarction.
Ann. Thorac. Surg., February 1, 2009; 87(2): 475 - 480.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg.Home page
E. S. Weiss, D. D. Chang, D. L. Joyce, L. U. Nwakanma, and D. D. Yuh
Optimal timing of coronary artery bypass after acute myocardial infarction: A review of California discharge data
J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., March 1, 2008; 135(3): 503 - 511.
[Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]

Home page
 Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg.Home page
A. R. Akar and Z. Eyileten
Optimal timing of surgical revascularisation after acute myocardial infarction
Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., December 1, 2006; 30(6): 954 - 955.
[Full Text] [PDF]

This Article
Right arrow Abstract Freely available
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Personal Folders
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrow Author home page(s):
Pierre Voisine
Patrick Mathieu
Daniel Doyle
Jean Perron
Richard Baillot
Gilles Raymond
Jacques Métras
François Dagenais
Right arrow Permission Requests
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Voisine, P.
Right arrow Articles by Dagenais, F.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Voisine, P.
Right arrow Articles by Dagenais, F.
Related Collections
Right arrow Coronary disease
Right arrow Myocardial infarction

HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS
ANN THORAC SURG ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG
J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG ICVTS ALL CTSNet JOURNALS