Five-year results of myocardial revascularizationin patients with stable coronary artery diseasewith stenosis of the left coronary arteryand/or multivessel coronary disease

Authors: Sokolova N.Yu.

Company: Tver «Regional clinical hospital», Peterburgskoe shosse, 105, Tver’, Region Tver’, 170036, Russian Federation

For correspondence:  Sign in or register.

Type:  Original articles


DOI: https://doi.org/10.24022/1997-3187-2018-12-4-316-327

For citation: Sokolova N.Yu. Five-year results of myocardial revascularization in patients with stable coronary artery disease with stenosis of the left coronary artery and / or multivessel coronary disease. Creative Cardiology. 2018; 12 (4): 316–27 (in Russ.). DOI: 10.24022/1997-3187-2018-12-4-316-327

Received / Accepted:  12.11.2018/19.11.2018

Keywords: coronary heart disease coronary artery bypass grafting percutaneous coronary intervention survival repeated revascularization

Полнотекстовая версия:  

 

Abstract

Objective. To compare the long-term results of various methods of coronary revascularization in patients with stable coronary artery disease (SCAD) with stenosis of the left coronary artery (LCA) and/or multivessel coronary lesion.

Material and methods. The observation period was 54.3±7 months. We examined 183 patients SCAD with stenosis of the LCA and/or multivessel lesions of the coronary arteries (KA): coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) – 109 (60%), percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) – 74 (40%). The observation period was 54.3±7 months. The primary endpoints: death from all causes, cardiac mortality, nonfatal heart attack (MI), nonfatal stroke. The secondary endpoint: re-coronary revascularization or the presence of indications for its conduct.

Results. 5-year follow-up period had no difference between CABG and PCI: overall survival (94.4% vs. 87.8 p=ns), cardiac lethality (3.6% vs. 8.1, p=ns), development of nonfatal MI (2.7% vs. 6.8, p=ns) and stroke (3.6% vs. 5.4, p=ns). Secondary endpoint: 2.7% vs. 21.6, CABG and PCI, p<0.001.

Conclusions. A nonrandomized 5-year prospective study comparing the two methods of coronary revascularization did not reveal differences in primary end points (general and cardiac mortality, nonfatal MI and stroke), but a statistically significant difference in the need and frequency of repeated myocardial revascularization was noted, as noted more often after endovascular interventions.

References

  1. Bockeria L.A., Gudkova R.G. Cardiovascularsurgery – 2011. Diseases and congenital anomaliesof system of blood circulation. Moscow: A.N. Ba-koulev Scientific Center for Cardiovascular Sur-gery; 2012 (in Russ.).
  2. Bockeria L.A., Alekyan B.G. Guide to X-rayendovascular surgery of the heart and blood vessels.Vol. 3. Moscow: A.N. Bakoulev Scientific Centerfor Cardiovascular Surgery; 2013 (in Russ.).
  3. Bockeria, L.A., Stupakov I.N. Socially significantdiseases in the Russian Federation. Moscow:A.N. Bakoulev Scientific Center for Cardiovascu-lar Surgery; 2006 (in Russ.).
  4. Golukhova E.Z. Myocardial revascularization:new randomized studies with conflicting results.Creative Cardiology.2016; 10 (4): 276–80 (inRuss.).
  5. Golukhova E.Z. Surgical and interventional cardi-ology: evolution and modern approaches in thediagnosis and treatment of acute coronary syn-drome and stable ischemic heart disease. TheBulletin of Bakoulev Center for CardiovascularDiseases. 2016; 17 (3): 113–23 (in Russ.).
  6. Sokolova N.Yu., Golukhova E.Z. Myocardialrevascularization in patients with stable coronaryartery disease: the stratification of perioperative and long-term risks. Creative Cardiology. 2016;10 (1): 25–36 (in Russ.)
  7. Bockeria L.A., Glyantsev S.P. Professor vasilyivanovich kolesov: parade of priorities (On theoccasion of the 50th anniversary of the world's firstoperation of mammary-coronary anastomosis andthe 110th anniversary of the birth of its author –V.I. Kolesov). Annals of Surgery. 2014; 3: 53–62(in Russ.).
  8. Windecker S., Kolh P., Alfonso F., Collet J.P., Cremer J., Falk V. et al. 2014 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization: The Task Force on Myocardial Revascularization of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) Developed with the special contribution of the European Association of Percutaneous Cardiovascular Interventions (EAPCI). Eur. Heart J. 2014; 35 (37): 2541–619. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehu278
  9. Neumann F.J., Sousa-Uva M., Ahlsson A., Alfonso F., Banning A.P., Benedetto U. et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur. Heart J. 40 (2): 87–165. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehy394
  10. European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation. http://euroscore.org/ (дата обращения 18.09.2018).
  11. The SYNTAX score calculator. http://www.syntaxscore. com/(дата обращения 18.09.2018).
  12. Levine G.N., Bates E.R., Bittl J.A., Brindis R.G., Fihn S.D., Fleisher L.A. et al. 2016 ACC/AHA guideline focused update on duration of dual antiplatelet therapy in patients with coronary artery disease: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Clinical Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2016; 134 (10): e123–55. DOI: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000404
  13. Shumkov K.V. Results and outcomes after coro-nary artery bypass surgery on a working heart andin conditions of an artificial circulation. Theadvantages and disadvantages of the methods,according to randomized studies. Creative Car-diology. 2018; 12 (1): 22–30.  DOI: 10.24022/1997-3187-2018-12-1-22-30
  14. Lamy A., Devereaux P.J., Prabhakaran D., Taggart D.P., Hu S., Paolasso E. et al. CORONARY Investigators. Off-pump or on-pump coronaryartery bypass grafting at 30 days. N. Engl. J. Med. 2012; 366 (16): 1489–97.
  15. Shroyer A.L., Grover F.L., Hattler B., Collins J.F., McDonald G.O., Kozora E. et al. Veterans Affairs Randomized On/Off Bypass (ROOBY) Study Group. On-pump versus off-pump coronary-artery bypass surgery. N. Engl. J. Med. 2009; 361: 1827–37.
  16. Mack M., Baumgarten H., Lytle B. Why surgery won the SYNTAX trial and why it matters. J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg. 2016; 152: 1237–40.
  17. Mohr F.W., Morice M.C., Kappetein A.P., Feldman T.E., Stahle E., Colombo A. et al. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery vs. percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with three-vessel disease and left main coronary disease: 5-year followup of the randomised, clinical SYNTAX trial. Lancet. 2013; 381 (9867): 629–38.
  18. Esper R.B., Farkouh M.E., Ribeiro E.E. et al. SYNTAX score in patients with diabetes undergoing coronary revascularization in the FREEDOM trial. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2018; 72: 2826–37.
  19. Fedak P.W.M., Bhatt D.L., Verma S. Coronary bypass surgery for diabetes and multivessel disease: forget the SYNTAX. J. Am. Coll. Cardiol. 2018; 72: 2838–40.

About Authors

Natal'ya Y. Sokolova, Cand. Med. Sc., Cardiologist, orcid.org/0000-0002-5720-304X

Chief Editor

Leo A. Bockeria, MD, PhD, DSc, Professor, Academician of Russian Academy of Sciences, Director of Bakoulev National Medical Research Center for Cardiovascular Surgery