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


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:  



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.


  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. (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,

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