Outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention in high-risk non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes

A. B. Nishonov, R. Tarasov, S. Ivanov, L. Barbarash
{"title":"Outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention in high-risk non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes","authors":"A. B. Nishonov, R. Tarasov, S. Ivanov, L. Barbarash","doi":"10.17802/2306-1278-2023-12-1-151-159","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Highlights. Despite high hospital mortality after coronary bypass grafting in patients with high-risk non–STsegment elevation acute coronary syndrome, surgical myocardial revascularization remains a preferable treatment modality since percutaneous coronary intervention in these patients is associated with high perioperative complications due to severely calcified coronary lesions.Background. The optimal revascularization strategy in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) remains the subject of many years of controversy. Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) improves the long-term prognosis through complete revascularization, however, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), due to its availability and low invasiveness, suggests an improvement in hospital outcomes.Aim. To compare hospital outcomes of CABG and PCI performed within 24 hours in high-risk NSTE-ACS patients.Methods. In the present study, the first group included 30 NSTE-ACS patients who underwent CABG in the first 24 hours (the CABG group), whereas 30 NSTE-ACS patients who underwent PCI were included in the second group (the PCI group).Results. The mean age was 64,4±7,3 years, it was comparable in both groups. The main clinical and anamnestic characteristics of patient in both groups were comparable as well. The severity of coronary atherosclerosis according to the Syntax score was 25,6±9,2 in the CABG group, and 21,7±5,7 in the PCI group (p = 0,054). After revascularization, the residual Syntax score did not differ between the groups (p = 0,42), indicating complete revascularization. Hospital mortality was relatively high in the CABG group (13,3%), while no such cases were noted in the PCI group. Most of the patients with adverse outcomes had a critical lesion of the left main coronary artery and a complicated postoperative course.Conclusion. The results of this study demonstrate promising outcome of CABG in patients with severe multivessel coronary disease at high risk of adverse events.","PeriodicalId":227108,"journal":{"name":"Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases","volume":"18 1","pages":"0"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-03-31","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Complex Issues of Cardiovascular Diseases","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.17802/2306-1278-2023-12-1-151-159","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

Highlights. Despite high hospital mortality after coronary bypass grafting in patients with high-risk non–STsegment elevation acute coronary syndrome, surgical myocardial revascularization remains a preferable treatment modality since percutaneous coronary intervention in these patients is associated with high perioperative complications due to severely calcified coronary lesions.Background. The optimal revascularization strategy in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) remains the subject of many years of controversy. Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) improves the long-term prognosis through complete revascularization, however, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), due to its availability and low invasiveness, suggests an improvement in hospital outcomes.Aim. To compare hospital outcomes of CABG and PCI performed within 24 hours in high-risk NSTE-ACS patients.Methods. In the present study, the first group included 30 NSTE-ACS patients who underwent CABG in the first 24 hours (the CABG group), whereas 30 NSTE-ACS patients who underwent PCI were included in the second group (the PCI group).Results. The mean age was 64,4±7,3 years, it was comparable in both groups. The main clinical and anamnestic characteristics of patient in both groups were comparable as well. The severity of coronary atherosclerosis according to the Syntax score was 25,6±9,2 in the CABG group, and 21,7±5,7 in the PCI group (p = 0,054). After revascularization, the residual Syntax score did not differ between the groups (p = 0,42), indicating complete revascularization. Hospital mortality was relatively high in the CABG group (13,3%), while no such cases were noted in the PCI group. Most of the patients with adverse outcomes had a critical lesion of the left main coronary artery and a complicated postoperative course.Conclusion. The results of this study demonstrate promising outcome of CABG in patients with severe multivessel coronary disease at high risk of adverse events.
冠状动脉旁路移植术和经皮冠状动脉介入治疗高危非st段抬高急性冠状动脉综合征的疗效
高光。尽管高风险非st段抬高急性冠状动脉综合征患者行冠状动脉搭桥术后的住院死亡率很高,但由于冠状动脉病变严重钙化,经皮冠状动脉介入治疗与围手术期并发症相关,手术心肌血运重建术仍然是一种较好的治疗方式。非st段抬高急性冠状动脉综合征(NSTE-ACS)患者的最佳血运重建策略仍然是多年争议的主题。冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)通过完全血运重建改善了长期预后,然而,经皮冠状动脉介入治疗(PCI)由于其可获得性和低侵入性,表明其可改善医院预后。比较高危NSTE-ACS患者24小时内行冠脉搭桥和PCI的住院疗效。在本研究中,第一组包括30例在最初24小时内接受CABG治疗的NSTE-ACS患者(CABG组),而第二组包括30例接受PCI治疗的NSTE-ACS患者(PCI组)。平均年龄为64,4±7,3岁,两组比较具有可比性。两组患者的主要临床和记忆特征也具有可比性。冠状动脉粥样硬化Syntax评分CABG组为25,6±9,2,PCI组为21,7±5,7 (p = 0,054)。血运重建后,各组间的残差Syntax评分无差异(p = 0,42),表明血运重建完全。CABG组住院死亡率相对较高(13.3%),而PCI组未见此类病例。大多数不良反应患者有严重的冠状动脉左主干病变和复杂的术后过程。本研究的结果表明,冠状动脉搭桥治疗严重多支冠状动脉疾病患者不良事件发生率高,预后良好。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
0.70
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信