Relationship Between Degree of Coronary Vascular Bed Involvement and Characteristics of Stenting With Short-Term and Long-Term Outcomes in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndrome (Data of the RECORD-3 Registry)

It was shown in this retrospective analysis of data from the Russian registry of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) RECORD-3 that compared with patients in whom coronary angiography revealed no hemodynamically significant (>50%) stenosis, patients with such stenosis in one vessel (with single vessel disease - SVD) and especially in multiple vessels (with multi-vessel disease - MVD) had much more anamnestic and clinical factors of unfavorable prognosis. Rates of all cause death as well as composite of death and new myocardial infarction (MI) during hospitalization in patients without significant stenosis and those with SVD were not significantly different but rates of these outcomes among patients with MVD were significantly higher than among patients with SVD or without significant stenosis. Presence of MVD was associated with worse remote outcomes developed after discharge from hospital compared with absence of significant stenosis (rate of death, MI, and urgent revascularization was significantly higher for 6 and 12 months after ACS), and compared with SVD (rate of death, MI, and urgent revascularization was significantly higher for 12 months after ACS). During percutaneous coronary interventions bare metal stents were used 2 times more often than drug eluting stents. Implantation of 2 or more stents compared with implantation of 1 stent was associated with higher rate of unfavorable outcomes (composite of death, MI, and urgent revascularization) developed after hospital discharge during 12 months after onset of ACS.

острый коронарный синдром, регистр, коронарное стентирование, многососудистое поражение, исходы, acute coronary syndrome, registry, coronary stenting, multivessel involvement, outcomes

1. Vlaar P. J., Mahmoud K. D., Holmes D. R. Jr et al. Culprit vessel only versus multivessel and staged percutaneous coronary intervention for multivessel disease inpatients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a pairwise and network meta-analysis. J. Am Coll Cardiol 2011; 58 (7): 692-703.

2. Mehta S. R., Granger C. B., Boden W. E. et al.; TIMACS Investigators. Early versus delayed invasive intervention in acute coronary syndromes. N. Engl J. Med 2009; 360 (21): 2165-2175.

3. Patel M. R., Calhoon J. H., Dehmer G.J. et al. ACC/AATS/AHA/ASE/ASNC/SCAI/SCCT/STS 2016 Appropriate Use Criteria for Coronary Revascularization in Patients With Acute Coronary Syndromes. JACC 2016; 69 (5): 570-591.

4. Эрлих А. Д., Грацианский Н. А. от имени участников регистра РЕКОРД-3. Российский регистр острого коронарного синдрома РЕКОРД-3. Характеристика пациентов и лечение до выписки из стационара. Кардиология 2016; 4: 16-24

5. Jiménez-Navarro M. F., López-Jiménez F., Barsness G. et al. Longterm prognosis of complete percutaneous coronary revascularisation in patients with diabetes with multivessel disease. Heart 2015; 101 (15): 1233-1239.

6. Sardella G., Lucisano L., Garbo R., et al. Single-staged Compared With Multi-Staged PCI in Multivessel NSTEMI Patients J. Am Coll Cardiol 2016; 67 (3): 264-272.

7. Iqbal M. B., Nadra I.J., Ding L. et al., British Columbia Cardiac Registry Investigators. Culprit Vessel Versus Multivessel Versus In-Hospital Staged Intervention for Patients With ST-Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction and Multivessel Disease. Stratified Analyses in High-Risk Patient Groups and Anatomic Subsets of Nonculprit Disease. JACC: Cardiovascular Interventions 2017; 10 (1): 11-23

8. Соловьева Н. В., Бурова Н. Н., Глебовская Т. Д., Михальчикова Н. А. Оценка вероятности однососудистого поражения коронарного русла у больных с острым коронарным синдромом без подъема сегмента ST. Международный журнал интервенционной кардиоангиологии 2011; 27-28: 48-53

9. Зыятдинов К. Ш., Белопухов В. М., Якупов И. Ф. Инфаркт миокарда при многососудистом поражении коронарных артерий. Практическая медицина 2013; 1-2 (69): 44-47

10. Тарасов Р. С., Ганюков В. И., Кротиков Ю. В. и др. Целесообразность неполной многососудистой реваскуляризации у больных инфарктом миокарда с элевацией сегмента ST при множественном поражении коронарного русла. Международный журнал интервенционной кардиоангиологии 2013; 33: 17-21

11. Pizzi C., Xhyheri B., Costa G. M. et al. Nonobstructive Versus Obstructive Coronary Artery Disease in Acute Coronary Syndrome: A Meta-Analysis. J. Am Heart Assoc 2016; 5: e004185 DOI: 10.1161/JAHA.116.004185.

12. Onuma Y., Muramatsu T., Girasis C. et al.; interventional cardiologists of the Thoraxcenter (2000-5). Single-vessel or multivessel PCI in patients with multivessel disease presenting with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes. EuroIntervention 2013; 9 (8): 916-922.

13. Jang J. S., Jin H. Y., Seo J. S. et al. Meta-analysis of multivessel versus culprit-only percutaneous coronary intervention in patients with non-ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndrome and multivessel coronary disease. AmJ Cardiol 2015; 115 (8): 1027-1032.

14. Bainey K. R., Mehta S. R., Lai T., Welsh R. C. Complete vs culprit-only revascularization for patients with multivessel disease undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Am Heart J. 2014; 167 (1): 1-14.

15. Zhang D., Song X., Lv S. et al. Culprit vessel only versus multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction and multivessel disease. PLoS One 2014; 9 (3): e92316.

16. Gershlick A. H., Khan J. N., Kelly D.J. et al. Randomized trial of complete versus lesion-only revascularization in patients undergoing primary percutaneous coronary intervention for STEMI and multivessel disease: the CvLPRIT trial. J. Am Coll Cardiol 2015; 65 (10): 963-972.

17. Giustino G., Chieffo A., Palmerini T. et al. Efficacy and Safety of Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Complex PCI. JACC 2016; 68 (17): 1851-64