Coronary heart disease (CHD) remains the leading cause of death and disability worldwide. In conditions of multivessel coronary artery disease, the choice of the optimal revascularization strategy becomes a key factor affecting the prognosis and quality of life of patients. Modern methods, including coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), hybrid revascularization and minimally invasive approaches, are actively developing due to technological progress and international clinical research. The presented review analyzes current data from foreign and domestic sources, including the recommendations of ESC/EACTS 2018, the results of major studies (FAME, ISCHEMIA, SYNTAX, EXCEL, ROMA, etc.) and new approaches to individualization of therapy. The issues of assessing anatomical complexity, adequacy of revascularization, choice of shunts and stents, as well as the importance of hemodynamic navigation (FFR/iFR) in making clinical decisions are discussed
Coronary heart disease (CHD) remains the leading cause of death and disability worldwide. In conditions of multivessel coronary artery disease, the choice of the optimal revascularization strategy becomes a key factor affecting the prognosis and quality of life of patients. Modern methods, including coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI), hybrid revascularization and minimally invasive approaches, are actively developing due to technological progress and international clinical research. The presented review analyzes current data from foreign and domestic sources, including the recommendations of ESC/EACTS 2018, the results of major studies (FAME, ISCHEMIA, SYNTAX, EXCEL, ROMA, etc.) and new approaches to individualization of therapy. The issues of assessing anatomical complexity, adequacy of revascularization, choice of shunts and stents, as well as the importance of hemodynamic navigation (FFR/iFR) in making clinical decisions are discussed
| № | Author name | position | Name of organisation |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1 | Nasyrova Z.A. | MD, Associate Professor | Samarkand State Medical University |
| 2 | Rasulova D.A. | Resident | Samarkand State Medical University |
| № | Name of reference |
|---|---|
| 1 | 1.Bangalore S, Guo Y, Samadashvili Z, et al. Everolimus-eluting stents or bypass surgery for multivessel coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2015;372(13):1213–1222.2.Fearon WF, Nishi T, De Bruyne B, et al. Fractional flow reserve–guided PCI as compared with coronary bypass surgery. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(16):1391–1400.3.Gaudino M, et al. Arterial grafting versus venous grafting in coronary bypass surgery. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(22):2069-2077.4.Généreux P, Palmerini T, Caixeta A, et al. SYNTAX score II: a novel tool for guiding the revascularization strategy. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013;62(14):1214–1224.5.Harskamp RE, et al. Comparison of outcomes of hybrid coronary revascularization versus percutaneous coronary intervention. Am J Cardiol. 2014;113(10):1676-1683.6.Head SJ, et al. Coronary artery bypass grafting: Part 2—Optimizing outcomes and future prospects. Eur Heart J. 2013;34(37):2873-2886.7.Head SJ, Milojevic M, Daemen J, et al. Mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with stenting for coronary artery disease: a pooled analysis. Lancet. 2018;391(10124):939–948.8.Holm NR, Mäkikallio T, Lindsay MM, et al. PCI guided by FFR or angiography in patients with multivessel disease. N Engl J Med. 2022;386(16):1409–1419.9.Holzhey DM, et al. Minimally invasive hybrid coronary artery revascularization. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2013;145(1):S85-S90.10.Maron DJ, et al. Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(15):1395-1407.11.Maron DJ, Hochman JS, Reynolds HR, et al. Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease. N Engl J Med. 2020;382(15):1395–1407.12.Mehta SR, Wood DA, Storey RF, et al. Complete revascularization with multivessel PCI for myocardial infarction.N Engl J Med. 2019;381:1411–1421.13.Neumann FJ, et al. 2018 ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2019;40(2):87-165.14.Neumann FJ, Sousa-Uva M, Ahlsson A, et al. ESC/EACTS Guidelines on myocardial revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2019;40(2):87–165.15.Roth GA, Mensah GA, Johnson CO, et al. Global burden of cardiovascular diseases and risk factors. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2020;76(25):2982-3021.16.Serruys PW, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(10):961-972.17.Serruys PW, Morice MC, Kappetein AP, et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary-artery bypass grafting for severe coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2009;360(10):961–972.18.Shroyer ALW, et al. On-pump versus off-pump coronary-artery bypass surgery. N Engl J Med. 2009;361(19):1827-1837.19.Stone GW, et al. FAME 3: Fractional flow reserve-guided PCI versus CABG in multivessel coronary artery disease. N Engl J Med. 2022;386:1189-1199.20.Taggart DP, Altman DG, Gray AM, et al. Randomized trial of bilateral versus single internal-thoracic-artery grafts. N Engl J Med. 2016;375(26):2540–2549.21.Taggart DP, et al. ROMA trial rationale and design. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2020;58(4):734-742 |