Nasirova Zarina Akbarovna (1), Rasulova Dilfuza Olimovna (2)
Research objective. Conduct a comprehensive assessment of clinical, functional, biochemical, and instrumental indicators in patients with coronary heart disease (CHD) after various types of myocardial revascularization and identify risk factors for the development of cardiovascular complications.
Materials and methods. 96 patients with coronary heart disease were examined, who underwent planned myocardial revascularization. Depending on the method of intervention, patients are divided into two groups:
-I group (n = 52) - patients after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI);
- Group II (n = 44) - patients after coronary artery bypass grafting (CAG).
The dynamics of electrocardiographic (ECG) and echocardiographic (EchoCG) indicators, troponin I levels, KFC-MV, lipid spectrum parameters, frequency of complications, and quality of life were assessed using SF-36 and KCCQ scales. Statistical analysis was performed using the SPSS 26.0 package, Student's t-test and χ2 criterion were used; differences were considered significant at p < 0.05.
Results.
Six months after the intervention, the left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) increased by an average of 12%, the frequency of ST segment depression and T wave inversion decreased by more than 3 times. Complete revascularization was achieved in 83% of patients after PCV and in 89% after CSH. The frequency of complications was 32.7% and 50.0%, respectively. The main predictors of complications were: LVEF < 45%, troponin level I > 0.5 ng/ml, the presence of type 2 diabetes mellitus, and NYHA functional class III-IV chronic heart failure (CHF). The SF-36 average total score increased from 48.5 to 74.5, the KCCQ scale from 49.3 to 77.9 (p < 0.001).
Conclusion.
Myocardial revascularization leads to a significant improvement in the contractile function of the myocardium and the quality of life of patients with coronary heart disease. Endovascular methods ensure faster restoration of the functional state, while surgical revascularization is characterized by a more stable hemodynamic effect in the long term. The developed risk stratification algorithm allows reducing the frequency of complications by approximately 30-35% and improving quality of life indicators by 22-28 points.
1. Stähli B.E., Juni P., Pedrazzini G. et al. Timing of complete revascularization with multi-vascular PCI in acute myocardial infarction. N Engl J Med. 2023;389 (7):645-657.
2. Leopold J.A., Rihal C.S., Moses J.W. Complete coronary revascularization: a new strategy to improve outcomes. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2023;81 (12):1141-1154.
3. Escaned J., Davies J.E., Jeremiah A. et al. Fractional flow reserve-guided coronary revascularization. JAMA Cardiol. 2025;10 (3):251-263.
4. Gould K.L., Johnson N.P., Taqueti V.R. Optimal medical care and coronary flow capacity-guided revascularization. Eur Heart J. 2025;46 (33):3273-3285.
5. Chuy K.L., Tsao C.W., McManus D.D. Current landscape and future directions of coronary revascularization. Cardiol Res Pract. 2023;2023:11307589.
6. Dehmer G.J., Patel M.R., Harold J.G. et al. 2023 AHA/ACC performance and quality measures for coronary revascularization. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2023;82 (15):1411-1445.
7. Kakkar R., Patel M., Ahmed R. et al. Percutaneous vs surgical revascularization in non-ST elevation acute coronary syndromes: systematic review and meta-analysis. Eur Heart J. 2024;45 (6):518-529.
8. McGuire J.R., Puskas J.D., Gaudino M.F.L. Comparative efficacy of PCI versus CABG in left major coronary artery disease. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Open. 2024;10 (2):273-284.
9. Chen W., Li Y., Yang L. et al. Percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with multi-vascular disease: a 2024 meta-analysis. Eur J Clin Invest. 2024;54 (2):e13972.
10. Al-Masri A., Ibrahim K., El-Khatib M. Comparative effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention versus coronary artery bypass grafting: updated meta-analysis. Cardiol Res. 2024;15 (3):183-192.
11. Kurlansky P., Filsoufi F., Galinanes M. Contemporary coronary artery bypass grafting versus multi-vascular PCI: outcomes from the Medicare database. Ann Thorac Surg. 2024;118 (4):1023-1034.
12. Goldstein D.J., Singh S.K., Fremes S.E. Coronary artery bypass grafting: practice trends and future projections. Cleveland Clin J Med. 2025;92 (3):181-192.
13. Ramos V., Cortes A., Vega R. Systematic review and meta-regression of PCI vs CABG in ischemic heart disease. Int J Cardiol. 2025;390:120-132.
14. De Maria G.L., Cassese S., Byrne R.A. Complete coronary revascularization in stable coronary artery disease: state-of-the-art review. Eur J Clin Med. 2024;24 (2):64-78.
15. Bakaeen F.G., DiBardino D.J., Sabik J.F. Hybrid coronary revascularization: indications, techniques, and outcomes. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2024;168 (5):1462-1474.
16. Velazquez E.J., Lee K.L., Jones R.H. et al. Ten-year outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting versus medical therapy in ischemic cardiomyopathy: STICH extension study. N Engl J Med. 2024;390 (9):765-777.
17. Fox K.A.A., Goodman S.G., Boden W.E. Long-term outcomes after revascularization in chronic coronary syndrome: results from the REACH registry. Eur Heart J. 2023;44 (20):1902-1916.
18. Anderson L., Thompson D.R., Taylor R.S. Exercise-based cardiac rehabilitation for coronary artery disease: Cochrane update. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022;11:CD001800.
19. Yancy C.W., Jessup B., Bozkurt B. et al. 2023 ESC Guidelines for the management of chronic coronary syndromes and heart failure. Eur Heart J. 2023;44 (30):2811-2920.
20. Gori T., Münzel T. Current concepts in revascularization for ischemic heart disease. Circ Cardiovasc Interv. 2025;18 (4):e014625.