Online first
Original Article
Published online: 2024-01-18

open access

Page views 528
Article views/downloads 182
Get Citation

Connect on Social Media

Connect on Social Media

The characteristic of acute coronary syndromes of patients with multivessel coronary artery disease in centers with and without cardiac surgery on-site

Krzysztof Brust1, Karol Śmiech1, Kamil Bujak2, Tomasz Roleder1, Mariusz Gąsior2
Pubmed: 38247436


Background: Multivessel disease (MVD) is diagnosed in a fair number of patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS). There are 36 cardiac-surgery (CS) centres and 157 catheterization laboratories dedicated to treat ACS in Poland. The aim of the study was to analyze MVD patient outcomes presented with ACS in centers with or without CS on-site.

Methods: The present study is a retrospective analysis (2017–2020) of MVD ACS patients (n = 4618) outcomes between those treated in centers with CS on site (n = 595) and those without CS (n = 4023).

Results: Patients in CS centers had a higher prevalence of renal failure (13.3% vs. 8.8%, p ≤ 0.001) and a more frequent history of coronary angioplasty — percutaneous coronary intervention (18.9% vs. 14.4%, p = 0.005). During the coronary angiography a femoral artery access was more often used in CS center patients (47.1% vs. 15.2%, p < 0.001). Percutaneous coronary intervention of MVD was more often performed in CS centers (74.6% vs. 71.0%, p = 0.054). In-hospital death (7.6% vs. 4.6%, p = 0.002), reinfarction (1.1% vs. 0.1%, p < 0.001), hemorrhagic complications (6.4% vs. 1.6%, p < 0.001), recurrent target vessel revascularization (1.8% vs. 0.4%, p ≤ 0.001) and pulmonary edema (3.7% vs. 1.5%, p < 0.001) occurred more often in CS centers.

Conclusions: The safety of ACS treatment in MVD patients in centers without CS on site is non-inferior to their treatment in centers with CS on site. Interestingly, there were more in-hospital adverse events observed in ACS MVD patients treated in centers with CS.

Article available in PDF format

View PDF Download PDF file


  1. Fuster V, Kovacic JC. Acute coronary syndromes: pathology, diagnosis, genetics, prevention, and treatment. Circ Res. 2014; 114(12): 1847–1851.
  2. Bhatt DL, Lopes RD, Harrington RA. Diagnosis and treatment of acute coronary syndromes: a review. JAMA. 2022; 327(7): 662–675.
  3. Gul F, Parekh A. Multivessel Disease. In: StatPearls [Internet]. Treasure Island (FL): StatPearls Publishing; 2023 Jan. 2023 Feb 8. .
  4. Spadaccio C, Benedetto U. Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) vs. percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the treatment of multivessel coronary disease: quo vadis? A review of the evidences on coronary artery disease. Ann Cardiothorac Surg. 2018; 7(4): 506–515.
  5. Hlatky MA, Boothroyd DB, Bravata DM, et al. Coronary artery bypass surgery compared with percutaneous coronary interventions for multivessel disease: a collaborative analysis of individual patient data from ten randomised trials. Lancet. 2009; 373(9670): 1190–1197.
  6. Herzog CA, Ma JZ, Collins AJ. Long-term outcome of dialysis patients in the United States with coronary revascularization procedures. Kidney Int. 1999; 56(1): 324–332.
  7. Herzog CA, Ma JZ, Collins AJ. Comparative survival of dialysis patients in the United States after coronary angioplasty, coronary artery stenting, and coronary artery bypass surgery and impact of diabetes. Circulation. 2002; 106(17): 2207–2211.
  8. Szczech LA, Reddan DN, Owen WF, et al. Differential survival after coronary revascularization procedures among patients with renal insufficiency. Kidney Int. 2001; 60(1): 292–299.
  9. Sunagawa G, Komiya T, Tamura N, et al. Coronary artery bypass surgery is superior to percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents for patients with chronic renal failure on hemodialysis. Ann Thorac Surg. 2010; 89(6): 1896–900; discussion 1900.
  10. Chertow GM, Normand SL, Silva LR, et al. Survival after acute myocardial infarction in patients with end-stage renal disease: results from the cooperative cardiovascular project. Am J Kidney Dis. 2000; 35(6): 1044–1051.
  11. Ram E, Raanani E, Klempfner R, et al. Midterm outcomes of patients with multivessel disease treated at centers with and without on-site cardiac surgery services. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022; 163(5): 1852–1861.e3.
  12. Aversano T, Lemmon CC, Liu Li, et al. Atlantic CPORT Investigators. Outcomes of PCI at hospitals with or without on-site cardiac surgery. N Engl J Med. 2012; 366(19): 1792–1802.
  13. Ram E, Raanani E, Klempfner R, et al. Midterm outcomes of patients with multivessel disease treated at centers with and without on-site cardiac surgery services. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2022; 163(5): 1852–1861.e3.
  14. Chiarito M, Cao D, Nicolas J, et al. Radial versus femoral access for coronary interventions: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. Catheter Cardiovasc Interv. 2021; 97(7): 1387–1396.
  15. Reifart J, Göhring S, Albrecht A, et al. Acceptance and safety of femoral versus radial access for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI): results from a large monitor-controlled German registry (QuIK). BMC Cardiovasc Disord. 2022; 22(1): 7.