Application of SYNTAX and its Derivative Scores in the Selection of Revascularization Strategies for Complex Coronary Heart Disease

Complex coronary heart disease(CHD)has become a hot spot in medicine due to its complex coronary anatomy,variable clinical factors,difficult hemodynamic reconstruction,and limited effect of conservative drug treatment.Identifying complex CHD and selecting optimal treatment methods have become more scientific as revascularization technology has improved,and coronary risk stratification scores have been introduced.SYNTAX and its derivative scores are decision-making tools that quantitatively describe the characteristics of coronary lesions in patients based on their complexity and severity.The SYNTAX and its derivative scores could assist clinicians in rationalizing the selection of hemodynamic reconstruction treatment strategies,and have demon-strated outstanding value in evaluating the prognosis of patients with complex CHD undergoing revascularization treatment.The authors in this article summary the practical application of SYNTAX and its derivative scores in complex CHD in order to deepen the understanding of the relationship between the choice of different revascularization strategies and SYNTAX and its derived scores in complex CHD and provide a further reference for clinical treatment of complex CHD.

Correlation between Hypertension and SYNTAX Score in Patients with Chest Pain Admitted to Cardiology Department for Coronary Angiography

Background: Hypertension is associated with an increased risk of cardiovascular events, cardiovascular and all-cause mortality. However, the diagnostic ability of hypertension for the presence and severity of CAD (coronary artery disease) has not been elucidated. This study investigates the relationship between hypertension and CAD complexity using the SYNTAX score to determine hypertension’s roles in coronary heart disease progression. Method: This is a prospective study that includes consecutive 410 adult patients at mean age (61 ± 11 years) who are admitted to Cardiology Department and undergo invasive coronary angiography (CAG) where a significant coronary lesion (SCL) is defined as stenosis ≥50% in vessel diameter ≥ 1.5 mm. The SYNTAX scores were calculated using the SYNTAX score algorithm. Results: The mean rank of SYNTAX score was significantly higher among hypertension than non-hypertension (mean rank: 279, 184, p = 0.006) groups. SYNTAX score was positively correlated with age (r: 0.263, p < 0.001) and LDL (correlation coefficient 0.102, p = 0.038) but inversely with HDL (r: 0.107, p = 0.031), in multivariate linear regression age (regression coefficient 0.3, p < 0.001), male (-4.4, p = 0.002), HDL (-6.4, p = 0.002) were significant independent risk factors for SYNTAX score, in ordinal regression model aging (odd ratio: 1.08, p < 0.001), being a male (2.84, p = 0.026), HDL (0.05, p < 0.001), BMI (0.86, p = 0.020) were significantly independent predictor of increase or decrease probability of falling in high syntax score group. Conclusion Hypertension affects the distribution of SYNTAX score among patients with and without hypertension, and the prevalence of significant coronary lesions was more frequent in hypertensive patients. Hypertension was not a predictor of significant or complex coronary artery lesion, but advanced age, being a male, HDL, LDL and BMI are considered as independent risk factors for high SYNTAX score, Subsequently and the complexity of CAD. Therefore, when patients with CAD have these factors, we expect that the Patient’s CAD complexity will be high.

Low-Dose Unfractionated Heparin with Sequential Enoxaparin in Patients with Diabetes Mellitus and Complex Coronary Artery Disease during Elective Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background： Despite its limitations, unfractionated heparin （UFH） has been the standard anticoagulant used during percutaneous coronary intervention （PCl）. This study compared the safety of low-dose UFH with sequential enoxaparin with that of UFH in patients with diabetes mellitus （DM） and complex coronary artery disease receiving elective PCl. Methods： In this retrospective study, 514 consecutive patients with atherosclerotic cardiovascular diseases and type 2 DM were admitted to the hospital and received selective PCI, from January 2013 to December 2015. All patients with PCl received low-dose UFH with enoxaparin （intraductal 50 U/kg UFH and 0.75 mg/kg enoxaparin, n = 254; UFH-Enox group） or UFH only （intraductal 100 U/kg UFH, n = 260; UFH group）. The study endpoints were major adverse cardiac events （MACEs）, namely death, myocardial infarction （MI）, stroke, target-vessel immediate revascularization （TVR）, and thrombolysis in MI （TIMI） major bleeding, within 30 days and 1 year after PCI. Any catheter thrombosis during the procedure was recorded. Results： Only one patient had an intraductal thrombus in the UFH group. At the 30-day follow-up, no MACE occurred in any group; seven and five cases of recurrent angina and/or rehospitalization were reported in the UFH-Enox and UFH groups, respectively; there was no significant difference between the two groups （χ^2= 0.11, P = 0.77）. There was no TIMI major bleeding in the groups. With respect to the 1-year endpoint, two cases of recurrent MI and two of TVRs were reported in the UFH-Enox group, whereas in the UFH group, one case of recurrent MI and three of TVRs were reported; no significant difference existed between the two groups （χ^2 0, P= 0.99）. There were 30 and 25 recurrent angina and/or rehospitalizations in the UFH-Enox and UFH groups, respectively; there was no significant difl＇erence between the two groups （χ^2 = 0.37, P= 0.57）. Conclusion： In elective PCI, low-dose UFH with sequential enoxaparin has similar effects and safety to the UFH-only method.

Unfractionated Heparin with Sequential Enoxaparin in Patients with Complex Coronary Artery Lesions during Percutaneous Coronary Intervention

Background： Unfractionated heparin （UFH）, despite its limitations, has been used as the primary anticoagulant alternative during the percutaneous coronary intervention （PCI）. Some studies indicated that intravenous enoxaparin could be an effective and safe option. Our team used enoxaparin alone at one time according to the guidelines （Class IIA） and found a little catheter thrombosis during PCI. We recommend a new anticoagulation strategy using enoxaparin in combination with UFH. Enoxaparin has a more predictable anticoagulant response with no need of repeatedly monitoring anticoagulation during PCI. This retrospective study aimed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of using enoxaparin in combination with UFH in PCI patients with complex coronary artery disease. Methods： Between January 2015 and April 2017, 600 PCI patients who received intravenous UFH at an initial dose of 3000 U plus intravenous enoxaparin at a dose of 0.75 mg/kg （observation group） and 600 PCI patients who received UFH at a dose of 100 U/kg （control group） were consecutively included in this retrospective study. The endpoints were postoperative 48-h thrombolysis in myocardial infarction （TIMI） bleeding and transfusion and 30-day and l-year major adverse cardio-cerebrovascular events （MACCE）. Results： Baseline clinical, angiographic, and procedural characteristics were similar between groups, except there was less stent implantation per patient in the observation group （2.13 vs. 2.25 in the control group, P = 0.002）. TIMI bleeding （3.3% vs. 4.7%） showed no significant difference between the observation group and control group. During the 30-day follow-up, the rate of MACCE was 0.9% in the observation group and 1.5% in the control group. There was no significant difference in the rates of MACCE, death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, cerebrovascular event, and angina within 30 days and 1 year after PC1 between groups as well as in the subgroup analysis of transfemoral approach. Conclusions： UFH with sequential enoxaparin has similar anticoagulant effect and safety as UFH in PCI of complex coronary artery disease.