Authors

  • D. Axmadjonova
    Andijan State Medical Institute

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.71337/inlibrary.uz.ijms.78797

Abstract

ACS covers a range of conditions that include patients with recent changes in clinical symptoms or signs, with or without changes on the electrocardiogram (ECG), and with or without a sharp increase in cardiac troponin (cTn) concentrations. ACS is associated with a wide range of clinical manifestations, including both asymptomatic patients and patients with persistent symptoms of chest pain or discomfort, as well as patients with cardiac arrest, electrical or hemodynamic instability, and cardiogenic shock [2]. Due to significant successes in the organization of medical care for patients with ST-segment elevation ACS (ST ACS), the introduction of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) into widespread practice, over the past few years, it has been possible to reduce in-hospital mortality from this pathology [3]. However, the mortality rate of patients with ACS, especially with cardiogenic shock, is still high [4, 5]. Moreover, most of the deaths occur in the early stages of the onset of ACS, i.e., in the first 24 hours of the patient's hospitalization [3]. For this reason, when ST-elevation ACS or non-ST-elevation ACS (ST-elevation) develops, the physician needs a "tool" to predict the risk of death, in order to make quick decisions and optimize patient management. To date, such a "tool" for assessing the risk of an adverse outcome in patients is scales based on multivariate analysis, the strength and significance of which are confirmed by ROC analysis [4]. Currently, there are many scales and methods for assessing the risk of death (GRACE, TIMI, PURSUIT, EuroSCORE II, RECORD), however, they mainly take into account well-known "classical" risk factors [8, 9]. However, when analyzing the research data, it should be noted that the search for universal predictors for assessing the risk of in-hospital mortality continues, combining a number of criteria: ease of use, taking into account the impact of comorbidity, as well as the results of laboratory and instrumental research methods [5]. That is why the establishment of a set of prognostic factors can help optimize risk stratification and accurately assess the probability of death at the hospital stage.

 

 

background image

w

w

w

.a

ca

de

m

icp

ub

lis

he

rs

.o

rg

Vo

lu

m

e

5,

M

ar

ch

,2

02

5

,

M

ED

IC

AL

SC

IE

N

CE

S.

IM

PA

CT

FA

CT

OR

:7

,8

9

PATIENTS WITH ACUTE CORONARY SYNDROME

Axmadjonova D.A.

Assistant Andijan State Medical Institute

Abstract

. ACS covers a range of conditions that include patients with recent changes in

clinical symptoms or signs, with or without changes on the electrocardiogram (ECG), and

with or without a sharp increase in cardiac troponin (cTn) concentrations. ACS is associated

with a wide range of clinical manifestations, including both asymptomatic patients and

patients with persistent symptoms of chest pain or discomfort, as well as patients with

cardiac arrest, electrical or hemodynamic instability, and cardiogenic shock [2]. Due to

significant successes in the organization of medical care for patients with ST-segment

elevation ACS (ST ACS), the introduction of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) into

widespread practice, over the past few years, it has been possible to reduce in-hospital

mortality from this pathology [3]. However, the mortality rate of patients with ACS,

especially with cardiogenic shock, is still high [4, 5]. Moreover, most of the deaths occur in

the early stages of the onset of ACS, i.e., in the first 24 hours of the patient's hospitalization

[3]. For this reason, when ST-elevation ACS or non-ST-elevation ACS (ST-elevation)

develops, the physician needs a "tool" to predict the risk of death, in order to make quick

decisions and optimize patient management. To date, such a "tool" for assessing the risk of

an adverse outcome in patients is scales based on multivariate analysis, the strength and

significance of which are confirmed by ROC analysis [4]. Currently, there are many scales

and methods for assessing the risk of death (GRACE, TIMI, PURSUIT, EuroSCORE II,

RECORD), however, they mainly take into account well-known "classical" risk factors [8,

9]. However, when analyzing the research data, it should be noted that the search for

universal predictors for assessing the risk of in-hospital mortality continues, combining a

number of criteria: ease of use, taking into account the impact of comorbidity, as well as the

results of laboratory and instrumental research methods [5]. That is why the establishment of

a set of prognostic factors can help optimize risk stratification and accurately assess the

probability of death at the hospital stage.

Key words:

ACS, predictors, lethality, comorbidity.

Materials and methods.

A sequential retrospective analysis was carried out that included

212 patients with ACS (n=101 – the main group of patients who died in hospital, n=124 –

the control group) hospitalized in the Department of Emergency Cardiology of the Regional

Vascular Department for the period from January 2022 to July 2024. The criteria for

inclusion of patients in the study were men and women aged 18 years and older with an

established diagnosis of ST ACS or ST ACS. Exclusion criteria: acute myocardial

infarction, which has become a complication of PCI or coronary artery bypass grafting. An

analysis of the clinical and demographic characteristics of patients with ACS was carried out:

gender, age, timing of admission to the PCI center, blood pressure (BP), heart rate (HR), etc.;

general clinical and biochemical blood analysis; the results of electrocardiography with ST-

segment evaluation, inversion of the T wave and the appearance of a pathological Q wave in

two or more adjacent leads; data obtained by transthoracic echocardiography and coronary

angiography. Statistical processing of the data was performed using Statistica version 10.0


background image

w

w

w

.a

ca

de

m

icp

ub

lis

he

rs

.o

rg

Vo

lu

m

e

5,

M

ar

ch

,2

02

5

,

M

ED

IC

AL

SC

IE

N

CE

S.

IM

PA

CT

FA

CT

OR

:7

,8

9

and MedCalc version 20.0. For each sample, the hypothesis about the normality of the

distribution of indicators was tested using the Shapiro-Wilk test.

Results

. As a result of data processing and comparative analysis, the following statistically

significant differences were obtained between the main group of patients who died in the

hospital and the control group: patients from the study group were older – the mean age was

73±10.2 years versus (vs 63.2±9.2 years in the control group (they refused coronary

angiography (CAG) followed by possible stenting of the infarction-associated artery, which

turned out to be an independent fatal predictor for patients with ACS (OR 159.34 (95% CI

21.41–1185.49); p<0.0001). It was also found that CAG was not performed in 20 patients

from the study group (20 (20%) patients out of 101) for other reasons, two of whom

underwent TLT. Thus, the overall percentage of correctly classified cases is 88.00%, which

indicates the high statistical significance of the multivariate prognostic model. This model,

evaluated using ROC analysis (Fig. 1), has a high predictive potential: AUC – 0.957 (95%

CI 0.921–0.979; p0.3756 increases the risk of in-hospital mortality, and the value of ≤

0.3756 is associated with a low risk of in-hospital mortality in patients with ACS.

Discussion.

Diagnosing ACS is not an easy task. Even the typical symptoms of ACS have

low sensitivity and specificity. For example, among patients admitted to the hospital with

chest pain characteristic of ACS, only 50% later confirmed the diagnosis of AMI or unstable

angina; at the same time, 30–50% of patients with AMI do not have typical chest pain.

Despite this, it is possible to assume the fact of the development of ACS in a patient only on

the basis of an analysis of complaints (there are no other ways yet), but for this it is

necessary to obtain the most complete anamnestic information. Analysis of the sensitivity

and specificity of individual symptoms of ACS has shown that it is impossible to diagnose

only one symptom. Localization and nature of pain. Typical symptoms of ACS include

squeezing, tightening, pressing or burning pain behind the sternum in the depth of the chest.

The pain does not have clear boundaries and is protracted - it lasts 10-20 minutes or more.

Often, chest pain in ACS has a characteristic radiation to the left arm, left shoulder, throat,

lower jaw, epigastric region, as well as to the back, the pain can migrate. In some cases,

ACS pain is localized only in the areas of irradiation, and there is no pain in the chest.

Literature

1. Federal State Statistics Service. The Demographic Yearbook of Russia. Statistical

Handbook. - M.: Rosstat. 2023. - 256p. [Russian: Federal State Statistics Service.

Demographic Yearbook of Russia. Statistical Collection. - Moscow: Rosstat. 2023. - 256 p.

Available on: https://rosstat.gov.ru/storage/mediabank/Demogr_ejegod_2023.pdf]

2. Byrne RA, Rossello X, Coughlan JJ, Barbato E, Berry C, Chieffo A et al. 2023 ESC

Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes. European Heart Journal. 2023;

44(38):3720–826. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehad191

3. Korotaeva E.S., Koroleva L.Yu., Kovaleva G.V., Kuzmenko E.A., Nosov V.P. Major

predictors of stent thrombosis in patients with acute coronary syndrome following

transcutaneous coronary intervention who received different double antiplatelet therapy.

Kardiologiia. 2018; 57(S1):12–21. [Russian: Korotaeva E.S., Koroleva L.Yu., Kovaleva

G.V., Kuzmenko E.A., Nosov V.P. Main predictors of stent thrombosis in patients with


background image

w

w

w

.a

ca

de

m

icp

ub

lis

he

rs

.o

rg

Vo

lu

m

e

5,

M

ar

ch

,2

02

5

,

M

ED

IC

AL

SC

IE

N

CE

S.

IM

PA

CT

FA

CT

OR

:7

,8

9

acute coronary syndrome after percutaneous coronary intervention against the background of

various double antiplatelet therapy. Cardiology. 2018; 58(S1):12-21]. DOI:

10.18087/cardio.2423

4. Ibanez B, James S, Agewall S, Antunes MJ, Bucciarelli-Ducci C, Bueno H et al. 2017

ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting

with ST-segment elevation: The Task Force for the management of acute myocardial

infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of

Cardiology (ESC). European Heart Journal. 2018; 39(2):119– 77. DOI:

10.1093/eurheartj/ehx393

5. Castro-Dominguez Y, Dharmarajan K, McNamara RL. Predicting death after acute

myocardial infarction. Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine. 2018; 28(2):102–9. DOI:

10.1016/j.tcm.2017.07.011 6. Collet J-P, Thiele H, Barbato E, Barthélémy O, Bauersachs J,

Bhatt DL et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in

patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. European Heart Journal. 2021;

42(14):1289–367. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa575

References

Federal State Statistics Service. The Demographic Yearbook of Russia. Statistical Handbook. - M.: Rosstat. 2023. - 256p. [Russian: Federal State Statistics Service. Demographic Yearbook of Russia. Statistical Collection. - Moscow: Rosstat. 2023. - 256 p. Available on: https://rosstat.gov.ru/storage/mediabank/Demogr_ejegod_2023.pdf]

Byrne RA, Rossello X, Coughlan JJ, Barbato E, Berry C, Chieffo A et al. 2023 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes. European Heart Journal. 2023; 44(38):3720–826. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehad191

Korotaeva E.S., Koroleva L.Yu., Kovaleva G.V., Kuzmenko E.A., Nosov V.P. Major predictors of stent thrombosis in patients with acute coronary syndrome following transcutaneous coronary intervention who received different double antiplatelet therapy. Kardiologiia. 2018; 57(S1):12–21. [Russian: Korotaeva E.S., Koroleva L.Yu., Kovaleva G.V., Kuzmenko E.A., Nosov V.P. Main predictors of stent thrombosis in patients with acute coronary syndrome after percutaneous coronary intervention against the background of various double antiplatelet therapy. Cardiology. 2018; 58(S1):12-21]. DOI: 10.18087/cardio.2423

Ibanez B, James S, Agewall S, Antunes MJ, Bucciarelli-Ducci C, Bueno H et al. 2017 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation: The Task Force for the management of acute myocardial infarction in patients presenting with ST-segment elevation of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC). European Heart Journal. 2018; 39(2):119– 77. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehx393

Castro-Dominguez Y, Dharmarajan K, McNamara RL. Predicting death after acute myocardial infarction. Trends in Cardiovascular Medicine. 2018; 28(2):102–9. DOI: 10.1016/j.tcm.2017.07.011 6. Collet J-P, Thiele H, Barbato E, Barthélémy O, Bauersachs J, Bhatt DL et al. 2020 ESC Guidelines for the management of acute coronary syndromes in patients presenting without persistent ST-segment elevation. European Heart Journal. 2021; 42(14):1289–367. DOI: 10.1093/eurheartj/ehaa575