The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides ...the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.
A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline.
Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation as a direct bridge to heart transplantation in adults Fukuhara, Shinichi; Takeda, Koji; Kurlansky, Paul A. ...
Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery/The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery/The journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery,
April 2018, 2018-04-00, 20180401, Volume:
155, Issue:
4
Journal Article
Peer reviewed
Open access
Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) use as a bridge to transplant is extremely infrequent in adults. We investigated patient outcomes of the use of ECMO as bridge to transplant.
...United Network of Organ Sharing provided de-identified patient-level data. Between 2003 and 2016, 25,168 adult recipients were identified. Of these, 107 (0.4%) were bridged with ECMO and 6148 (24.4%) were bridged with a continuous-flow left ventricular assist device.
Patients in ECMO group were younger, more likely to have severely disabled functional status, shorter waitlist time, and were more frequently mechanically ventilated than were patients in the continuous-flow left ventricular assist device group. Kaplan-Meier analysis demonstrated estimated posttransplant survival of 73.1% versus 93.1% at 90 days (P < .001) and 67.4% versus 82.4% at 3 years (P < .001) in ECMO and continuous-flow left ventricular assist device groups, respectively. Analysis of a propensity-matched cohort still demonstrated a lower survival in ECMO group at 90 days (74.8% vs 88.8%; P = .025) and 3 years (69.3% vs 82.2%; P = .054). Among the ECMO patients, multivariable logistic and Cox regression analyses showed model for end-stage liver disease excluding international normalized ratio (MELD-XI) score to be the sole contributor to both 90-day (odds ratio, 1.94; 95% confidence interval, 1.00-3.76; P = .050) and 3-year mortality (hazard ratio, 1.47; 95% confidence interval, 1.16-1.88; P = .002). ECMO-supported patients with a high MELD-XI score (>17) were associated with poor posttransplant survival compared with those with a low MELD-XI score (<13) (90 day, 54.4% vs 85.0% P < .001 and 3 year, 49.5% vs 73.5% P < .001).
Bridge to transplant with ECMO was associated with increased early/mid-term mortality, especially in patients with a high MELD-XI score who demonstrated > 50% 3-year mortality. These findings may help to inform future organ allocation policies.
The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) uses statistical models to create risk-adjusted performance metrics for Adult Cardiac Surgery Database (ACSD) participants. Because of temporal changes in ...patient characteristics and outcomes, evolution of surgical practice, and additional risk factors available in recent ACSD versions, completely new risk models have been developed.
Using July 2011 to June 2014 ACSD data, risk models were developed for operative mortality, stroke, renal failure, prolonged ventilation, mediastinitis/deep sternal wound infection, reoperation, major morbidity or mortality composite, prolonged postoperative length of stay, and short postoperative length of stay among patients who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (n = 439,092), aortic or mitral valve surgery (n = 150,150), or combined valve plus coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (n = 81,588). Separate models were developed for each procedure and endpoint except mediastinitis/deep sternal wound infection, which was analyzed in a combined model because of its infrequency. A surgeon panel selected predictors by assessing model performance and clinical face validity of full and progressively more parsimonious models. The ACSD data (July 2014 to December 2016) were used to assess model calibration and to compare discrimination with previous STS risk models.
Calibration in the validation sample was excellent for all models except mediastinitis/deep sternal wound infection, which slightly underestimated risk and will be recalibrated in feedback reports. The c-indices of new models exceeded those of the last published STS models for all populations and endpoints except stroke in valve patients.
New STS ACSD risk models have generally excellent calibration and discrimination and are well suited for risk adjustment of STS performance metrics.
The last published version of The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Adult Cardiac Surgery Database (ACSD) risk models were developed in 2008 based on patient data from 2002 to 2006 and have been ...periodically recalibrated. In response to evolving changes in patient characteristics, risk profiles, surgical practice, and outcomes, the STS has now developed a set of entirely new risk models for adult cardiac surgery.
New models were estimated for isolated coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (CABG n = 439,092), isolated aortic or mitral valve surgery (n = 150,150), and combined valve plus CABG procedures (n = 81,588). The development set was based on July 2011 to June 2014 STS ACSD data; validation was performed using July 2014 to December 2016 data. Separate models were developed for operative mortality, stroke, renal failure, prolonged ventilation, reoperation, composite major morbidity or mortality, and prolonged or short postoperative length of stay. Because of its low occurrence rate, a combined model incorporating all operative types was developed for deep sternal wound infection/mediastinitis.
Calibration was excellent except for the deep sternal wound infection/mediastinitis model, which slightly underestimated risk because of higher rates of this endpoint in the more recent validation data; this will be recalibrated in each feedback report. Discrimination (c-index) of all models was superior to that of 2008 models except for the stroke model for valve patients.
Completely new STS ACSD risk models have been developed based on contemporary patient data; their performance is superior to that of previous STS ACSD models.
More than 90% of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is performed with a single-arterial bypass graft (SABG), based on the left internal thoracic artery (ITA) with supplemental vein grafts. This ...practice, often justified by safety concerns with multiple-arterial grafting (MABG), defies evidence of improved late survival achieved with bilateral ITA (BITA-MABG) or left ITA plus radial artery (RA-MABG). We hypothesized that MABG and SABG are equally safe.
We analyzed The Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database (2004 to 2015) to assess the operative safety of BITA-MABG (n = 73,054) and RA-MABG (n = 97,623) vs SABG (n = 1,334,511). Primary end points were operative (30-day or same hospitalization) mortality (OM) and deep sternal wound infections (DSWI). Risk-adjusted odds ratios (AOR) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were derived from by logistic regression with sensitivity analyses in multiple subcohorts including MABG use rate.
SABG (73.8% men; median age, 66 years), BITA-MABG (85.1% men; median age, 59 years), and RA-MABG (82.5% men; median age, 61 years) showed distinctly different patient characteristics. Compared with SABG (1.91% OM; 0.73% DSWI), observed OM was lower for BITA-MABG (1.19%, p < 0.001) and RA-MABG (1.19%, p < 0.001). DSWI was higher among BITA-MABG (1.08%, p < 0.001) and similar for RA-MABG (0.71%, p = 0.55). BITA-MABG showed marginally increased, likely not clinically significant, OM (AOR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.30; p = 0.05) and doubled DSWI (AOR, 2.09; 95% CI, 1.80 to 2.43; p < 0.001). RA-MABG had similar OM (AOR, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.89 to 1.15; p = 0.85) and DSWI (AOR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.13; p = 0.70). Results were consistent across multiple subcohorts. A U-shaped OM vs BITA use relation was documented, with worse OM at hospitals with low (<5%: AOR, 1.38; 95% CI, 1.18 to 1.61; p < 0.001) and high (≥40%: AOR, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.70; p = 0.049) BITA use.
MABG in the United States is associated with OM comparable to SABG and increased DSWI risk with BITA-MABG. Our findings highlight the importance of surgeon and institutional experience and careful patient selection for BITA-MABG. Our short-term results should not in any way dissuade the use of MABG, given its well-established long-term survival advantage.
The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a ...patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.
A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered.
Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.
The value of the left internal mammary artery (LIMA) graft is well established. However, the incremental value of a second IMA graft is controversial. Despite reports of improved survival with ...bilateral IMA (BIMA) grafting, the Society of Thoracic Surgeons reports its use in 4% of coronary artery bypass graft operations. We report the influence of BIMA vs SIMA grafting on hospital and late mortality in comparable groups.
Retrospective review was conducted of 4584 consecutive isolated coronary artery bypass graft operations (2369 SIMA and 2215 BIMA) performed from 1972 to 1994. The influence of the second IMA was assessed by multivariate analyses of risk factors associated with hospital and late mortality and by propensity score analysis that compares patients with similar baseline characteristics for receiving a second IMA graft. All patients were monitored clinically to assess outcomes.
Hospital mortality was 4.5% for SIMA vs 2.6% for BIMA patients (p = 0.001). When stratified by propensity score to undergo BIMA grafting, no difference in hospital mortality was found. Multivariate analyses showed SIMA grafting was significantly associated with late but not hospital mortality. Survival curves after 52,572 patient-years of follow-up (mean, 11.5 years; range, 6 weeks to 32 years) demonstrated improved long-term survival for BIMA vs SIMA patients in all quintiles except those with the greatest propensity for SIMA, wherein late survival was comparable between groups. In matched groups, survival favored BIMA patients (p = 0.001).
BIMA grafting offers a long-term survival advantage over SIMA grafting in propensity-matched groups.
PDF
