Search

Objective: Deep sternal wound infection following coronary artery bypass grafting is a serious complication associated with significant morbidity and mortality. Despite the substantial impact of deep sternal wound infection, there is a lack of specific risk stratification tools to predict this complication after coronary artery bypass grafting. This study was undertaken to develop a specific prognostic scoring system for the development of deep sternal wound infection that could risk-stratify patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting and be applied right after the surgical procedure. Methods: Between March 2007 and August 2016, continuous, prospective surveillance data on deep sternal wound infection and a set of 27 variables of 1500 patients were collected. Using binary logistic regression analysis, we identified independent predictors of deep sternal wound infection. Initially we developed a predictive model in a subset of 500 patients. Dataset was expanded to other 1000 consecutive cases and a final model and risk score were derived. Calibration of the scores was performed using the Hosmer-Lemeshow test. Results: The model had area under Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve of 0.729 (0.821 for preliminary dataset). Baseline risk score incorporated independent predictors of deep sternal wound infection: obesity (P=0.046; OR 2.58; 95% CI 1.11-6.68), diabetes (P=0.046; OR 2.61; 95% CI 1.12-6.63), smoking (P=0.008; OR 2.10; 95% CI 1.12-4.67), pedicled internal thoracic artery (P=0.012; OR 5.11; 95% CI 1.42-18.40), and on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (P=0.042; OR 2.20; 95% CI 1.13-5.81). A risk stratification system was, then, developed. Conclusion: This tool effectively predicts deep sternal wound infection risk at our center and may help with risk stratification in relation to public reporting and targeted prevention strategies in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

OBJECTIVES To determine if there is any real difference between complete preservation (CP) and partial preservation (PP) of the mitral valve apparatus during mitral valve replacement (MVR) in terms of hard outcomes. METHODS MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, SciELO, LILACS, Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant articles were searched for clinical studies that compared outcomes [30-day mortality, postoperative low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS), 5-year mortality or left ventricle ejection fraction (LVEF) before and after surgery] between MVR-CP vs MVR-PP during MVR until July 2012. The principal summary measures were odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence interval (CI)—for categorical variables (30-day mortality, postoperative LCOS, 5-year mortality); difference means and standard error (SE)—for continuous variables (LVEF before and after surgery) and P values (that will be considered statistically significant when <0.05). The ORs were combined across studies using DerSimonian–Laird random effects weighted model. The same procedure was executed for continuous variables, taking into consideration the difference in means. RESULTS Eight studies (2 randomized and 6 non-randomized) were identified and included a total of 1535 patients (597 for MVR-CP and 938 for MVR-PP). There was no significant difference between MVR-CP or MVR-PP groups in the risk for 30-day mortality (OR 0.870; 95% CI 0.50–1.52; P = 0.63) or postoperative LCOS (OR 0.35; 95% CI 0.11–1.08 and P = 0.07) or 5-year mortality (OR 0.70; 95% CI 0.43–1.14; P = 0.15). Taking into consideration LVEF, neither MVR-CP nor MVR-CP demonstrated a statistically significant improvement in LVEF before and after surgery, and both strategies were not different from each other. No publication bias was observed. CONCLUSIONS We found evidence that argues against any superiority between both techniques of preservation (complete or partial) of mitral valve apparatus during MVR. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

OBJECTIVES To compare the safety and efficacy of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using drug-eluting stents (DES) in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease. METHODS MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL/CCTR, SciELO, LILACS, Google Scholar and reference lists of relevant articles were searched for clinical studies that reported outcomes at the 1-year follow-up after PCI with DES and CABG for the treatment of ULMCA stenosis. Sixteen studies (three randomized controlled trials and 13 observational studies) were identified and included a total of 5674 patients (2331 for PCI with DES and 3343 for CABG). RESULTS At the 1-year follow-up, there was no significant difference between the CABG and DES groups in the risk for death (odds ratio [OR] 0.691, P = 0.051) or the composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction or stroke (OR 0.832, P = 0.258). The risk for target vessel revascularization (TVR) was significantly higher in the PCI group compared with the CABG group (OR 3.597, P < 0.001). The risk of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) was significantly higher in the PCI group compared with the CABG group (OR 1.607, P < 0.001). A publication bias was observed regarding the outcome of death and also a considerable heterogeneity effect on the composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction or stroke and MACCE. CONCLUSIONS CABG surgery remains the best option of treatment for patients with ULMCA disease, with less need of TVR and lower MACCE rates. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery is the property of Sociedade Brasileira de Cirurgia Cardiovascular and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery is the property of Sociedade Brasileira de Cirurgia Cardiovascular and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)