Search

Transit time flow measurement (TTFM) allows quality control in coronary artery bypass grafting but remains largely underused, probably because of limited information and the lack of standardization. We performed a systematic review of the evidence on TTFM and other methods for quality control in coronary artery bypass grafting following PRISMA standards and elaborated expert recommendations by using a structured process. A panel of 19 experts took part in the consensus process using a 3-step modified Delphi method that consisted of 2 rounds of electronic voting and a final face-to-face virtual meeting. Eighty percent agreement was required for acceptance of the statements. A 2-level scale (strong, moderate) was used to grade the statements based on the perceived likelihood of a clinical benefit. The existing evidence supports an association between TTFM readings and graft patency and postoperative clinical outcomes, although there is high methodological heterogeneity among the published series. The evidence is more robust for arterial, rather than venous, grafts and for grafts to the left anterior descending artery. Although TTFM use increases the duration and the cost of surgery, there are no data to quantify this effect. Based on the systematic review, 10 expert statements for TTFM use in clinical practice were formulated. Six were approved at the first round of voting, 3 at the second round, and 1 at the virtual meeting. In conclusion, although TTFM use may increase the costs and duration of the procedure and requires a learning curve, its cost/benefit ratio seems largely favorable, in view of the potential clinical consequences of graft dysfunction. These consensus statements will help to standardize the use of TTFM in clinical practice and provide guidance in clinical decision-making.

Background: Postoperative atrial fibrillation (pAF) after coronary artery bypass grafting is a common complication. Whether pAF is associated with an increased risk of cerebrovascular accident (CVA) remains uncertain. We investigated the association between pAF and long-term risk of CVA by performing a post hoc analysis of 10-year outcomes of the ART (Arterial Revascularization Trial)., Methods: For the present analysis, among patients enrolled in the ART (n=3102), we excluded those who did not undergo surgery (n=25), had a history of atrial fibrillation (n=45), or had no information on the incidence of pAF (n=9). The final population consisted of 3023 patients, of whom 734 (24.3%) developed pAF with the remaining 2289 maintaining sinus rhythm. Competing risk and Cox regression analyses were used to investigate the association between pAF and the risk of CVA., Results: At 10 years, the cumulative incidence of CVA was 6.3% (4.6%-8.1%) versus 3.7% (2.9%-4.5%) in patients with pAF and sinus rhythm, respectively. pAF was an independent predictor of CVA at 10 years (hazard ratio, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.06-2.23]; P =0.025) even when CVAs that occurred during the index admission were excluded from the analysis (hazard ratio, 1.47 [95% 1.02-2.11]; P =0.04)., Conclusions: Patients with pAF after coronary artery bypass grafting are at higher risk of CVA. These findings challenge the notion that pAF is a benign complication.

Background: RCTs (randomized controlled trials) are the preferred source of evidence to support professional societies' guidelines. The fragility index (FI), defined as the minimum number of patients whose status would need to switch from nonevent to event to render a statistically significant result nonsignificant, quantitatively estimates the robustness of RCT results. We evaluate RCTs supporting current guidelines on myocardial revascularization using the FI and FI minus number of patients lost to follow-up., Methods and Results: The FI and FI minus number of patients lost to follow-up of RCTs supporting the 2012 American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients with Stable Ischemic Heart Disease, the 2014 Focused Update of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Guideline for the Diagnosis and Management of Patients with Stable Ischemic Heart Disease, and the 2018 European Society of Cardiology/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery Guidelines for Myocardial Revascularization were calculated. Of 414 RCTs identified, 160 were eligible for FI calculation. The median FI was 8.0 (95% CI, 5.0-9.0) and the median FI minus number of patients lost to follow-up was 1.0 (95% CI, 0.0-3.0). FI was ≤3, indicating very limited robustness, in 44 (27.5%) RCTs, and was lower than the number LTF, indicating limited robustness, in 68 (42.5%) RCTs. FI was significantly (all P <0.05) correlated with the sample size, number of events, statistical power, journal impact factor, use of intention-to-treat analysis, and of composite end points and negatively correlated with the use of percutaneous interventions in the treatment arm and the P -value level., Conclusions: More than a quarter of RCTs that support current guidelines on myocardial revascularization have a FI of 3 or lower, and over 40% of trials reveal a FI that is lower than the number of patients lost to follow-up. These findings suggest that the robustness of the findings that support current myocardial revascularization guidelines is tenuous and vulnerable to change as new evidence from RCTs appears.

Observational and randomized evidence shows that arterial grafts have better patency rates than saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) in coronary artery bypass grafting. Observational studies suggest that the use of multiple arterial grafts is associated with longer postoperative survival, but this must be interpreted in the context of treatment allocation bias and hidden confounders intrinsic to the study designs. Recently, a pooled analysis of 6 randomized trials comparing the radial artery with the SVG as the second conduit and the largest randomized trial comparing the use of single and bilateral internal thoracic arteries have provided apparently divergent results about a clinical benefit with the use of >1 arterial conduit. However, both analyses have methodological limitations that may have influenced their results. At present, it is unclear whether the well-documented increased patency rate of arterial grafts translates into clinical benefits in the majority of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. A large randomized trial testing the arterial grafts hypothesis (ROMA [Randomized Comparison of the Clinical Outcome of Single Versus Multiple Arterial Grafts]) is underway and will report the results in a few years.

Background: The SYNTAX (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery) score (SS), a measure of anatomic coronary artery disease (CAD) extent and complexity, has proven useful in past studies to determine the absolute and relative prognosis after revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We sought to assess contemporary outcomes after PCI and CABG in patients with left main CAD according to SS and revascularization type from a large randomized trial., Methods: The EXCEL trial (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) randomized patients with left main CAD and site-assessed SS≤32 to PCI with everolimus-eluting stents or CABG. Four-year outcomes were examined according to angiographic core laboratory-assessed SS using multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression., Results: A total of 1840 patients with left main CAD randomized to PCI (n=914) versus CABG (n=926) had angiographic core laboratory SS assessment. The mean SS was 26.5±9.3 (range 5-74); 24.1% of patients had angiographic core laboratory-assessed SS ≥33. The 4-year rate of the primary major adverse cardiac event end point of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction was similar between PCI and CABG (18.6% versus 16.7%, respectively; P=0.40) and did not vary according to SS (P interaction =0.33). Rates of ischemia-driven revascularization rose with increasing SS after PCI, but not after CABG. As a result, the major secondary composite end point of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (major adverse cardiac event or ischemia-driven revascularization) occurred more frequently with PCI than CABG (28.0% versus 22.0%, P=0.01), a difference which rose progressively with increasing SS (P interaction =0.03)., Conclusions: In the EXCEL trial, the 4-year primary composite major adverse cardiac event end point of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was similar after PCI with everolimus-eluting stents and CABG and was independent of the baseline anatomic complexity and extent of CAD. In contrast, the relative and absolute hazard of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events with PCI compared with CABG rose progressively with the SS. These data should be considered by the heart team when deciding between PCI versus CABG for revascularization in patients with left main CAD., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier NCT01205776.

This article reviews the context and evidence of recent myocardial revascularization trials that compared percutaneous coronary intervention with coronary artery bypass grafting for the treatment of left main and multivessel coronary artery disease. We develop the rationale that some of the knowledge synthesis resulting from these trials, particularly with regard to the claimed noninferiority of percutaneous coronary intervention beyond nondiabetic patients with low anatomic complexity, may have been affected by trial design, patient selection based on suitability for percutaneous coronary intervention, and end point optimization favoring percutaneous coronary intervention over coronary artery bypass grafting. We provide recommendations that include holding a circumspect interpretation of the currently available evidence, as well as suggestions for the collaborative design and conduct of future clinical trials in this and other fields.

We summarize the evidence on the new strategies for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Hybrid CABG implies surgical grafting of the left anterior descending artery and percutaneous treatment of the other target vessels, with the promise of combining the durable benefits of surgery with the less invasive approach of percutaneous coronary interventions. Robotic CABG and minimally invasive CABG are performed through minimal incision or port access with dedicated equipment and instruments. Anaortic coronary artery bypass refers to off-pump CABG using only in-situ grafts. The use of multiple arterial grafts has been shown to improve patency and is potentially associated with better clinical outcomes. All these techniques require dedicated training and are more complex than conventional CABG but can significantly improve the results of surgery. Validation of the results of these new approaches in large randomized trials is a priority for the surgical community.

Background: Elevated B-type natriuretic peptide (BNP) is reflective of impaired cardiac function and is associated with worse prognosis among patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). We sought to assess the association between baseline BNP, adverse outcomes, and the relative efficacy of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with left main CAD., Methods: The EXCEL trial (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) randomized patients with left main CAD and low or intermediate SYNTAX scores (Synergy Between PCI With TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery) to PCI with everolimus-eluting stents versus CABG. The primary end point was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke. We used multivariable Cox proportional hazards regression to assess the associations between normal versus elevated BNP (≥100 pg/mL), randomized treatment, and the 3-year risk of adverse events., Results: BNP at baseline was elevated in 410 of 1037 (39.5%) patients enrolled in EXCEL. Patients with elevated BNP levels were older and more frequently had additional cardiovascular risk factors and lower left ventricular ejection fraction than those with normal BNP, but had similar SYNTAX scores. Patients with elevated BNP had significantly higher 3-year rates of the primary end point (18.6% versus 11.7%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR], 1.62; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.16-2.28; P=0.005) and higher mortality (11.5% versus 3.9%; adjusted HR, 2.49; 95% CI, 1.48-4.19; P=0.0006), both from cardiovascular and noncardiovascular causes. In contrast, there were no significant differences in the risks of myocardial infarction, stroke, ischemia-driven revascularization, stent thrombosis, graft occlusion, or major bleeding. A significant interaction ( P interaction =0.03) was present between elevated versus normal BNP and treatment with PCI versus CABG for the adjusted risk of the primary composite end point at 3 years among patients with elevated BNP (adjusted HR for PCI versus CABG, 1.54; 95% CI, 0.96-2.47) versus normal BNP (adjusted HR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.46-1.20). This interaction was stronger when log(BNP) was modeled as a continuous variable ( P interaction =0.002)., Conclusions: In the EXCEL trial, elevated baseline BNP levels in patients with left main CAD undergoing revascularization were independently associated with long-term mortality but not nonfatal adverse ischemic or bleeding events. The relative long-term outcomes after PCI versus CABG for revascularization of left main CAD may be conditioned by the baseline BNP level., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT01205776.

Graft failure occurs in a sizeable proportion of coronary artery bypass conduits. We herein review relevant current evidence to give an overview of the incidence, pathophysiology, and clinical consequences of this multifactorial phenomenon. Thrombosis, endothelial dysfunction, vasospasm, and oxidative stress are different mechanisms associated with graft failure. Intrinsic morphological and functional features of the bypass conduits play a role in determining failure. Similarly, characteristics of the target coronary vessel, such as the severity of stenosis, the diameter, the extent of atherosclerotic burden, and previous endovascular interventions, are important determinants of graft outcome and must be taken into consideration at the time of surgery. Technical factors, such as the method used to harvest the conduits, the vasodilatory protocol, the storage solution, and the anastomotic technique, also play a major role in determining graft success. Furthermore, systemic atherosclerotic risk factors, such as age, sex, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, have been variably associated with graft failure. The failure of a coronary graft is not always correlated with adverse clinical events, which vary according to the type, location, and reason for failed graft. Intraoperative flow verification and secondary prevention using antiplatelet and lipid-lowering agents can help reducing the incidence of graft failure., (© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Coronary artery bypass grafting remains one of the most commonly performed major surgeries, with well-established symptomatic and prognostic benefits in patients with multivessel and left main coronary artery disease. This review summarizes current indications, contemporary practice, and outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting. Despite an increasingly higher-risk profile of patients, outcomes have significantly improved over time, with significant reductions in operative mortality and perioperative complications. Five- and 10-year survival rates are ≈85% to 95% and 75%, respectively. A number of technical advances could further improve short- and long-term outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting. Developments in off-pump and no-touch procedures; epiaortic scanning; conduit selection, including bilateral internal mammary artery and radial artery use; intraoperative graft assessment; minimally invasive procedures, including robotic-assisted surgery; and hybrid coronary revascularization are discussed., (© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: Whether the use of the radial artery (RA) can improve clinical outcomes in coronary artery bypass graft surgery remains unclear. The ART (Arterial Revascularization Trial) was designed to compare survival after bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) over single left internal thoracic artery (SITA). In the ART, a large proportion of patients (≈20%) also received an RA graft instead of a saphenous vein graft (SVG). We aimed to investigate the associations between using the RA instead of an SVG to supplement SITA or BITA grafts and outcomes by performing a post hoc analysis of the ART., Methods: Patients enrolled in the ART (n=3102) were classified on the basis of conduits actually received (as treated). The analysis included 2737 patients who received an RA graft (RA group; n=632) or SVG only (SVG group; n=2105) in addition to SITA or BITA grafts. The primary end point was the composite of myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, and repeat revascularization at 5 years. Propensity score matching and stratified Cox regression were used to compare the 2 strategies., Results: Myocardial infarction, cardiovascular death, and repeat revascularization cumulative incidence was 2.3% (95% confidence interval [CI], 1.1-3.4), 3.5% (95% CI, 2.1-5.0), and 4.4% (95% CI, 2.8-6.0) in the RA group and 3.4% (95% CI, 2.0-4.8), 4.0% (95% CI, 2.5-5.6), and 7.6% (95% CI, 5.5-9.7) in the SVG group, respectively. The composite end point was significantly lower in the RA group (8.8%; 95% CI, 6.5-11.0) compared with the SVG group (13.6%; 95% CI, 10.8-16.3; P =0.005). This association was present when an RA graft was used to supplement both SITA and BITA grafts (interaction P =0.62)., Conclusions: This post hoc ART analysis showed that an additional RA was associated with lower risk for midterm major adverse cardiac events when used to supplement SITA or BITA grafts., Clinical Trial Registration: URL: https://www.situ.ox.ac.uk/surgical-trials/art. Unique identifier: ISRCTN46552265., (© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: Little evidence shows whether a third arterial graft provides superior outcomes compared with the use of 2 arterial grafts in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. A meta-analysis of all the propensity score-matched observational studies comparing the long-term outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting with the use of 2-arterial versus 3-arterial grafts was performed., Methods: A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science to identify relevant articles. Long-term mortality in the propensity score-matched populations was the primary end point. Secondary end points were in-hospital/30-day mortality for the propensity score-matched populations and long-term mortality for the unmatched populations. In the matched population, time-to-event outcome for long-term mortality was extracted as hazard ratios, along with their variance. Statistical pooling of survival (time-to-event) was performed according to a random effect model, computing risk estimates with 95% confidence intervals., Results: Eight propensity score-matched studies reporting on 10 287 matched patients (2-arterial graft: 5346; 3-arterial graft: 4941) were selected for final comparison. The mean follow-up time ranged from 37.2 to 196.8 months. The use of 3 arterial grafts was not statistically associated with early mortality (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.22; P =0.62). The use of 3 arterial grafts was associated with statistically significantly lower hazard for late death (hazard ratio, 0.8; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.87; P <0.001), irrespective of sex and diabetic mellitus status. This result was qualitatively similar in the unmatched population (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.98; P =0.04)., Conclusions: The use of a third arterial conduit in patients with coronary artery bypass grafting is not associated with higher operative risk and is associated with superior long-term survival, irrespective of sex and diabetic mellitus status., (© 2017 American Heart Association, Inc.)

The radial artery (RA) is a commonly used conduit for coronary artery bypass grafting, and recent studies have demonstrated that it provides superior long-term patency rates to the saphenous vein in most situations. In addition, the RA is also being used with increasing frequency as the access point for coronary angiography and percutaneous coronary interventions. However, there has been concern for many years that these transradial procedures may have a detrimental impact on the function of RA grafts used in coronary artery bypass grafting, and there is now comprehensive evidence that such interventions cause morphologic and functional damage to the artery in situ. Despite this, there remain remarkably few studies investigating the use of previously cannulated RAs as grafts in coronary artery bypass surgery, and there are no clear guidelines on the use of the RA in coronary artery bypass grafting after its catheterization. This article will review concisely the evidence that transradial procedures cause damage to the RA, and discuss the impact this could have on previously cannulated RAs used as coronary artery bypass grafting conduits. On the basis of the evidence assessed, we make a number of recommendations to both surgeons and cardiologists regarding use of the RA in cardiovascular procedures., (© 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: In the United Kingdom, cardiothoracic surgeons have led the outcome reporting revolution seen over the last 20 years. The objective of this survey was to assess cardiothoracic surgeons' opinions on the topic, with the aim of guiding future debate and policy making for all subspecialties., Methods and Results: A questionnaire was developed using interviews with experts in the field. In January 2015, the survey was sent out to all consultant cardiothoracic surgeons in the United Kingdom (n=361). Logistic regression, bivariate correlation, and the χ(2) test were used to assess whether there was a relationship between answers and demographic variables. Free-text responses were analyzed using the grounded theory approach. The response rate was 73% (n=264). The majority of respondents (58.1% oppose, 34.1% favor, and 7.8% neither) oppose the public release of surgeon-specific mortality data and associate it with several adverse consequences. These include risk-averse behavior, gaming of data, and misinterpretation of data by the public. Despite this, the majority overwhelmingly supports publication of team-based measures of outcome. The free-text responses suggest that this is because most believe that quality of care is multifactorial and not represented by an individual's mortality rate., Conclusions: There is evident opposition to surgeon-specific mortality data among UK cardiothoracic surgeons who associate this with several unintended consequences. Policy makers should refine their strategy behind publication of surgeon-specific mortality data and possibly consider shift toward team-based results for which there will be the required support. Stakeholder feedback and inclusive strategy should be completed before introducing major initiatives to avoid unforeseen consequences and disagreements., (© 2016 American Heart Association, Inc.)

Background: Although the potential survival benefit of bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) grafting in comparison with single internal mammary artery (SIMA) grafting has been emphasized by many investigators, the use of BIMA is still low in clinical practice in the absence of randomized trials and long-term results. In the current study, we aimed to assess if there is a long-term survival benefit of BIMA up to 10 years after coronary bypass surgery., Methods and Results: We selected published articles comparing survival between SIMA and BIMA patients with follow-up duration of more than a mean of 9 years. We evaluated the log hazard ratio with 95% confidence interval for included studies by using a random-effects meta-analysis. Nine eligible observational studies provided 15 583 patients (8270 SIMA and 7313 BIMA) for meta-analysis. Five studies used propensity score methods for statistical adjustment, 2 with a propensity score-based patient-matching method and 3 with quintile-based stratification. A significant reduction in mortality by using BIMA was observed (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.84); no study showed any significantly harmful effect of BIMA on survival. Subgroups of studies using different statistical approaches-unmatched, quintile-based propensity score analysis, and propensity score-based exact patient matching-all showed the survival benefit of BIMA grafting., Conclusions: BIMA grafting appears to have better survival with up to 10 years follow-up in comparison with SIMA grafting. Long-term survival benefit of BIMA seems to continue in the second decade after surgery. An ongoing randomized trial comparing SIMA and BIMA groups will add evidence on this issue., (© 2014 American Heart Association, Inc.)