Search

Abstract Introduction: The benefit of total arterial revascularization (TAR) in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) remains a controversial issue. This study sought to evaluate whether there is any difference on the long-term results of TAR and non-TAR CABG patients. Methods: The Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (MEDLINE), Excerpta Medica dataBASE (EMBASE), Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL/CCTR), Clinical Trials.gov, Scientific Electronic Library Online (SciELO), Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS), and Google Scholar databases were searched for studies published by October 2020. Randomized clinical trials and observational studies with propensity score matching comparing TAR versus non-TAR CABG were included. Random-effects meta-analysis was performed. The current barriers to implementation of TAR in clinical practice and measures that can be used to optimize outcomes were reviewed. Results: Fourteen publications (from 2012 to 2020) involving a total of 22,746 patients (TAR: 8,941 patients; non-TAR: 13,805 patients) were included. The pooled hazard ratio (HR) for long-term mortality (over 10 years) was lower in the TAR group than in the non-TAR group (random effect model: HR 0.676, 95% confidence interval 0.586-0.779, P

Abstract Objective: To test the German Aortic Valve (GAV) score at our university hospital in patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR). Methods: A total of 224 patients who underwent isolated conventional AVR between January 2015 and December 2018 were included. Patients with concomitant procedures and transcatheter aortic valve implantation were excluded. Patients’ data were collected and analyzed retrospectively. Patients’ risk scores were calculated according to criteria described by GAV score. Sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy (area under the ROC curve [AUC]) were also calculated. The calibration of the model was tested by the Hosmer-Lemeshow method. Results: The mortality rate was 8.04% (18 patients). The patients’ mean age was 58.2±19.3 years and 25% of them were female (56 patients). Mean GAV score was 1.73±5.86 (min: 0.0; max: 3.53). The GAV score showed excellent discriminative capacity (AUC 0.925, 95% confidence interval 0.882-0.956; P