Search

Coronary computed tomography angiography (CCTA) has emerged as a noninvasive alternative to invasive coronary angiography (ICA) for diagnosing coronary artery disease (CAD). Hence, the question of CCTA's ability to guide surgical decision-making moves into the center of attention. CCTA is specifically powerful in ruling out CAD. We, therefore, performed a meta-analysis and systematic review to compare the clinical end points between patients who received ICA or CCTA to rule out CAD before valve surgery. A total of 3 databases were assessed. The primary outcome was perioperative mortality. Secondary outcomes were acute kidney injury (AKI), myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACEs). The odds ratio (OR) and the respective confidence interval (CI) was calculated. A random-effects model was performed. A total of 5 studies with 6,654 patients qualified for the analysis. There was no significant difference between the 2 groups regarding the primary end point (OR 1.20, 95% CI 0.67 to 2.15, p = 0.53). The secondary outcomes also did not show any significant differences in AKI (OR 1.14, 95% CI 1.14, 0.88 to 1.49, p = 0.32), MI (OR 0.89, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.22, p = 0.45), stroke (OR 1.12, 95% CI 0.48 to 2.60, p = 0.79), or MACEs (OR 1.17, 95% CI 0.86 to 1.59, p = 0.33) incidences. The analysis suggests that CCTA is a safe and reliable noninvasive alternative to ICA for coronary imaging before valve surgery. Conceivable differences in imaging modalities were not associated with increases in perioperative mortality, AKI, MI, stroke, or MACEs., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest The authors have no competing interests to declare., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.) more...

Recent randomized evidence has shown that low-dose colchicine lowers the risk of cardiovascular events in patients with chronic coronary artery disease. Colchicine has also been used in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), with individual studies suggesting protective effects for postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF). We performed a meta-analysis of studies assessing the effect of colchicine on outcomes in CABG surgery. We systematically searched 3 libraries (MEDLINE, Web of Science, and the Cochrane Library), selecting all randomized control trials including patients who underwent CABG and were randomized for perioperative administration of colchicine versus standard of care. The primary outcome was incidence of POAF. The inverse variance method (DerSimonian&Laird) and random-effects model were performed. The leave-one-out analysis was carried out as a sensitivity analysis to address possible outliers. From 205 screened studies, 5 met the inclusion criteria and were selected. The data from 839 patients were included in the final analysis. The included studies were published between 2014 and 2022. The perioperative administration of colchicine was associated with the reduction of POAF rates after CABG compared with standard of care (relative risk 0.54, 95% confidence interval 0.40 to 0.73, p <0.01). The leave-one-out analysis confirmed the robustness of the analysis, with minimal variations of the confidence interval. This meta-analysis of randomized studies suggests that the perioperative administration of colchicine is associated with significant reduction of POAF after CABG., Competing Interests: Declaration of competing interest Dr. Caldonazo received funding from the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (German Research Foundation) Clinician Scientist Program OrganAge funding number 413668513, by the Deutsche Herzstiftung (German Heart Foundation) funding number S/03/23 and by the Interdisciplinary Center of Clinical Research of the Medical Faculty Jena., (Copyright © 2024 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.) more...

Background: Liver dysfunction is a known risk factor in the cardiovascular field. It specifically increases perioperative risk in patients undergoing coronary bypass surgery. Since percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is the much less invasive procedure for the treatment of coronary artery disease, we aimed to assess the relationship of liver dysfunction with outcomes in patients undergoing PCI., Methods: Three libraries were searched (MEDLINE, Web of Science and The Cochrane Library). We performed a meta-analysis of all studies in patients who underwent PCI that provided information on the presence or absence of liver dysfunction. Primary outcome was short-term mortality. Secondary outcomes were major adverse cardio- and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), bleeding and acute kidney injury. Random-effects model was applied., Results: Five studies were selected and the data from 10,710,317 patients were included in the final analysis. In comparison with the absence of liver dysfunction, patients with liver dysfunction were associated with higher short-term mortality (OR 2.97, 95%CI 1.23-7.18, p = 0.02), higher MACCE (OR 1.42, 95%CI 1.08-1.87, p = 0.01), and higher bleeding (OR 2.23, 95%CI 1.65-3.00, p < 0.01). There was no significant difference regarding acute kidney injury (OR 1.20, 95%CI 0.50-2.87, p = 0.69)., Conclusions: The analysis suggests that liver dysfunction in patients undergoing PCI is independently associated with higher risk of short-term mortality and increased occurrence of MACCE and bleeding. However, there appears to be no association to acute kidney injury., (© 2024. The Author(s).) more...

Background: In the ISCHEMIA (International Study of Comparative Health Effectiveness with Medical and Invasive Approaches) trial, the risk of ischemic events was similar in patients with stable coronary artery disease treated with an invasive (INV) strategy of angiography and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or surgical (coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]) coronary revascularization and a conservative (CON) strategy of initial medical therapy., Objectives: The authors analyzed separately the outcomes of INV patients treated with PCI or CABG., Methods: Patients without preceding primary outcome events were categorized as INV-PCI or INV-CABG from the time of revascularization. The ISCHEMIA primary outcome (composite of cardiovascular death, protocol-defined myocardial infarction or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest) was used., Results: Among INV-CABG patients, primary outcome events occurred in 84 of 512 (16.4%) at a median follow-up of 2.85 years; 48 events (57.1%) occurred within 30 days after CABG, including 40 procedural MIs. Among INV-PCI patients, primary outcome events occurred in 147 of 1,500 (9.8%) at median follow-up of 2.94 years; 31 of which (21.1%) occurred within 30 days after PCI, including 24 procedural MIs. In comparison, 352 of 2,591 CON patients (13.6%) had primary outcome events at a median follow-up of 3.2 years, 22 of which (6.3%) occurred within 30 days of randomization. The adjusted primary outcome risks were higher after both CABG and PCI within 30 days (HR: 16.25 [95% CI: 11.44-23.07] and HR: 2.99 [95% CI: 1.97-4.53]) and lower thereafter (0.63 [95% CI: 0.44-0.89] and 0.66 [95% CI: 0.53-0.82])., Conclusions: In ISCHEMIA, early revascularization by PCI and CABG was associated with higher early risks and lower long-term risks of cardiovascular events compared with CON. The early risk was greatest after CABG, owing to protocol-defined procedural MIs., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures Dr Redfors has received grant support from the European Research Council, the Swedish Scientific Council, Swedish Heart and Lung Foundation, and the Swedish Society for Medical Research; and receives consulting payments from Pfizer and Boehringer Ingelheim. Dr Stone has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic, Pulnovo, Infraredx, Abiomed, Amgen, and Boehringer Ingelheim; has served as a consultant to Abbott, Daiichi-Sankyo, Ablative Solutions, CorFlow, Cardiomech, Robocath, Miracor, Vectorious, Apollo Therapeutics, Valfix, TherOx, HeartFlow, Neovasc, Ancora, Elucid Bio, Occlutech, Impulse Dynamics, Adona Medical, Millennia Biopharma, Oxitope, Cardiac Success, and HighLife; has equity/options from Ancora, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestra Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, Valfix, and Xenter; and his employer, Mount Sinai Hospital, receives research grants from Abbott, Abiomed, Bioventrix, Cardiovascular Systems Inc, Phillips, Biosense Webster, Shockwave, Vascular Dynamics, Pulnovo, and V-wave. Dr Alexander receives research grant funding through Duke University from Artivion/CryoLife, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, CSL Behring, Ferring, U.S. FDA, Humacyte, U.S. NIH, and XaTek; and has received consulting or advisory board payments from AbbVie, Akros, Artivion/CryoLife, AtriCure, Bayer, Bristol Myers Squibb, Ferring, GlaxoSmithKline, Janssen, Novostia, Pfizer, Portola, Quantum Genomics, Theravance, and Veralox. Dr Bates has served on the Advisory Board for Angiowave, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Elsevier Practice Update Cardiology, High Enroll, Janssen, Level Ex, McKinsey, Medscape Cardiology, Merck, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novo Nordisk, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, and Stasys; has served on the Board of Directors for the American Heart Association New York City, Angiowave, Bristol Myers Squibb, DRS.LINQ, and High Enroll; has stock in Angiowave, Bristol Myers Squibb, DRS.LINQ, and High Enroll; has been a consultant for Broadview Ventures, Hims, SFJ, and Youngene; has served on the Data Monitoring Committees for Acesion Pharma, Assistance Publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute, for the PORTICO trial, funded by St. Jude Medical (now Abbott), Boston Scientific (Chair, PEITHO trial), Cleveland Clinic, Contego Medical (Chair, PERFORMANCE 2), Duke Clinical Research Institute, Mayo Clinic, Mount Sinai School of Medicine (for the ENVISAGE trial, funded by Daiichi-Sankyo, for the ABILITY-DM trial, funded by Concept Medical; and for ALLAY-HF, funded by Alleviant Medical), Novartis, Population Health Research Institute; Rutgers University (for the NIH-funded MINT Trial); has received honoraria from the American College of Cardiology (Senior Associate Editor, Clinical Trials and News, ACC.org; Chair, ACC Accreditation Oversight Committee), Arnold and Porter law firm (work related to Sanofi/Bristol Myers Squibb clopidogrel litigation), Baim Institute for Clinical Research (formerly Harvard Clinical Research Institute; RE-DUAL PCI clinical trial steering committee funded by Boehringer Ingelheim; AEGIS-II executive committee funded by CSL Behring), Belvoir Publications (Editor-in-Chief, Harvard Heart Letter), Canadian Medical and Surgical Knowledge Translation Research Group (clinical trial steering committees), CSL Behring (AHA lecture), Cowen and Company, Duke Clinical Research Institute (clinical trial steering committees, including for the PRONOUNCE trial, funded by Ferring Pharmaceuticals), HMP Global (Editor-in-Chief, Journal of Invasive Cardiology), Journal of the American College of Cardiology (Guest Editor; Associate Editor), K2P (Co-Chair, interdisciplinary curriculum), Level Ex, Medtelligence/ReachMD (CME steering committees), MJH Life Sciences, Oakstone CME (Course Director, Comprehensive Review of Interventional Cardiology), Piper Sandler, Population Health Research Institute (for the COMPASS operations committee, publications committee, steering committee, and USA national co-leader, funded by Bayer), WebMD (CME steering committees), Wiley (steering committee), Clinical Cardiology (Deputy Editor); has a patent: sotagliflozin (named on a patent for sotagliflozin assigned to Brigham and Women's Hospital who assigned to Lexicon, neither I nor Brigham and Women's Hospital receive any income from this patent); has received research funding from Abbott, Acesion Pharma, Afimmune, Aker Biomarine, Alnylam, Amarin, Amgen, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Beren, Boehringer Ingelheim, Boston Scientific, Bristol Myers Squibb, Cardax, CellProthera, Cereno Scientific, Chiesi, CinCor, Cleerly, CSL Behring, Eisai, Ethicon, Faraday Pharmaceuticals, Ferring Pharmaceuticals, Forest Laboratories, Fractyl, Garmin, HLS Therapeutics, Idorsia, Ironwood, Ischemix, Janssen, Javelin, Lexicon, Lilly, Medtronic, Merck, Moderna, MyoKardia, NirvaMed, Novartis, Novo Nordisk, Otsuka, Owkin, Pfizer, PhaseBio, PLx Pharma, Recardio, Regeneron, Reid Hoffman Foundation, Roche, Sanofi, Stasys, Synaptic, The Medicines Company, Youngene, and 89Bio; has received royalties from Elsevier (Editor, Braunwald’s Heart Disease); served as a site co-investigator for Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, CSI, Endotronix, St. Jude Medical (now Abbott), Philips, SpectraWAVE, Svelte, and Vascular Solutions; has served as a trustee for the American College of Cardiology; and has received unfunded research from FlowCo. Dr Biondi-Zoccai has consulted for Amarin, Balmed, Cardionovum, Crannmedical, Endocore Lab, Eukon, Guidotti, Innovheart, Meditrial, Microport, Opsens Medical, Terumo, and Translumina. Dr Caldonazo is supported by the Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG, German Research Foundation) Clinician Scientist Program OrganAge funding number 413668513, by the Deutsche Herzstiftung (DHS, German Heart Foundation) funding number S/03/23 and by the Interdisciplinary Center of Clinical Research of the Medical Faculty Jena. Dr Gaudino receives grant support from the National Institute of Health, the Canadian Institutes of Health and Research, and the Starr Foundation. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2024 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.) more...

There is debate on the best treatment for significant stenoses of the left main (LM) coronary artery. The available evidence is based on four randomized trials, which were either performed specifically to assess patients with LM disease (EXCEL, NOBLE, PRECOMBAT) or had a significant fraction of patients with this disease pattern (SYNTAX). A meta-analysis revealed no difference in periprocedural and 5-year mortality but demonstrated a significant reduction of spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI) with CABG. Furthermore, the recently published SWEDEHEART registry data have shown survival advantage and fewer MACCE with CABG for LM disease after adjustment. In general, patients with more severe coronary artery disease (CAD) appear to have a survival advantage with CABG both over PCI and medical therapy (independent of the presence or absence of LM stenosis), which is always associated with a reduction of spontaneous MI in the CABG arm. Since the nomenclature of LM disease does not automatically reflect the complexity of CAD, we review the nature of LM disease in this article. We mechanistically assess the treatment effects of PCI and CABG for patients with LM disease, which is rarely isolated, often distal, and mostly associated with varying degrees of single and multi-vessel disease. We conclude that in patients with isolated LM shaft lesions and associated diseases of low complexity, the risk of spontaneous MI is lower, and PCI may achieve similar long-term outcomes compared to CABG. Thus, heart teams are essential for selecting the best treatment option and should focus on assessing infarction risk in chronic CAD., (Copyright© Bentham Science Publishers; For any queries, please email at epub@benthamscience.net.) more...

Mechanisms of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) differ as CABG provides surgical collateralization and may prolong life by preventing future myocardial infarctions (MI). However, CABG benefits are unclear in octogenarians, where surgical risk is often perceived as higher and PCI is chosen more liberally. We performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing outcomes in octogenarians with left main or multivessel disease who underwent CABG or PCI. Primary outcome was late mortality (> 5 years). Secondary outcomes were perioperative mortality, MI, re-revascularization (R-R), acute renal failure (ARF), and stroke. Fourteen studies with 17,942 patients were included. CABG was associated with lower late mortality (hazard ratio, HR: 1.23, 95% confidence interval: CI 1.05-1.44, p < 0.01). In the pooled Kaplan-Meier analysis CABG showed significantly lower risk of death in the follow-up compared to PCI (HR: 1.08, 95%CI 1.02-1.41, p = 0.005). Landmark analyses confirmed the survival advantage of CABG over PCI after 21.5 months of follow-up (HR: 1.31, 1.19-1.44, p < 0.0001), but suggested advantage of PCI over CABG in the first 30-days (HR: 0.72, 0.64-0.82, p < 0.0001) and comparable survival from 1 to 21.5 months (HR: 0.98, 0.92-1.05, p = 0.652). We found lower risk for MI and R-R after CABG but higher perioperative mortality and no differences in ARF and stroke. CABG appears superior to PCI over time in octogenarians with complex CAD. This survival advantage is associated with fewer events of MI and R-R; however, it comes with an increased risk in perioperative mortality., (© 2023. The Author(s).) more...

It is current practice to perform concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with infective endocarditis who have relevant coronary artery disease. However, CABG may add complexity to the operation. We performed a systematic review and a meta-analysis of studies that presented outcomes from patients who underwent valve surgery because of infective endocarditis with or without concomitant CABG. Three databases were assessed. Perioperative mortality was the primary outcome. Long-term mortality and postoperative stroke were the secondary outcomes. Inverse variance method and random model were performed. Five studies with a total of 5,408 patients were included. Mean follow-up was 8.2 years. Just 1 study addressed exclusively patients with documented coronary artery disease. Perioperative mortality did not differ between patients with or without concomitant CABG (odds ratio 1.53, 95% confidence interval 0.52 to 4.48, p = 0.44). Long-term mortality did not differ between patients who received and those who did not receive concomitant CABG (odds ratio 1.79, confidence interval 0.88 to 3.65, p = 0.11). Only 1 study from a multicenter registry reported data on the occurrence of postoperative stroke, which demonstrated that its incidence after adjustment was 26% in patients with concomitant CABG versus 21% in patients without concomitant CABG (p = 0.003). The results suggest that in endocarditis patients, adding CABG to valve surgery does not affect perioperative or long-term mortality. Data available on the impact of concomitant CABG on neurologic outcomes are limited to a retrospective multicenter registry and suggest that concomitant CABG may be associated with higher postoperative stroke., Competing Interests: Declaration of Competing Interest The authors declare that they have no known competing financial interests or personal relationships that could have appeared to influence the work reported in this paper., (Copyright © 2023 The Authors. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.) more...

PubMed displayed almost 37,000 hits for the search term "cardiac surgery AND 2022." As before, we used the PRISMA approach and selected relevant publications for a results-oriented summary. We focused on coronary and conventional valve surgery, their overlap with interventional alternatives, and briefly assessed surgery for aorta or terminal heart failure. In the field of coronary artery disease (CAD), key manuscripts addressed prognostic implications of invasive treatment options, classically compared modern interventions (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]) with surgery (coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]), and addressed technical aspects of CABG. The general direction in 2022 confirms the superiority of CABG over PCI in patients with anatomically complex chronic CAD and supports an infarct-preventative effect as underlying mechanism. In addition, the relevance of proper surgical technique to achieve durable graft patency and the need for optimal medical treatment in CABG patients was impressively illustrated. In structural heart disease, the comparisons of interventional and surgical techniques have been characterized by prognostic and mechanistic investigations underscoring the need for durable treatment effects and reductions of valve-related complications. Early surgery for most valve pathologies appears to provide significant survival advantages, and two publications on the Ross operation prototypically illustrate an inverse association between long-term survival and valve-related complications. For surgical treatment of heart failure, the first xenotransplantation was certainly dominant, and in the aortic surgery field, innovations in arch surgery prevailed. This article summarizes publications perceived as important by us. It cannot be complete nor free of individual interpretation, but provides up-to-date information for decision-making and patient information., Competing Interests: None declared., (Thieme. All rights reserved.) more...

There is an ongoing debate whether coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) provide better results for the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD). We aimed to evaluate the impact of CABG or PCI on long-term survival based on local reports from different regions in the world. We systematically searched MEDLINE selecting studies that compared outcomes for CABG or PCI as a treatment for CAD in the last 10 years. Reports without all-cause mortality, multi-national cohorts, hybrid revascularization populations were excluded. Qualifying studies were statistically compared, and their geographic location visualized on a world map. From 5126 studies, one randomized and twenty-two observational studies (19 risk-adjusted) met the inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up was 4.7 ± 7 years and 18 different countries were included. In 17 studies, CABG was associated with better survival during follow-up, six studies showed no significant difference, and no study favored PCI. Periprocedural mortality was not different in seven, lower with PCI in one, lower with CABG in three and not reported in 12 studies. In regional registry-type comparisons, CABG is associated with better long-term survival compared to PCI in most regions of the world without evidence for higher periprocedural mortality., (© 2022. The Author(s).) more...

Non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) affects millions of patients. Although an invasive strategy can improve survival, the optimal treatment [i.e., percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)] is not clear. We performed a meta-analysis of studies reporting outcomes between PCI and CABG in patients with NSTE-ACS. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were assessed. The primary outcome was long-term mortality. Inverse variance method and random model were performed. We identified 13 observational studies (48,891 patients). No significant difference was found in the primary endpoint [CABG vs. PCI, incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70; 1.23]. CABG was associated with lower long-term major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (IRR 0.64, 95% CI 0.54; 0.76) and lower long-term re-revascularization (IRR 0.37, 95% CI 0.30; 0.47). There was no significant difference in long-term myocardial infarction (CABG vs. PCI, IRR 0.96, 95% CI 0.50; 1.84) and peri-operative mortality (CABG vs. PCI, odds ratio 1.36, 95% CI 0.94; 1.95). For the treatment of NSTE-ACS, CABG and PCI are associated with similar rates of long-term mortality and myocardial infarction. CABG is associated with lower rates of long-term MACE and re-revascularization. Randomized comparisons in this setting are necessary., (© 2022. The Author(s).) more...

The article "Prognostic Impact of Prior Percutaneous Coronary Interventions in Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting—A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis" explores the impact of prior percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) on patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The study found that patients with prior PCI had higher rates of perioperative mortality compared to those who underwent CABG as the primary treatment for coronary artery disease (CAD). Secondary outcomes such as perioperative myocardial infarction, neurological events, bleeding, acute renal failure, and hospital length of stay did not show significant differences between the two groups. [Extracted from the article] more...