Search

Background Recent evidence suggests tranexamic acid (TXA) may improve outcomes in aesthetic surgery patients. Objectives This systematic review aimed to investigate the impact of TXA use in aesthetic plastic surgery on bleeding and aesthetic outcomes. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted to identify studies evaluating TXA use in aesthetic plastic surgery. The primary outcome of interest was perioperative bleeding, reported as total blood loss (TBL), ecchymosis, and hematoma formation. Meta-analyses analyzing TBL and postoperative hematoma were performed. Results Of 287 identified articles, 14 studies evaluating TXA use in rhinoplasty (6), rhytidectomy (3), liposuction (3), reduction mammaplasty (1), and blepharoplasty (1) were included for analysis. Of 820 total patients, 446 (54.4%) received TXA. Meta-analysis demonstrated TXA is associated with 26.3 mL average blood loss reduction (95% CI, –40.0 to –12.7 mL; P Conclusions TXA is associated with decreased blood loss and a trend toward decreased hematoma formation in aesthetic plastic surgery. Its use has the potential to increase patient satisfaction with postoperative recovery and decrease costs associated with complications, including hematoma evacuation. Level of Evidence: 4

Background The Heart Team approach is ascribed a Class I recommendation in contemporary guidelines for revascularization of complex coronary artery disease. However, limited data are available regarding the decision‐making and outcomes of patients based on this strategy. Methods and Results One hundred sixty‐six high‐risk coronary artery disease patients underwent Heart Team evaluation at a single institution between January 2015 and November 2018. We prospectively collected data on demographics, symptoms, Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality/Synergy Between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery ( STS ‐ PROM / SYNTAX ) scores, mode of revascularization, and outcomes. Mean age was 70.0 years; 122 (73.5%) patients were male. Prevalent comorbidities included diabetes mellitus (51.8%), peripheral artery disease (38.6%), atrial fibrillation (27.1%), end‐stage renal disease on dialysis (13.3%), and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (21.7%). Eighty‐seven (52.4%) patients had New York Heart Association III ‐ IV and 112 (67.5%) had Canadian Cardiovascular Society III ‐ IV symptomatology. Sixty‐seven (40.4%) patients had left main and 118 (71.1%) had 3‐vessel coronary artery disease. The median STS ‐ PROM was 3.6% (interquartile range 1.9, 8.0) and SYNTAX score was 26 (interquartile range 20, 34). The median number of physicians per Heart Team meeting was 6 (interquartile range 5, 8). Seventy‐nine (47.6%) and 49 (29.5%) patients underwent percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting, respectively. With increasing STS ‐ PROM (low, intermediate, high operative risk), coronary artery bypass graft was performed less often (47.9%, 18.5%, 15.2%) and optimal medical therapy was recommended more often (11.3%, 18.5%, 30.3%). There were no trends in recommendation for coronary artery bypass graft, percutaneous coronary intervention, or optimal medical therapy by SYNTAX score tertiles. In‐hospital and 30‐day mortality was 3.9% and 4.8%, respectively. Conclusions Integrating a multidisciplinary Heart Team into institutional practice is feasible and provides a formalized approach to evaluating complex coronary artery disease patients. The comprehensive assessment of surgical, anatomical, and other risk scores using a decision aid may guide appropriate, evidence‐based management within this team‐based construct.

ObjectivesAlthough guidelines support aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with severe aortic regurgitation (AR) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) MethodsA large institutional echocardiography database was queried to identify patients with severe AR and LVEF ResultsInitially, 2 54 614 echocardiograms were considered, representing 1 45 785 unique patients, of which 40 patients met inclusion criteria. Of those, 18 (45.0%) underwent AVR and 22 (55.0%) were managed medically. Absolute mortality was 27.8% in the AVR group and 91.2% in the medical management group. After multivariate adjustment, end-stage renal disease (HR=17.633, p=0.0335) and peripheral arterial disease (HR=6.050, p=0.0180) were associated with higher mortality. AVR was associated with lower mortality (HR=0.143, p=0.0490). Mean follow-up time of the study cohort was 6.58 years, and mean survival for patients undergoing AVR was 6.31 years.ConclusionsEven after adjustment for clinical characteristics and patient age, AVR is associated with higher survival for patients with low LVEF and severe AR. Although treatment selection bias cannot be completely eliminated by this analysis, these results provide some evidence that surgery may be associated with prolonged survival in this high-risk patient group.

Background: Although guidelines support aortic valve replacement (AVR) in patients with severe aortic regurgitation (AI) and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) < 50%, severe left ventricular dysfunction (LVEF < 35%) is thought to confer very high surgical risk. The survival benefit associated with surgical intervention, however, is unknown. We evaluated long term outcomes of this patient population with and without surgical intervention. Methods: To capture patients who did and did not undergo AVR, we queried a single institutions echocardiography database to identify all patients with severe AR and LVEF < 35%. Manual chart review was performed to identify key demographic, clinical, and operative details. This retrospective cohort was then merged with institutional patient data. Due to small sample size and population heterogeneity, corrected group prognosis method was applied, which calculates the adjusted survival curve for each individual using fitted Cox proportional hazard model. Average survival adjusted for co-morbidities and age was then calculated using the weighted average of the individual survival curves. Results: Of 43 echocardiograms representing 41 unique patients, 40 patients met inclusion criteria. Of those, 18 (45.0%) underwent AVR and 22 (55.0%) were managed medically. After multivariate adjustment, end stage renal disease (HR = 17.633, p =0.0335) and peripheral arterial disease (HR = 6.050, p =0.0180) were associated with increased long term mortality. AVR was associated with decreased mortality (HR = 0.143, p =0.0490, see Figure 1). The mean survival for patients undergoing AVR was 6.3 years. The mean follow-up time was 6.58 years. Conclusions: Even after adjustment for clinical characteristics and patient age, AVR is associated with increased survival for patients with severe systolic dysfunction and severe aortic insufficiency. Although treatment selection bias cannot be completely eliminated with this retrospective cohort design, these results support performing surgery on this high-risk patient group.

Introduction: Medicare’s Hospital Readmissions Reduction Program assesses financial penalties for hospitals based on risk-standardized readmission rates after specific episodes of care, including acute myocardial infarction (AMI). Whether the algorithm accurately identifies patients with AMI who have preventable readmission is unknown. Methods: Using administrative data from Medicare, we conducted physician-adjudicated chart reviews of all patients considered 30 day readmissions after AMI attributed to one hospital from July 2012-June 2015. We extracted information about revascularization during index hospitalization. For patients readmitted to the index hospital or an affiliate, we also extracted reason for readmission. Results: Of 199 admissions, 66 (33.2%) received PCI and 19 (9.6%) underwent CABG on index hospitalization. The remainder of patients did not receive any intervention, i.e. 39 patients (19.6%) were declined due to procedural risk, 15 (7.5%) because of goals of care and 14 (7.0%) refused revascularization. Forty-six patients (23.1%) had troponin elevation in the absence of an MI and did not have an indication for revascularization. The most common diagnoses of the 161 (80.9%) patients readmitted to the index hospital or an affiliate were infections and cardiac and non-cardiac chest discomfort (Table 1). Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that many AMI patients who count towards the Medicare penalty do not receive revascularization during the index hospitalization because of high procedural risk or patient preference. Focusing on these patients may improve readmission metric performance. Furthermore, adding administrative codes for prohibitive procedural risk may improve accuracy of the metric as a measure of quality.