Search

Background: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is the most common revascularization approach for the treatment of multi-vessel coronary artery disease. While the internal mammary artery is nearly universally used to bypass the left anterior descending coronary artery, autologous saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) are still the most frequently used conduits to grafts the remaining coronary artery targets. Long-term failure of these grafts, however, continues to limit the benefits of surgery., Methods: The Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network trial of the safety and effectiveness of a Venous External Support (VEST) device is a randomized, multicenter, within-patient trial comparing VEST-supported versus unsupported saphenous vein grafts in patients undergoing CABG. Key inclusion criteria are the need for CABG with a planned internal mammary artery to the left anterior descending and two or more saphenous vein grafts to other coronary arteries. The primary efficacy endpoint of the trial is SVG intimal hyperplasia (plaque + media) area assessed by intravascular ultrasound at 12 months post randomization. Occluded grafts are accounted for in the analysis of the primary endpoint. Secondary confirmatory endpoints are lumen diameter uniformity and graft failure (>50% stenosis) assessed by coronary angiography at 12 months. The safety endpoints are the occurrence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events and hospitalization within 5 years from randomization., Conclusions: The results of the VEST trial will determine whether the VEST device can safely limit SVG intimal hyperplasia in patients undergoing CABG as treatment for coronary atherosclerotic disease., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Implantable left ventricular assist devices have benefited patients with end-stage heart failure as a bridge to cardiac transplantation, but their long-term use for the purpose of enhancing survival and the quality of life has not been evaluated., Methods: We randomly assigned 129 patients with end-stage heart failure who were ineligible for cardiac transplantation to receive a left ventricular assist device (68 patients) or optimal medical management (61). All patients had symptoms of New York Heart Association class IV heart failure., Results: Kaplan-Meier survival analysis showed a reduction of 48 percent in the risk of death from any cause in the group that received left ventricular assist devices as compared with the medical-therapy group (relative risk, 0.52; 95 percent confidence interval, 0.34 to 0.78; P=0.001). The rates of survival at one year were 52 percent in the device group and 25 percent in the medical-therapy group (P=0.002), and the rates at two years were 23 percent and 8 percent (P=0.09), respectively. The frequency of serious adverse events in the device group was 2.35 (95 percent confidence interval, 1.86 to 2.95) times that in the medical-therapy group, with a predominance of infection, bleeding, and malfunction of the device. The quality of life was significantly improved at one year in the device group., Conclusions: The use of a left ventricular assist device in patients with advanced heart failure resulted in a clinically meaningful survival benefit and an improved quality of life. A left ventricular assist device is an acceptable alternative therapy in selected patients who are not candidates for cardiac transplantation.

Background: Because left ventricular assist devices have recently been approved by the Food and Drug Administration to support the circulation of patients with end-stage heart failure awaiting cardiac transplantation, these devices are increasingly being considered as a potential alternative to biologic cardiac replacement. The Randomized Evaluation of Mechanical Assistance for the Treatment of Congestive Heart Failure (REMATCH) trial is a multicenter study supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute to compare long-term implantation of left ventricular assist devices with optimal medical management for patients with end-stage heart failure who require, but do not qualify to receive cardiac transplantation., Methods: We discuss the rationale for conducting REMATCH, the obstacles to designing this and other randomized surgical trials, the lessons learned in conducting the multicenter pilot study, and the features of the REMATCH study design (objectives, target population, treatments, end points, analysis, and trial organization)., Conclusions: We consider what will be learned from REMATCH, expectations for expanding the use of left ventricular assist devices, and future directions for assessing clinical procedures.