Search

Background: Atrial fibrillation is the most common complication after cardiac surgery and is associated with extended in-hospital stay and increased adverse outcomes, including death and stroke. Pericardial effusion is common after cardiac surgery and can trigger atrial fibrillation. We tested the hypothesis that posterior left pericardiotomy, a surgical manoeuvre that drains the pericardial space into the left pleural cavity, might reduce the incidence of atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery. Methods: In this adaptive, randomised, controlled trial, we recruited adult patients (aged ≥18 years) undergoing elective interventions on the coronary arteries, aortic valve, or ascending aorta, or a combination of these, performed by members of the Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery from Weill Cornell Medicine at the New York Presbyterian Hospital in New York, NY, USA. Patients were eligible if they had no history of atrial fibrillation or other arrhythmias or contraindications to the experimental intervention. Eligible patients were randomly assigned (1:1), stratified by CHA2DS2-VASc score and using a mixed-block randomisation approach (block sizes of 4, 6, and 8), to posterior left pericardiotomy or no intervention. Patients and assessors were blinded to treatment assignment. Patients were followed up until 30 days after hospital discharge. The primary outcome was the incidence of atrial fibrillation during postoperative in-hospital stay, which was assessed in the intention-to-treat (ITT) population. Safety was assessed in the as-treated population. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02875405, and is now complete. Findings: Between Sept 18, 2017, and Aug 2, 2021, 3601 patients were screened and 420 were included and randomly assigned to the posterior left pericardiotomy group (n=212) or the no intervention group (n=208; ITT population). The median age was 61·0 years (IQR 53·0–70·0), 102 (24%) patients were female, and 318 (76%) were male, with a me

Background: Contradictory findings from randomized trials addressing similar research questions are not uncommon in medicine. Although differing results may reflect true differences in the treatment effects or in the deliverability of the intervention, more commonly it is as a consequence of small but important discrepancies in study design. Methods: The writing group selected 4 recent trials with apparently contradictory results (2 on revascularization for left main coronary stenosis and 2 on treatment of secondary mitral regurgitation). Detailed methodologic analysis was performed to elucidate the difference in findings. Results: Differences in the definition of the primary outcome are the most likely explanation for the contradictory findings of NOBLE versus EXCEL. Differences in study design (leading to substantially different patient populations) and in outcome definition might explain the discrepant findings of MITRA-FR versus COAPT. Conclusions: As shown by the comparative analysis of NOBLE and EXCEL and MITRA-FR and COAPT, changes in study design, outcome definitions, and patient population can markedly affect the outcome of randomized clinical trials.

BACKGROUND Multiple arterial grafts may result in longer survival than single arterial grafts after coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. We evaluated the use of bilateral internal-thoracic-artery grafts for CABG. METHODS We randomly assigned patients scheduled for CABG to undergo bilateral or single internal-thoracic-artery grafting. Additional arterial or vein grafts were used as indicated. The primary outcome was death from any cause at 10 years. The composite of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, or stroke was a secondary outcome. RESULTS A total of 1548 patients were randomly assigned to undergo bilateral internal-thoracic-artery grafting (the bilateral-graft group) and 1554 to undergo single internal-thoracic-artery grafting (the single-graft group). In the bilateral-graft group, 13.9% of the patients received only a single internal-thoracic-artery graft, and in the single-graft group, 21.8% of the patients also received a radial-artery graft. Vital status was not known for 2.3% of the patients at 10 years. In the intention-to-treat analysis at 10 years, there were 315 deaths (20.3% of the patients) in the bilateral-graft group and 329 deaths (21.2%) in the single-graft group (hazard ratio, 0.96; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.82 to 1.12; P=0.62). Regarding the composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke, there were 385 patients (24.9%) with an event in the bilateral-graft group and 425 patients (27.3%) with an event in the single-graft group (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.03). CONCLUSIONS Among patients who were scheduled for CABG and had been randomly assigned to undergo bilateral or single internal-thoracic-artery grafting, there was no significant between-group difference in the rate of death from any cause at 10 years in the intention-to-treat analysis. Further studies are needed to determine whether multiple arterial grafts provide better outcomes than a single internal-thoracic-artery graft.

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.