Search

Context: Stroke is a devastating and potentially preventable complication of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. Better understanding of the timing and risk factors for stroke associated with CABG are needed.Objectives: To investigate temporal trends in stroke after CABG and to identify stroke risk factors and association with longitudinal outcomes.Design, Setting, and Patients: Prospective study conducted from 1982 through 2009 at a single US academic medical center among 45,432 consecutive patients (mean age, 63 [SD, 10] years) undergoing isolated primary or reoperative CABG surgery. Strokes occurring following CABG were recorded prospectively and classified as having occurred intraoperatively or postoperatively. Complications and survival after stroke were assessed in propensity-matched groups.Intervention: CABG performed using 4 different operative strategies (off-pump, on-pump with beating heart, on-pump with arrested heart, on-pump with hypothermic circulatory arrest).Main Outcome Measures: Hospital complications; late survival.Results: Among 45,432 patients undergoing CABG surgery, 705 (1.6% [95% confidence interval {CI}, 1.4%-1.7%]) experienced a stroke. The prevalence of stroke peaked in 1988 at 2.6% (95% CI, 1.9%-3.4%), then declined at 4.69% (95% CI, 4.68%-4.70%) per year (P = .04), despite increasing patient comorbidity. Overall, 279 strokes (40%) occurred intraoperatively and 409 (58%) occurred postoperatively (timing indeterminate in 17 patients). Postoperative stroke peaked at 40 hours, decreasing to 0.055%/d (95% CI, 0.047%-0.065%) by day 6. Risk factors for both intraoperative and postoperative stroke included older age (odds ratio, 8.5 [95% CI, 3.2-22]) and variables representing arteriosclerotic burden. Intraoperative stroke rates were lowest in off-pump CABG (0.14% [95% CI, 0.029%-0.40%]) and on-pump beating-heart CABG (0% [95% CI, 0%-1.6%]), intermediate with on-pump arrested-heart CABG (0.50% [95% CI, 0.41%-0.61%]), and highest with on-pump CABG with hypothermic circulatory arrest (5.3% [95% CI, 2.0%-11%]). Patients with stroke had worse adjusted hospital outcomes, longer intensive care and postoperative stays, and worse downstream survival (mean, 11 [SD, 8.6] years).Conclusion: Among patients undergoing CABG surgery at a single center over the past 30 years, the occurrence of stroke declined despite an increasing patient risk profile, and more than half of strokes occurred postoperatively rather than intraoperatively. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Competing Interests: Disclosures The authors have no conflicts of interest to disclose.

Objectives: The objective of this analysis was to assess the normal haemodynamic performance of contemporary surgical aortic valves at 1 year postimplant in patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement for significant valvular dysfunction. By pooling data from 4 multicentre studies, this study will contribute to a better understanding of the effectiveness of surgical aortic valve replacement procedures, aiding clinicians and researchers in making informed decisions regarding valve selection and patient management., Methods: Echocardiograms were assessed by a single core laboratory. Effective orifice area, dimensionless velocity index, mean aortic gradient, peak aortic velocity and stroke volume were evaluated., Results: The cohort included 2958 patients. Baseline age in the studies ranged from 70.1 ± 9.0 to 83.3 ± 6.4 years, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk of mortality was 1.9 ± 0.7 to 7.5 ± 3.4%. Twenty patients who had received a valve model implanted in fewer than 10 cases were excluded. Ten valve models (all tissue valves; n = 2938 patients) were analysed. At 1 year, population mean effective orifice area ranged from 1.46 ± 0.34 to 2.12 ± 0.59 cm2, and dimensionless velocity index, from 0.39 ± 0.07 to 0.56 ± 0.15. The mean gradient ranged from 8.6 ± 3.4 to 16.1 ± 6.2 mmHg with peak aortic velocity of 1.96 ± 0.39 to 2.65 ± 0.47 m/s. Stroke volume was 75.3 ± 19.6 to 89.8 ± 24.3 ml., Conclusions: This pooled cohort is the largest to date of contemporary surgical aortic valves with echocardiograms analysed by a single core lab. Overall haemodynamic performance at 1 year ranged from good to excellent. These data can serve as a benchmark for other studies and may be useful to evaluate the performance of bioprosthetic surgical valves over time., Clinical Trial Registration Number: NCT02088554, NCT02701283, NCT01586910 and NCT01531374., (© The Author(s) 2024. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Background: Diabetes may be associated with differential outcomes in patients undergoing left main coronary revascularization with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The aim of this study was to investigate outcomes in patients with left main disease with and without diabetes randomized to PCI versus CABG., Methods: Individual patient data were pooled from 4 trials (SYNTAX [Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery], PRECOMBAT [Premier of Randomized Comparison of Bypass Surgery Versus Angioplasty Using Sirolimus-Eluting Stent in Patients With Left Main Coronary Artery Disease], NOBLE [Nordic-Baltic-British Left Main Revascularisation Study], and EXCEL [Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization]) that randomized patients with left main disease to PCI or CABG. Patients were considered suitable for either approach. Patients were categorized by diabetes status. Kaplan-Meier event rates, Cox model hazard ratios, and interactions were assessed., Results: Among 4393 patients, 1104 (25.1%) had diabetes. Patients with diabetes experienced higher rates of 5-year death (158/1104 [Kaplan-Meier rate, 14.7%] versus 297/3289 [9.3%]; P <0.001), spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI; 67/1104 [6.7%] versus 114/3289 [3.7%]; P <0.001), and repeat revascularization (189/1104 [18.5%] versus 410/3289 [13.2%]; P <0.001). Rates of all-cause mortality did not differ after PCI versus CABG in those with (84/563 [15.3%] versus 74/541 [14.1%]; hazard ratio, 1.11 [95% CI, 0.82-1.52]) or without (155/1634 [9.7%] versus 142/1655 [8.9%]; hazard ratio, 1.08 [95% CI, 0.86-1.36; P intHR =0.87) diabetes. Rates of stroke within 1 year were lower with PCI versus CABG in the entire population, with no heterogeneity based on diabetes status ( P intHR =0.51). The 5-year rates of spontaneous MI and repeat coronary revascularization were higher after PCI regardless of diabetes status (spontaneous MI: 45/563 [8.9%] versus 22/541 [4.4%] in diabetes and 82/1634 [5.3%] versus 32/1655 [2.1%] in no diabetes, P intHR =0.47; repeat revascularization: 127/563 [24.5%] versus 62/541 [12.4%] in diabetes and 254/1634 [16.3%] versus 156/1655 [10.1%] in no diabetes, P intHR =0.18). For spontaneous MI and repeat revascularization, there were greater absolute risk differences beyond 1 year in patients with diabetes (4.9% and 9.9%) compared with those without (2.1% and 4.3%; P intARD =0.047 and 0.016)., Conclusions: In patients with left main disease considered equally suitable for PCI or CABG and with largely low to intermediate SYNTAX scores, diabetes was associated with higher rates of death and cardiovascular events through 5 years. Compared with CABG, PCI resulted in no difference in the risk of death and a lower risk of early stroke regardless of diabetes status, and a higher risk of spontaneous MI and repeat coronary revascularization, with larger late absolute excess risks in patients with diabetes., Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifiers: NCT01205776, NCT0146651, NCT00422968, and NCT00114972., Competing Interests: Disclosures Dr Gaba, S.A. Murphy, and Drs Bellavia, Sabatine, and Bergmark are members of the TIMI Study Group, which has received grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital (Boston, MA) from Abbott, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Intarcia, Ionis, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Quark Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, The Medicines Company, and Zora Biosciences. Dr Sabik was the North American Surgical Principal Investigator in the EXCEL trial. Dr Serruys declares consultancy or personal fees from SMT, Novartis, Philips, Xeltis, and Merillife. Dr Kappetein is an employee of Medtronic. Dr S.-J. Park declares grants from Abbott Vascular, Daiichi-Sankyo, ChongKunDang Pharm, Daewoong Pharm, and Edwards, as well as personal fees from Abbott Vascular and Edwards, all outside the submitted work. Dr D.-W. Park declares grants from Daiichi-Sankyo, ChongKunDang Pharm, Daewoong Pharm, and Abbott Vascular, as well as personal fees from Edwards, Abbott Vascular, and Medtronic, all outside the submitted work. Dr Christiansen has received grant support from Biosensors and Abbott Vascular. Dr Holm declares institutional research grants from Abbott, Biosensors, Bbraun, Boston Scientific, and Reva Medical, as well as speaker fees from Abbott, Reva Medical, and Terumo. Dr Sabatine declares research grant support through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Abbott, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Boehringer Ingelheim, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Intarcia, Ionis, The Medicines Company, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Quark Pharmaceuticals, Saghmos Therapeutics, and Verve Therapeutics. Dr Sabatine has consulted for Althera, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Beren Therapeutics, Boehringer Ingelheim, Bristol Myers Squibb, CVS Caremark, DalCor, Dr Reddy’s Laboratories, Fibrogen, IFM Therapeutics, Intarcia, MedImmune, Merck, Moderna, Novo Nordisk, Precision BioSciences, and Silence Therapeutics. Dr Stone has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic, Pulnovo, Infraredx, Abiomed, and Abbott; has served as a consultant to Daiichi Sankyo, Valfix, TherOx, Robocath, HeartFlow, Ablative Solutions, Vectorious, Miracor, Neovasc, Ancora, Elucid Bio, Occlutech, CorFlow, Apollo Therapeutics, Impulse Dynamics, Cardiomech, Gore, Amgen, Adona Medical, and Millennia Biopharma; 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 support from Abbott, Abiomed, Bioventrix, Cardiovascular Systems Inc, Phillips, Biosense-Webster, Shockwave, Vascular Dynamics, Pulnovo, and V-wave. Dr Bergmark declares research grants through Brigham and Women’s Hospital from Pfizer, Ionis, Quark, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, and Amgen, as well as consulting or personal fees from Philips, Abbott Vascular, CSI, Abiomed, Servier, Janssen, Quark, and Daiichi Sankyo. The other authors report no conflicts.

Background: Although many options exist for multivessel coronary revascularization, controversy persists over whether multiarterial grafting (MAG) confers a survival advantage over single-arterial grafting (SAG) with saphenous vein in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). This study sought to compare longitudinal survival between patients undergoing MAG and those undergoing SAG., Methods: All patients undergoing isolated CABG with ≥2 bypass grafts in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database (2008-2019) were linked to the National Death Index. Risk adjustment was performed using inverse probability weighting and multivariable modeling. The primary end point was longitudinal survival. Subpopulation analyses were performed and volume thresholds were analyzed to determine optimal benefit., Results: A total of 1,021,632 patients underwent isolated CABG at 1108 programs (100,419 MAG [9.83%]; 920,943 SAG [90.17%]). Median follow-up was 5.30 years (range, 0-12 years). After risk adjustment, all characteristics were well balanced. At 10 years, MAG was associated with improved unadjusted (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI 0.58-0.61) and adjusted (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.85-0.88) 10-year survival. Center volume of ≥10 MAG cases/year was associated with benefit. MAG was associated with an overall survival advantage over SAG in all subgroups, including stable coronary disease, acute coronary syndrome, and acute infarction. Survival was equivalent to that with SAG for patients age ≥80 years and those with severe heart failure, renal failure, peripheral vascular disease, or obesity. Only patients with a body mass index ≥40 kg/m 2 had superior survival with SAG., Conclusions: Multiarterial CABG is associated with superior long-term survival and should be the surgical multivessel revascularization strategy of choice for patients with a body mass index of less than 40 kg/m 2 ., (Copyright © 2024. Published by Elsevier Inc.)

Background: The frequency of and relationship between hospital readmissions and outcomes after revascularization for left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) are unknown., Objectives: The purpose of this study was to study the incidence, predictors, and clinical impact of readmissions following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for LMCAD., Methods: In the EXCEL (XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial, 1,905 patients with LMCAD were randomized to PCI vs CABG. The cumulative incidence of readmissions was analyzed with multivariable Anderson-Gill and joint frailty models to account for recurrent events and the competing risk of death. The impact of readmission on subsequent mortality within 5-year follow-up was determined in a time-adjusted Cox proportional hazards model., Results: Within 5 years, 1,868 readmissions occurred in 851 of 1,882 (45.2%) hospital survivors (2.2 ± 1.9 per patient with readmission[s], range 1-16), approximately one-half for cardiovascular causes and one-half for noncardiovascular causes (927 [49.6%] and 941 [50.4%], respectively). One or more readmissions occurred in 463 of 942 (48.6%) PCI patients vs 388 of 940 (41.8%) CABG patients (P = 0.003). After multivariable adjustment, PCI remained an independent predictor of readmission (adjusted HR: 1.22; 95% CI: 1.10-1.35; P < 0.0001), along with female sex, comorbidities, and the extent of CAD. Readmission was independently associated with subsequent all-cause death, with interaction testing indicating a higher risk after PCI than CABG (adjusted HR: 5.72; 95% CI: 3.42-9.55 vs adjusted HR: 2.72; 95% CI: 1.64-4.88, respectively; P int  = 0.03)., Conclusions: In the EXCEL trial, readmissions during 5-year follow-up after revascularization for LMCAD were common and more frequent after PCI than CABG. Readmissions were associated with an increased risk of all-cause death, more so after PCI than with CABG., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The EXCEL trial was funded by Abbott Vascular. Dr Morice is Shareholder and CEO of CERC, a CRO not involved in the trial and minor shareholder of Electroducer. Dr Puskas has served as a consultant for Medtronic; and has received royalties for surgical instruments he designed from Scanlan International Inc. Dr Kandzari has received institutional research/grant support from Abbott, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cardiovascular Systems, Medtronic, Orbus Neich, and Teleflex; and has received personal consulting honoraria from Cardiovascular Systems and Medtronic. Dr Karmpaliotis has received honoraria from Abiomed, Abbott Vascular, and Boston Scientific; and has received equity from Saranas, Soundbite, and Traverse Vascular. Dr Lembo has served on the advisory board of Abbott Vascular; has served on the Speakers Bureau of Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Abiomed. Dr Banning has received speaker fees from Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Abbott Vascular; and has received an unrestricted institutional research grant from Boston Scientific. Dr Kappetein is an employee from Medtronic. Dr Serruys has served as a consultant for Biosensors, Sinomed, Balton sp, Philips/Volcano, Xeltis, and HeartFlow. Dr Sabik has served as a consultant for Medtronic; and has served on the advisory board for Medtronic Cardiac Surgery. 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, Apollo Therapeutics, Cardiomech, Gore, Robocath, Miracor, Vectorious, Abiomed, 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; 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; and his daughter is an employee at IQVIA. 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.)

Background: The importance of complete revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in patients with left main coronary artery disease is uncertain. We investigated the clinical impact of complete revascularization in patients with left main coronary artery disease undergoing PCI in the EXCEL trial (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization)., Methods: Composite rates of death or myocardial infarction (MI) following PCI during 5-year follow-up were examined in 903 patients based on core laboratory definitions of anatomic and functional complete revascularization, residual SYNTAX score (The Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery), and residual Jeopardy Score (rJS)., Results: The risk of death or MI did not vary based on anatomic, functional, or residual SYNTAX score complete revascularization but did differ according to the rJS (5-year rates 17.6%, 19.5%, and 38.9% with rJS 0, 2, and ≥4, respectively; P =0.006). The higher rate of death or MI with rJS≥4 versus rJS≤2 was driven conjointly by increased mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.29 [95% CI, 1.11-4.71]; P =0.02) and spontaneous MI (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.89 [95% CI, 1.17-7.17]; P =0.02). The most common location for untreated severe stenoses in the rJS≥4 group was the left circumflex artery (LCX), and the post-PCI absence, compared with the presence, of any untreated lesion with diameter stenosis ≥70% in the LCX was associated with reduced 5-year rates of death or MI (18.9% versus 35.2%; hazard ratio, 0.48 [95% CI, 0.32-0.74]; P <0.001). The risk was the highest for residual ostial/proximal LCX lesions., Conclusions: Among patients undergoing PCI in EXCEL trial, incomplete revascularization according to the rJS was associated with increased rates of death and spontaneous MI. Post-PCI untreated high-grade lesions in the LCX (especially the ostial/proximal LCX) drove these outcomes., Registration: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov; Unique identifier: NCT01205776., Competing Interests: Dr Ali received institutional grant support from Abbott, Abiomed, Acist Medical, Boston Scientific, Cardiovascular Systems Inc, Medtronic Inc, National Institutes of Health, Opsens Medical, Philips, Telefle; consulting fees from Astra Zeneca, Philips, Shockwave; equity in Elucid, Spectrawave, Shockwave, VitalConnect. Dr Kappetein is an employee of Medtronic. Joseph F Sabik: consultant to Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, Medtronic. Dr Serruys is consultant to Philips, SMT, Novartis, Xeltis, and Merillife. Dr Stone has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic, Pulnovo, and Infraredx; has served as a consultant to Valfix, TherOx, Robocath, HeartFlow, Ablative Solutions, Vectorious, Miracor, Neovasc, Abiomed, Ancora, Elucid Bio, Occlutech, CorFlow, Apollo Therapeutics, Impulse Dynamics, Vascular Dynamics, Shockwave, V-Wave, Cardiomech, Gore, and Amgen; and has equity/options with Ancora, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestra Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, Valfix, and Xenter; his daughter is an employee at Medtronic; and his employer, Mount Sinai Hospital, receives research support from Abbott, Abiomed, Bioventrix, Cardiovascular Systems, Phillips, Biosense-Webster, Shockwave, Vascular Dynamics, and V-wave. The other authors report no conflicts.

Background: The use of transcatheter aortic valve replacement for severe aortic stenosis in low-risk patients necessitates an evaluation of contemporary long-term, real-world outcomes of similar patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in a national cohort., Methods: All patients undergoing primary, isolated SAVR in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) database between 2011 and 2019 were examined. The study population of 42,586 adhered to the inclusion/exclusion criteria of the Placement of Aortic Transcatheter Valves (PARTNER) 3 and Evolut Low Risk randomized trials. Patients were further stratified by STS predicted risk of mortality (PROM), age, and left ventricular ejection fraction. The primary end-point was all-cause National Death Index mortality. Unadjusted survival to 8 years was estimated using the Kaplan-Meier method., Results: Mean age was 74.3 ± 5.7 years and mean STS PROM was 1.9% ± 0.8%. The overall Kaplan-Meier time to event analysis for all-cause mortality at 1, 3, 5, and 8 years was 2.6%, 4.5%, 7.1%, and 12.4%, respectively. In subset analyses, survival was significantly better for (1) lower STS PROM (P < .001), (2) younger vs older age (P < .001), and (3) higher vs lower left ventricular ejection fraction (P < .001). When STS PROM was below 1% or the patient age was below age 75 years, the 8-year survival after SAVR was 95%., Conclusions: The results of this national study confirm that long-term survival after SAVR remains excellent, at 92.9% at 5 years. These contemporary longitudinal data serve to aid in the balanced interpretation of current and future trials comparing SAVR and transcatheter aortic valve replacement and may assist in the clinical decision-making process for patients of lower surgical risk., (Copyright © 2024 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Although various hemodynamic parameters to assess prosthetic performance are available, prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) is defined exclusively by effective orifice area (EOA) index thresholds. Adjusting for the Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality (STS PROM), we aimed to explore the added value of postoperative hemodynamic parameters for the prediction of all-cause mortality at 5 years after aortic valve replacement., Methods: Data were obtained from the Pericardial Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (PERIGON) Pivotal Trial, a multicenter prospective cohort study examining the performance of the Avalus bioprosthesis. Candidate predictors were assessed at the first follow-up visit; patients who had no echocardiography data, withdrew consent, or died before this visit were excluded. Candidate predictors included peak jet velocity, mean pressure gradient, EOA, predicted and measured EOA index, Doppler velocity index, indexed internal prosthesis orifice area, and categories for PPM. The performance of Cox models was investigated using the c-statistic and net reclassification improvement (NRI), among other tools., Results: A total of 1118 patients received the study valve, of whom 1022 were eligible for the present analysis. In univariable analysis, STS PROM was the sole significant predictor of all-cause mortality (hazard ratio, 1.40; 95% confidence interval, 1.26-1.55). When extending the STS PROM with single hemodynamic parameters, neither the c-statistics nor the NRIs demonstrated added prognostic value compared to a model with STS PROM alone. Similar findings were observed when multiple hemodynamic parameters were added., Conclusions: The STS PROM was found to be the main predictor of patient prognosis. The additional prognostic value of postoperative hemodynamic parameters for the prediction of all-cause mortality was limited., Competing Interests: Dr Velders reported institutional research grant and speaker fees paid to his department by 10.13039/100004374Medtronic. Dr Vriesendorp reported institutional research support and reimbursement of travel expenses from 10.13039/100004374Medtronic. Dr Asch reported institutional grants or research contracts from Medtronic, Abbott, Edwards Lifesciences, Boston Scientific, 10.13039/501100005035Biotronik, Corcym, and HLT Medical. Dr Dagenais reported serving as a lecturer, consultant, and proctor for Cook Medical; a proctor and lecturer for Medtronic; and a lecturer for Edwards Lifesciences. Dr Lange reported serving as a consultant for Medtronic, being a stockholder in and receiving royalties from Medtronic, and consulting for HighLife Medical. Dr Reardon reported consulting for Medtronic, Abbott Medical, Boston Scientific, Gore Medical, and Transverse Medical, with fees paid to his department. Dr Rao reported consulting for Medtronic, Gore, and Abbott and serving on an advisory board for Medtronic. Dr Sabik was the North American Principal Investigator for the PERIGON Pivotal Trial, Medtronic. Dr Groenwold reported no conflicts of interest. Dr Klautz was European Principal Investigator of the PERIGON Pivotal Trial and reported research support and consultation fees from 10.13039/100004374Medtronic. The Journal policy requires editors and reviewers to disclose conflicts of interest and to decline handling or reviewing manuscripts for which they may have a conflict of interest. The editors and reviewers of this article have no conflicts of interest., (© 2023 The Author(s).)

Background: Implantation of a bioprosthetic valve is a reasonable choice for patients aged > 65 years. For middle-aged patients there is less certainty about whether a mechanical or bioprosthetic valve is best., Methods: The Pericardial Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement (PERIGON) Pivotal Trial is evaluating the safety and efficacy of the Avalus bioprosthesis (Medtronic). We evaluated clinical and echocardiographic outcomes through 5 years of follow-up, stratified by age ≤ 65 and >65 years., Results: Two hundred seventy-one patients (24.2%) were ≤65 years old and 847 (75.8%) >65 years old. Most patients in both groups were men (217 [80.1%] vs 623 [73.6%], respectively; P = .031). Younger patients had a lower Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk of mortality (1.1% ± 0.9% vs 2.2% ± 1.4%, P < .001), better baseline New York Heart Association class (P = .004), and fewer comorbidities than older patients. At 5 years mortality was lower among younger than older patients (5.3% vs 14.0%, P < .001) and no cases of structural valve deterioration occurred in either group. Effective orifice area was similar between age groups (P = .11), and mean gradient was 13.9 ± 5.4 vs 12.0 ± 4.1 mm Hg (P < .001). Multivariable linear regression identified several parameters associated with mean aortic gradient at 5 years, including baseline age and mean aortic gradient, discharge stroke volume index and EOA, and implanted valve size. Ninety-five percent of patients were in New York Heart Association class I/II through 5 years in both age groups (P = .85)., Conclusions: Findings from this analysis demonstrate satisfactory safety, hemodynamic performance, and durability of the Avalus bioprosthesis through a 5-year follow-up in patients aged ≤ 65 and >65 years., (Copyright © 2023 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The advent of transcatheter aortic valve replacement (AVR) has led to an increased emphasis on reducing the invasiveness of surgical procedures. The aim of this study was to evaluate clinical outcomes and hemodynamic performance achieved with minimally invasive aortic valve replacement (MI-AVR) as compared with conventional AVR., Methods: Patients who underwent surgical AVR with the Avalus bioprosthesis, as part of a prospective multicenter non-randomized trial, were included in this analysis. Surgical approach was left to the discretion of the surgeons. Patient characteristics and clinical outcomes were compared between MI-AVR and conventional AVR groups in the entire cohort ( n  = 1077) and in an isolated AVR subcohort ( n  = 528). Propensity score adjustment was performed to estimate the effect of MI-AVR on adverse events., Results: Patients treated with MI-AVR were younger, had lower STS scores, and underwent concomitant procedures less often. Valve size implanted was comparable between the groups. MI-AVR was associated with longer procedural times in the isolated AVR subcohort. Postprocedural hemodynamic performance was comparable. There were no significant differences between MI-AVR and conventional AVR in early and 3-year all-cause mortality, thromboembolism, reintervention, or a composite of those endpoints within either the entire cohort or the isolated AVR subcohort. After propensity score adjustment, there remained no association between MI-AVR and the composite endpoint (hazard ratio: 0.86, 95% confidence interval: 0.47-1.55, p  = 0.61)., Conclusion: Three-year outcomes after MI-AVR with the Avalus bioprosthetic valve were comparable to conventional AVR. These results provide important insights into the overall ability to reduce the invasiveness of AVR without compromising outcomes., Competing Interests: B.J.J.V. declares no conflict of interest; M.D.V. receives research support from Medtronic; M.J.R. is a consultant to Medtronic, Abbott Medical, Boston Scientific, Gore Medical, and Transverse Medical, with fees paid to his department; V.R. is a member of the Surgical Advisory Board for Medtronic and a consultant for Abbott Labs, Gore, and Medtronic. R.L. reports consulting fees, royalties, and stock ownership for Medtronic; he also reports being a consultant for Highlife; H.J.P. is consultant for Medtronic; E.G. is an employee of Medtronic. J.F.S. is the North American Principal Investigator for the PERIGON Pivotal Trial (sponsored by Medtronic). R.J.M.K. receives research support and consultation fees from Medtronic. He is the European Principal investigator of the PERIGON Pivotal Trial (sponsored by Medtronic).Medical writing was performed by the first and second authors. A writing check for spelling and grammar was performed by Julie Linick, employee of Medtronic., (The Author(s). This is an open access article published by Thieme under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonDerivative-NonCommercial License, permitting copying and reproduction so long as the original work is given appropriate credit. Contents may not be used for commercial purposes, or adapted, remixed, transformed or built upon. (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/).)

Importance: Patients with left main coronary artery disease presenting with an acute coronary syndrome (ACS) represent a high-risk and understudied subgroup of patients with atherosclerosis., Objective: To assess clinical outcomes after PCI vs CABG in patients with left main disease with vs without ACS., Design, Setting, and Participants: Data were pooled from 4 trials comparing PCI with drug-eluting stents vs CABG in patients with left main disease who were considered equally suitable candidates for either strategy (SYNTAX, PRECOMBAT, NOBLE, and EXCEL). Patients were categorized as presenting with or without ACS. Kaplan-Meier event rates through 5 years and Cox model hazard ratios were generated, and interactions were tested. Patients were enrolled in the individual trials from 2004 through 2015. Individual patient data from the trials were pooled and reconciled from 2020 to 2021, and the analyses pertaining to the ACS subgroup were performed from March 2022 through February 2023., Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was death through 5 years. Secondary outcomes included cardiovascular death, spontaneous myocardial infarction (MI), procedural MI, stroke, and repeat revascularization., Results: Among 4394 patients (median [IQR] age, 66 [59-73] years; 3371 [76.7%] male and 1022 [23.3%] female) randomized to receive PCI or CABG, 1466 (33%) had ACS. Patients with ACS were more likely to have diabetes, prior MI, left ventricular ejection fraction less than 50%, and higher SYNTAX scores. At 30 days, patients with ACS had higher all-cause death (hazard ratio [HR], 3.40; 95% CI, 1.81-6.37; P < .001) and cardiovascular death (HR, 3.21; 95% CI, 1.69-6.08; P < .001) compared with those without ACS. Patients with ACS also had higher rates of spontaneous MI (HR, 1.70; 95% CI, 1.25-2.31; P < .001) through 5 years. The rates of all-cause mortality through 5 years with PCI vs CABG were 10.9% vs 11.5% (HR, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.68-1.27) in patients with ACS and 11.3% vs 9.6% (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 0.95-1.50) in patients without ACS (P = .22 for interaction). The risk of early stroke was lower with PCI vs CABG (ACS: HR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.12-1.25; no ACS: HR, 0.35; 95% CI, 0.16-0.75), whereas the 5-year risks of spontaneous MI and repeat revascularization were higher with PCI vs CABG (spontaneous MI: ACS: HR, 1.74; 95% CI, 1.09-2.77; no ACS: HR, 3.03; 95% CI, 1.94-4.72; repeat revascularization: ACS: HR, 1.57; 95% CI, 1.19-2.09; no ACS: HR, 1.90; 95% CI, 1.54-2.33), regardless of ACS status., Conclusion and Relevance: Among largely stable patients undergoing left main revascularization and with predominantly low to intermediate coronary anatomical complexity, those with ACS had higher rates of early death. Nonetheless, rates of all-cause mortality through 5 years were similar with PCI vs CABG in this high-risk subgroup. The relative advantages and disadvantages of PCI vs CABG in terms of early stroke and long-term spontaneous MI and repeat revascularization were consistent regardless of ACS status., Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifiers: NCT00114972, NCT00422968, NCT01496651, NCT01205776.

Objective: To describe differences between North America and Europe in the perioperative management of patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR)., Methods: Patients with moderate or greater aortic stenosis or regurgitation requiring SAVR were enrolled in a prospective observational cohort evaluating the safety and efficacy of a new stented bioprosthesis at 25 centres in North America (Canada and the USA) and 13 centres in Europe (Germany, the Netherlands, France, the UK, Switzerland and Italy). While all patients underwent implantation with the same bioprosthetic model, perioperative management was left to the discretion of participating centres. Perioperative care was described in detail including outcomes up to 1-year follow-up., Results: Among 1118 patients, 643 (58%) were implanted in North America, and 475 (42%) were implanted in Europe. Patients in Europe were older, had a lower body mass index, less bicuspid disease and worse degree of aortic stenosis at baseline. In Europe, anticoagulant therapy at discharge was more aggressive, whereas length of stay was longer, and discharges directly to home were less common. Rehospitalisation risk was lower in Europe at 30 days (8.5% vs 15.9%) but converged at 1-year follow-up (26.5% vs 28.1%). Within continents, there were major differences between individual countries concerning perioperative management., Conclusion: Contemporary perioperative management of SAVR patients varies between North America and Europe in patient selection, procedural techniques, antithrombotic regimen and discharge management. Furthermore, rehospitalisation differed largely between continents and countries. Hence, geographical setting must be considered during design and interpretation of trials on SAVR., Trial Registration Number: NCT02088554., Competing Interests: Competing interests: BJJV: institutional research grant and speaker’s honorarium paid to his department by Medtronic. MDV: institutional research grant and reimbursement of travel expenses from Medtronic. VR: consultant to Medtronic, Gore and Abbott; advisory board, Medtronic. MJR: consultant to Medtronic, Abbott Medical, Boston Scientific, Gore Medical and Transverse Medical; fees paid to department. MWAC: speaker’s honoraria from Medtronic, Edwards Lifesciences, Terumo Aortic, Abbott Vascular and Cryolife. JFS: North American Principal Investigator of the PERIGON Pivotal Trial for Medtronic. FL: employee of Medtronic. RJMK: research support, consultation fees, and European Principal Investigator of the PERIGON Pivotal Trial for Medtronic., (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)

Background: The relative risks for different periprocedural major adverse events (MAE) after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) on subsequent mortality have not been described., Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the association between periprocedural MAE occurring within 30 days postprocedure and early and late mortality after left main coronary artery revascularization by PCI and CABG., Methods: In the EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial, patients with left main disease were randomized to PCI vs CABG. The associations between 12 prespecified nonfatal MAE and subsequent 5-year all-cause and cardiovascular death in 1,858 patients were examined using logistic regression., Results: One or more nonfatal MAE occurred in 111 of 935 patients (11.9%) after PCI and 419 of 923 patients (45.4%) after CABG (P < 0.0001). Patients with MAE were older and had more baseline comorbidities. Within 5 years, all-cause death occurred in 117 and 87 patients after PCI and CABG, respectively. Experiencing an MAE was a strong independent predictor of 5-year mortality after both PCI (adjusted OR: 4.61; 95% CI: 2.71-7.82) and CABG (adjusted OR: 3.25; 95% CI: 1.95-5.41). These associations were present within the first 30 days and between 30 days and 5 years postprocedure. Major or minor bleeding with blood transfusion ≥2 U was an independent predictor of 5-year mortality after both procedures. Stroke, unplanned revascularization for ischemia, and renal failure were significantly associated with mortality only after CABG., Conclusions: In the EXCEL trial, nonfatal periprocedural MAE were strongly associated with early and late mortality after both PCI and CABG for left main disease., Competing Interests: Funding Support and Author Disclosures The EXCEL trial was funded by Abbott Vascular. Dr Serruys has received consulting fees from Sinomed, Philips/Volcano, Xeltis, SMT, Novartix, and Meril Life. Dr A. Pieter Kappetein is an employee of Medtronic. Dr Sabik has received consulting fees from Medtronic; and is an advisory board member for Medtronic Cardiac Surgery. Dr Morice is a shareholder and chief executive officer of the European Cardiovascular Research Center; and is a minor shareholder of Electroducer. Dr Puskas has received consulting fees from Medtronic; and receives royalties for surgical instruments he designed that are marketed by Scanlan International. Dr Kandzari has received institutional research and grant support from Abbott Vascular, Biotronik, Boston Scientific, Cardiovascular Systems, Medtronic, and Teleflex; and has received consulting honoraria from Cardiovascular Systems and Medtronic. Dr Karmpaliotis has received honoraria from Abiomed, Abbott Vascular, and Boston Scientific; and holds equity in Saranas, Soundbite, and Traverse Vascular. Dr Lembo is an advisory board member for Abbott Vascular; and is on the Speakers Bureaus of Abbott Vascular, Boston Scientific, Medtronic, and Abiomed. Dr Banning has received honoraria from Abbott Vascular and Boston Scientific; and has received an institutional educational grant from Boston Scientific. Dr Stone has received speaker honoraria from Medtronic, Pulnovo, and Infraredx; has served as a consultant to Valfix, TherOx, Robocath, HeartFlow, Ablative Solutions, Vectorious, Miracor, Neovasc, Abiomed, Ancora, Elucid Bio, Occlutech, CorFlow, Apollo Therapeutics, Impulse Dynamics, Vascular Dynamics, Shockwave, V-Wave, Cardiomech, Gore, and Amgen; and has equity or options from Ancora, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, the Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestra Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, Valfix, and Xenter. Dr Stone’s daughter is an employee of Medtronic. Dr Stone’s employer, Mount Sinai Hospital, receives research support from Abbott, Abiomed, Bioventrix, Cardiovascular Systems, Phillips, Biosense Webster, Shockwave, Vascular Dynamics, and V-Wave. All other authors have reported that they have no relationships relevant to the contents of this paper to disclose., (Copyright © 2023 American College of Cardiology Foundation. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: We investigated outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with endoscopic vein harvest (EVH) vs open vein harvest (OVH) within the Evaluation of XIENCE Versus CABG (EXCEL) trial., Methods: All patients in EXCEL randomized to CABG were included in this study. For this analysis, the primary end points were ischemia-driven revascularization (IDR) and graft stenosis or occlusion at 5 years. Additional end points were as follows: a composite of death from any cause, stroke, or myocardial infarction; bleeding; blood product transfusion; major arrhythmia; and infection requiring antibiotics. Event rates were based on Kaplan-Meier estimates in time-to-first-event analyses., Results: Of the 957 patients randomized to CABG, 686 (71.7%) received at least 1 venous graft with 257 (37.5%) patients in the EVH group and 429 (62.5%) patients in the OVH group. At 5 years, IDR was higher (11.5% vs 6.7%; P = .047) in the EVH group. At 5 years, rates of graft stenosis or occlusion (9.7% vs 5.4%; P = .054) and the primary end point (17.4% vs 20.9%; P = .27) were similar. In-hospital bleeding (11.3% vs 13.8%; P = .35), in-hospital blood product transfusion (12.8% vs 13.1%; P = .94), and infection requiring antibiotics within 1 month (13.6% vs 16.8%; P = .27) were similar between EVH and OVH patients. Major arrhythmia in the hospital (19.8% vs 13.5%; P = .03) and within 1 month (21.8% vs 15.4%; P = .03) was higher in EVH patients., Conclusions: IDR at 5 years was higher in the EVH group. EVH and OVH patients had similar rates of graft stenosis or occlusion and the composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 5 years., (Copyright © 2023 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: The objective of this study was to compare short- and midterm clinical and echocardiographic outcomes according to the use of pledgeted sutures during aortic valve replacement., Methods: Patients with aortic stenosis or regurgitation requiring aortic valve replacement were enrolled in a prospective cohort study to evaluate the safety of a new stented bioprosthesis. Outcomes were analyzed according to the use of pledgets (pledgeted group) or no pledgets (nonpledgeted group). The primary outcome was a composite of thromboembolism, endocarditis, and major paravalvular leak at 5 years of follow-up. Secondary outcomes included multiple clinical endpoints and hemodynamic outcomes. Propensity score matching was performed to adjust for prognostic factors, and subanalyses with small valve sizes (<23 mm) and suturing techniques were performed., Results: The pledgeted group comprised 640 patients (59%), and the nonpledgeted group 442 (41%), with baseline discrepancies in demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and stenosis severity. There were no differences between groups in any outcome. After propensity score matching, the primary outcome occurred in 41 (11.7%) patients in the pledgeted and 36 (9.8%) in the nonpledgeted group ( P  = .51). The effective orifice area was smaller in the pledgeted group ( P  = .045), whereas no difference was observed for the mean or peak pressure gradient. Separate subanalyses with small valve sizes and suturing techniques did not show relevant differences., Conclusions: In this large propensity score-matched cohort, comprehensive clinical outcomes were comparable between patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with pledgeted and nonpledgeted sutures up to 5 years of follow-up, but pledgets might lead to a slightly smaller effective orifice area in the long run., (© 2022 The Author(s).)

Background: The relationship between institutional volume and operative mortality after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) remains unclear., Methods: From January 2013 to June 2018, 234 556 patients underwent isolated SAVR (n = 144 177) or SAVR with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) (n = 90 379) within the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database. The association between annualized SAVR volume (group 1 [1-25 SAVRs], group 2 [26-50 SAVRs], group 3 [51-100 SAVRs], and group 4 [>100 SAVRs]) and operative mortality and composite major morbidity or mortality was assessed. Random effects models were used to evaluate whether historical (2013-2015) SAVR volume or risk-adjusted outcomes explained future (2016-2018) risk-adjusted outcomes., Results: The annualized median number of SAVRs per site was 35 (interquartile range, 22-59; isolated aortic valve replacement [AVR], 20; AVR with CABG, 13). Among isolated SAVR cases, the mean operative mortality and composite morbidity or mortality were 1.5% and 9.7%, respectively, at the highest-volume sites (group 4), with significantly higher rates among progressively lower-volume groups (P trend < .001). After adjustment, lower-volume centers had increased odds of operative mortality (group 1 vs group 4 [reference]: adjusted odds ratio [AOR] for SAVR, 2.24 [95% CI, 1.91-2.64]; AOR for SAVR with CABG, 1.96 [95% CI, 1.67-2.30]) and major morbidity or mortality (AOR for SAVR, 1.53 [95% CI, 1.39-1.69]; AOR for SAVR with CABG, 1.46 [95% CI, 1.32-1.61]) compared with the highest-volume institutions. Substantial variation in outcomes was observed across hospitals within each volume category, and prior outcomes explained a greater proportion of hospital operative outcomes than did prior volume., Conclusions: Operative outcomes after SAVR with or without CABG is inversely associated with institutional procedure volumes; however, prior outcomes are more predictive of future outcomes than is prior volume. Given the excellent outcomes observed at many lower-volume hospitals, procedural outcomes may be preferable to procedural volumes as a quality metric., (Copyright © 2022 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Although the impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) on survival has been widely studied, there has been little debate about whether the current definition of PPM truly reflects hemodynamic obstruction. This study aimed to validate the categorization of indexed effective orifice area (EOAi) for the classification of PPM., Methods: In total, 2171 patients who underwent aortic valve replacement with a surgical stented bioprosthesis in 5 trials (CoreValve US High-Risk, SURTAVI [Surgical Replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Trial], Evolut Low Risk, PERIGON [PERIcardial SurGical AOrtic Valve ReplacemeNt] Pivotal Trial for the Avalus valve, and PERIGON Japan) were used for this analysis. The echocardiographic images at the 1-year follow-up visit were evaluated to explore the association between EOAi and mean aortic gradient and its interaction with other patient characteristics, including obesity. In addition, different criteria of PPM were compared with reflect elevated mean aortic gradients (≥20 mm Hg)., Results: A relatively smaller exponential decay in mean aortic gradient was found for increasing EOAi, as the slope on the log scale was -0.83 versus -2.5 in the publication from which the current cut-offs for PPM originate. The accuracy of the American Society of Echocardiography, Valve Academic Research Consortium-2, and European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging definitions of PPM to reflect elevated mean aortic gradients was 49%, 57%, and 57%, respectively. The relation between EOAi and mean aortic gradient was not significantly different between obese and non-obese patients (P = .20)., Conclusions: The use of EOAi thresholds to classify patients with PPM is undermined by a less-pronounced exponential relationship between EOAi and mean aortic gradient than previously demonstrated. Moreover, recent adjustment for obesity in the definition of PPM is not supported by these data., (Copyright © 2020 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: This analysis evaluated the safety, durability and haemodynamic performance of a stented bovine pericardial valve through 5 years of follow-up in patients with an indication for surgical aortic valve replacement., Methods: Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to estimate the incidence of survival and valve-related thromboembolism, major paravalvular leak, endocarditis, structural valve deterioration (SVD) and reintervention. The mean aortic gradient and New York Heart Association (NYHA) functional class were also evaluated., Results: A total of 1118 patients have received the Avalus valve; 564 have completed the 5-year follow-up. The median follow-up was 4.85 years (4810 patient-years total follow-up). At baseline, the mean age was 70.2 ± 9.0 years; 75.1% of patients were male. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons predicted risk of mortality was 2.0 ± 1.4%. Most patients were in NYHA functional class II (46.8%) or III (40.3%). At the 5-year follow-up, the overall Kaplan-Meier survival rate was 88.1% (85.9-90.0%). The Kaplan-Meier event rates were 5.6% (4.3-7.2%) for thromboembolism, 4.4% (3.2-6.0%) for endocarditis, 0.2% (0.0-0.7%) for a major paravalvular leak and 3.2% (2.3-4.6%) for reintervention. There were no cases of SVD. The mean gradient decreased from 42.1 ± 17.1 mmHg at baseline, to 13.1 ± 4.7 mmHg at discharge and remained stable at 12.5 ± 4.6 mmHg at 5 years. More than 95% of patients were in NYHA functional class I/II 5 years after surgery., Conclusions: The findings of a high survival rate, excellent safety, no SVD and stable haemodynamic performance and functional status through 5 years of follow-up are encouraging. Additional follow-up is needed to assess the long-term durability of this contemporary surgical bioprosthesis., (© The Author(s) 2022. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery.)

Objective: With the expanding application of endovascular technology, the need to deploy into zone 0 has been encountered on occasion. In the present study, we evaluated the outcomes of great vessel debranching (GVD) as a method of extending the proximal landing zone to facilitate thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR)., Methods: We performed a single-center retrospective review of all patients who had undergone GVD followed by TEVAR between May 2013 and December 2020. The primary outcome was primary patency of all targeted vessels, with all-cause perioperative mortality as a secondary outcome. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to account for censoring of mortality and primary patency. The extent of hybrid aortic repairs was characterized into type I (GVD plus TEVAR without ascending aorta or aortic arch reconstruction, type II (GVD plus TEVAR with ascending aorta reconstruction), and type III (GVD plus TEVAR with ascending aorta and aortic arch reconstruction with an elephant trunk (soft [surgical] or frozen [endovascular]])., Results: A total of 42 patients (23 men [54.8%]; mean age, 62.2 ± 11.2 years) had undergone GVD, with 122 vessels revascularized (42 innominate, 42 left common carotid, and 38 left subclavian arteries). The indication for TEVAR was aneurysmal degeneration from aortic dissection in 32 patients (76.2%), a thoracic aneurysm in 9 patients (21.4%), and a perforated aortic ulcer in 1 patient (2.4%). The median duration between GVD and TEVAR was 82 days. The mean follow-up period was 25.7 ± 23.5 months. Type I repair was performed in 4, type II in 16, and type III in 22 patients. The perioperative mortality, stroke, and paraplegia rates were 9.5%, 7.1%, and 2.4%, respectively. Neither the extent of repair (P = .80) nor a history of aortic repair (P = .90) was associated with early mortality. Of the 38 patients who had survived the perioperative period, 6 had died >30 days postoperatively. At 36 months, the survival estimate was 68.6% (95% confidence interval, 45.7%-83.4%). The overall primary patency of the innominate artery, left common carotid artery, and left subclavian artery was 100%, 89.5%, and 94.1%, respectively. The primary-assisted patency rate was 100% for all the vessels., Conclusions: We found GVD to be a safe and effective method of extending the proximal landing zone into zone 0 with outstanding primary patency rates. Further studies are required to confirm the safety and longer term durability for these patients., (Copyright © 2022 Society for Vascular Surgery. All rights reserved.)

Background: The EXCEL trial (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) demonstrated in patients with left main coronary artery disease, no significant difference between coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with everolimus-eluting stents for the composite end point of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 5 years. However, all-cause mortality at 5 years was higher with PCI. Long-term cost-effectiveness of these 2 strategies has heretofore not been evaluated., Methods: From 2010 to 2014, 1905 patients with left main coronary artery disease were randomized to CABG (n=957) or PCI (n=948). Costs ($2019) were assessed over 5 years using resource-based costing and Medicare reimbursement rates. Health utilities were assessed using the EuroQOL 5-dimension questionnaire. Five-year EXCEL data in combination with US lifetables were used to develop a Markov model to evaluate lifetime cost-effectiveness. An incremental cost-effectiveness ratio <$50 000 per quality-adjusted life year (QALY) gained was considered highly cost-effective., Results: Index revascularization procedure costs were $4,850/patient higher with CABG, and total costs for the index hospitalization were $17 610/patient higher with CABG ($32 297 versus $19 687, P <0.001). Cumulative 5-year costs were $20 449/patient higher with CABG. CABG was projected to increase lifetime costs by $21 551 while increasing quality-adjusted life expectancy by 0.49 QALYs, yielding an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $44 235/QALY. In a post hoc sensitivity analysis using mortality hazard ratios from a meta-analysis of all randomized CABG versus PCI in left main disease trials, the gain associated with CABG was 0.08 to 0.14 QALYs, resulting in an incremental cost-effectiveness ratio of $139 775 to $232 710/QALY gained., Conclusions: Based on data from the EXCEL trial, CABG is an economically attractive revascularization strategy compared with PCI over a lifetime horizon for patients with significant left main coronary artery disease. However, this conclusion is sensitive to the long-term mortality rates with the 2 strategies, and CABG is no longer highly cost-effective when substituting the pooled treatment effect from the 4 major PCI versus CABG trials for left main disease., Registration: URL: https://www., Clinicaltrials: gov; Unique identifier: NCT01205776.

Background: The EXCEL trial reported similar five-year rates of the primary composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) compared with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for treatment of obstructive left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD)., Aims: We sought to determine whether these outcomes remained consistent regardless of geography of enrolment., Methods: We performed a prespecified subgroup analysis based on regional enrolment., Results: Among 1,905 patients randomised to PCI (n=948) or CABG (n=957), 1,075 (56.4%) were recruited at 52 European Union (EU) centres, and 752 (39.5%) were recruited at 67 North American (NA) centres. EU versus NA patients varied according to numerous baseline demographics, anatomy, pharmacotherapy and procedural characteristics. Nonetheless, the relative rates of the primary endpoint after PCI versus CABG were consistent across EU versus NA centres at 30 days and 5 years. However, NA participants had substantially higher late rates of ischaemia-driven revascularisation (IDR) after PCI, driven predominantly by the need for greater target vessel and lesion revascularisation. This culminated in a significant difference in the relative risk of the secondary composite outcome of death, MI, stroke, or IDR at 5 years (p interaction =0.02)., Conclusions: In the EXCEL trial, the relative risks for the 30-day and five-year primary composite outcome of death, MI or stroke after PCI versus CABG were consistent irrespective of geography. However, five-year rates of IDR after PCI were significantly higher in NA centres, a finding the Heart Team and patients should consider when making treatment decisions. ClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT01205776.

Background: Prior studies have reported an association between elevated white blood cell count (WBCc) and worse clinical outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). We assessed the prognostic impact of WBCc in patients undergoing revascularization for left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD)., Methods: In Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization (EXCEL), 1905 patients with LMCAD and low or intermediate SYNTAX scores were randomized to PCI with everolimus-eluting stents versus CABG. The 1895 patients with baseline WBCc available were grouped in tertiles of WBCc (mean 5.6 ± 0.8, 7.5 ± 0.5, and 10.1 ± 1.6 × 109/L)., Results: Five-year rates of the primary endpoint (death, myocardial infarction or stroke) were similar across increasing WBCc tertiles (21.2, 18.9, and 21.6%; P = 0.46). Individual components of the primary endpoint, Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) 3-5 bleeding, stent thrombosis or graft occlusion and ischemia-driven revascularization were all similar across WBCc tertiles. By multivariable analysis, WBCc as a continuous variable was not an independent predictor of adverse events (hazard radio per 1 × 109/L: 1.02; 95% CI, 0.97-1.08; P = 0.43). Results were consistent in the PCI and CABG arms individually., Conclusion: There was no association between baseline WBCc and 30-day or 5-year clinical outcomes after PCI or CABG. The absence of a clear incremental increase in events with increasing WBCc in the current analysis indicates that WBCc should not routinely be used as a prognostic marker or to guide revascularization decisions in patients with LMCAD., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: There is a paucity of data regarding the effect of inhibition of the renin-angiotensin system on outcomes after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We sought to examine long-term outcomes of patients with left main coronary disease (LMCAD) randomized to PCI with fluoropolymer-based cobalt-chromium everolimus-eluting stents or CABG according to treatment at discharge with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors (ACEI) or angiotensin receptor blockers (ARB) in the large-scale, multicenter, randomized EXCEL trial., Methods: EXCEL randomized 1905 patients with LMCAD of low and intermediate anatomical complexity (visually-assessed SYNTAX score ≤32) to PCI (n = 948) versus CABG (n = 957). Patients were categorized according to whether they were treated with ACEI/ARB at discharge; their outcomes from discharge to 5 years were examined using multivariable logistic regression with an offset for follow-up time., Results: Among 1775 patients discharged alive with known ACEI/ARB treatment status, 896 (50.5%) were treated with one of these agents. Among those treated with ACEI/ARB, the 5-year rate of all-cause death was similar after PCI or CABG (10.7% versus 9.8% respectively, adjOR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.56-1.57) in contrast to patients not treated with ACEI/ARB (15.0% versus 7.8%, respectively, adjOR, 2.20; 95% CI, 1.32-3.67) (Pinteraction = 0.02). Significant interactions between treatment arm (PCI versus CABG) and ACEI/ARB treatment status were also found for cardiovascular death (Pinteraction = 0.03), ischemia-driven revascularization (Pinteraction = 0.03), target vessel revascularization (Pinteraction = 0.007) and target vessel failure (Pinteraction = 0.0009)., Conclusion: In the EXCEL trial, the postdischarge rates of death and revascularization after 5 years were similar after PCI and CABG in patients with LMCAD treated with ACEI/ARB at discharge. In contrast, event rates were higher after PCI versus CABG in those not so treated., (Copyright © 2021 Wolters Kluwer Health, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: The optimal revascularisation strategy for patients with left main coronary artery disease is uncertain. We therefore aimed to evaluate long-term outcomes for patients treated with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)., Methods: In this individual patient data meta-analysis, we searched MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane database using the search terms "left main", "percutaneous coronary intervention" or "stent", and "coronary artery bypass graft*" to identify randomised controlled trials (RCTs) published in English between database inception and Aug 31, 2021, comparing PCI with drug-eluting stents with CABG in patients with left main coronary artery disease that had at least 5 years of patient follow-up for all-cause mortality. Two authors (MSS and BAB) identified studies meeting the criteria. The primary endpoint was 5-year all-cause mortality. Secondary endpoints were cardiovascular death, spontaneous myocardial infarction, procedural myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeat revascularisation. We used a one-stage approach; event rates were calculated by use of the Kaplan-Meier method and treatment group comparisons were made by use of a Cox frailty model, with trial as a random effect. In Bayesian analyses, the probabilities of absolute risk differences in the primary endpoint between PCI and CABG being more than 0·0%, and at least 1·0%, 2·5%, or 5·0%, were calculated., Findings: Our literature search yielded 1599 results, of which four RCTs-SYNTAX, PRECOMBAT, NOBLE, and EXCEL-meeting our inclusion criteria were included in our meta-analysis. 4394 patients, with a median SYNTAX score of 25·0 (IQR 18·0-31·0), were randomly assigned to PCI (n=2197) or CABG (n=2197). The Kaplan-Meier estimate of 5-year all-cause death was 11·2% (95% CI 9·9-12·6) with PCI and 10·2% (9·0-11·6) with CABG (hazard ratio 1·10, 95% CI 0·91-1·32; p=0·33), resulting in a non-statistically significant absolute risk difference of 0·9% (95% CI -0·9 to 2·8). In Bayesian analyses, there was an 85·7% probability that death at 5 years was greater with PCI than with CABG; this difference was more likely than not less than 1·0% (<0·2% per year). The numerical difference in mortality was comprised more of non-cardiovascular than cardiovascular death. Spontaneous myocardial infarction (6·2%, 95% CI 5·2-7·3 vs 2·6%, 2·0-3·4; hazard ratio [HR] 2·35, 95% CI 1·71-3·23; p<0·0001) and repeat revascularisation (18·3%, 16·7-20·0 vs 10·7%, 9·4-12·1; HR 1·78, 1·51-2·10; p<0·0001) were more common with PCI than with CABG. Differences in procedural myocardial infarction between strategies depended on the definition used. Overall, there was no difference in the risk of stroke between PCI (2·7%, 2·0-3·5) and CABG (3·1%, 2·4-3·9; HR 0·84, 0·59-1·21; p=0·36), but the risk was lower with PCI in the first year after randomisation (HR 0·37, 0·19-0·69)., Interpretation: Among patients with left main coronary artery disease and, largely, low or intermediate coronary anatomical complexity, there was no statistically significant difference in 5-year all-cause death between PCI and CABG, although a Bayesian approach suggested a difference probably exists (more likely than not <0·2% per year) favouring CABG. There were trade-offs in terms of the risk of myocardial infarction, stroke, and revascularisation. A heart team approach to communicate expected outcome differences might be useful to assist patients in reaching a treatment decision., Funding: No external funding., Competing Interests: Declaration of interests MSS, BAB, SAM, and EB are members of the Thrombolysis in Myocardial Infarction Study Group, which has received grant support through Brigham and Women's Hospital (Boston, MA, USA) from Abbott, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer HealthCare Pharmaceuticals, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Intarcia, Ionis, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, Quark Pharmaceuticals, Regeneron Pharmaceuticals, Roche, Siemens Healthcare Diagnostics, The Medicines Company, and Zora Biosciences. MSS declares research grant support through Brigham and Women's Hospital from Abbott, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bayer, Daiichi-Sankyo, Eisai, Intarcia, Ionis, The Medicines Company, MedImmune, Merck, Novartis, Pfizer, and Quark Pharmaceuticals, and has consulted for Althera, Amgen, Anthos Therapeutics, AstraZeneca, Bristol Myers Squibb, CVS Caremark, DalCor, Dr Reddy's Laboratories, Fibrogen, IFM Therapeutics, Intarcia, MedImmune, Merck, Moderna, Novo Nordisk, and Silence Therapeutics. BAB declares research grants through Brigham and Women's Hospital from Pfizer, Ionis, Quark, AstraZeneca/MedImmune, and Amgen, and consulting or personal fees from Philips, Abbott Vascular, CSI, Abiomed, Servier, Janssen, Quark, and Daiichi Sankyo. PWS declares consultancy or personal fees from SMT, Novartis, Philips, Xeltis, and Merillife. APK is an employee of Medtronic. S-JP declares grants from Abbott Vascular, Daiichi-Sankyo, ChongKunDang Pharm, Daewoong Pharm, and Edwards, and personal fees from Abbott Vascular and Edwards, all outside the submitted work. D-WP declares grants from Daiichi-Sankyo, ChongKunDang Pharm, Daewoong Pharm, and Abbott Vascular, and personal fees from Edwards, Abbott Vascular, and Medtronic, all outside the submitted work. EHC declares institutional research grants from Abbott, Biosensors, and Boston Scientific, and speaker fees from Abbott. NRH declares institutional research grants from Abbott, Biosensors, Bbraun, Boston Scientific, and Reva Medical, and speaker fees from Abbott, Reva Medical, and Terumo. GWS declares speaker honoraria from Cook and Infraredx; consultancy for Valfix, TherOx, Robocath, HeartFlow, Ablative Solutions, Vectorious, Miracor, Neovasc, Abiomed, Ancora, Elucid Bio, Occlutech, CorFlow, Apollo Therapeutics, Impulse Dynamics, Reva, Vascular Dynamics, Shockwave, V-Wave, Cardiomech, and Gore; equity or options from Ancora, Cagent, Applied Therapeutics, Biostar family of funds, SpectraWave, Orchestra Biomed, Aria, Cardiac Success, Valfix, and MedFocus family of funds; that Columbia University (New York, NY, USA) received payments from Abbott for research activities related and not related to EXCEL and royalties for sale of the MitraClip; and that Mount Sinai Hospital (New York, NY, USA) receives research funding from Abbott. JFS was the North American Surgical Principal Investigator in the EXCEL trial. EB declares research grants through Brigham and Women's Hospital from AstraZeneca, Daiichi-Sankyo, Merck, and Novartis, and consultancies with Amgen, Boehringer-Ingelheim/Lilly, Bristol Myers Squibb (MyoKardia), Cardurion, NovoNordisk, and Verve. All author authors declare no competing interests., (Copyright © 2021 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: To assess the safety and efficacy of using vascular closure devices (VCDs) in percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for left main coronary artery disease (LM-CAD)., Background: VCDs provide rapid hemostasis for patients undergoing PCI with transfemoral access (TFA); however, the safety and efficacy of VCDs continues to be debated., Methods: We analyzed data from the EXCEL trial in patients with LM-CAD in whom PCI was performed via TFA with vs without VCD. The primary endpoint was a composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke. Bleeding Academic Research Consortium (BARC) type 2-5 bleeding at 30 days was also assessed. Propensity-score matching analysis was used., Results: Among 694 patients with LM-CAD undergoing TFA-PCI, 423 (61.0%) received VCDs (collagen plug, 320 [75.7%]; suture mediated, 55 [13.0%]; others, 48 [11.3%]). Patients with and without VCD use had similar 30-day rates of BARC type 2-5 bleeding (5.0% vs 6.7%, respectively; P=.30) and BARC type 3-5 bleeding (2.1% vs 3.7%, respectively; P=.20). There were no significant differences in the rates of death, MI, or stroke in patients with and without VCD use at 30 days (4.7% vs 4.1%, respectively; P=.74) or at 5 years (20.3% vs 24.2%, respectively; P=.16). These results were similar after adjustment., Conclusion: In the EXCEL trial, LM-CAD PCI via TFA using VCD was associated with similar 30-day rates of bleeding and comparable early and late major adverse cardiovascular events compared with manual compression.

Objectives: We examined outcomes according to lesion preparation strategy (LPS) in patients with left main coronary artery (LMCA) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the EXCEL trial., Background: The optimal LPS for LMCA PCI is unclear., Methods: We categorized LPS hierarchically (high to low) as: (a) rotational atherectomy (RA); (b) cutting or scoring balloon (CSB); (c) balloon angioplasty (BAL); and d) direct stenting (DIR). The primary endpoint was 3-year MACE; all-cause death, stroke, or myocardial infarction., Results: Among 938 patients undergoing LMCA PCI, RA was performed in 6.0%, CSB 9.5%, BAL 71.3%, and DIR 13.2%. In patients treated with DIR, BAL, CSB, and RA, respectively, there was a progressive increase in SYNTAX score, LMCA complex bifurcation, trifurcation or calcification, number of stents, and total stent length. Any procedural complication occurred in 10.4% of cases overall, with the lowest rate in the DIR (7.4%) and highest in the RA group (16.1%) (p trend  = .22). There were no significant differences in the 3-year rates of MACE (from RA to DIR: 17.9%, 20.2%, 14.5%, 14.7%; p = .50) or ischemia-driven revascularization (from RA to DIR: 16.8%, 10.8%, 12.3%, 14.2%; p = .65). The adjusted 3-year rates of MACE did not differ according to LPS., Conclusions: The comparable 3-year outcomes suggest that appropriate lesion preparation may be able to overcome the increased risks of complex LMCA lesion morphology., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals LLC.)

Objectives: We compared the effect of bivalirudin or heparin and use or nonuse of glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors (GPI) on the outcome of left main coronary artery (LMCA) percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the randomized EXCEL trial., Background: The optimal antithrombotic regimen to support PCI of the LMCA remains controversial because of low representation of this subset in clinical trials., Methods: The PCI cohort (n = 928) in EXCEL was divided according to bivalirudin versus heparin antithrombin treatment and compared for the primary composite endpoint of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke at 30 days and 5 years., Results: Bivalirudin was used in 319 patients (34.4%). The composite endpoint at 30 days occurred in 7.2% versus 3.8% bivalirudin and heparin patients, respectively, p = .02; at 5 years, the composite endpoint occurred in 26.3% versus 19.9% bivalirudin and heparin patients, respectively, p = .02. Major bleeding was more frequent in bivalirudin patients (4.1% versus 1.3%, p = .008). There were no differences in stent thrombosis between the groups. Bivalirudin use was an independent predictor of the 30-day composite endpoint (OR 2.88, 95% CI 1.28-6.48, p = .01) but not of the 5-year composite endpoint (OR 1.30, 95% CI 0.84-2.02, p = .23). GPI use was infrequent (n = 67, 7.2%) and was not associated with adverse outcomes., Conclusion: Among patients undergoing LMCA PCI in the EXCEL trial, procedural use of bivalirudin was associated with greater rates of periprocedural MI and the 30-day composite endpoint without reducing bleeding complications. Five-year outcomes were similar. GPIs were used infrequently and were not associated with clinical outcomes., (© 2020 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.)

Prior studies in patients with noncomplex coronary artery disease have demonstrated the safety of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the outpatient setting. We sought to examine the outcomes of outpatient PCI in patients with unprotected left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD). In the EXCEL trial, 1905 patients with LMCAD and site-assessed low or intermediate SYNTAX scores were randomized to PCI with everolimus-eluting stents versus coronary artery bypass grafting. The primary end point was major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE; the composite of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction). In this sub-analysis, outcomes at 30 days and 5 years were analyzed according to whether PCI was performed in the outpatient versus inpatient setting. Among 948 patients with LMCAD assigned to PCI, 935 patients underwent PCI as their first procedure, including 100 (10.7%) performed in the outpatient setting. Patients who underwent outpatient compared with inpatient PCI were less likely to have experienced recent myocardial infarction. Distal left main bifurcation disease involvement and SYNTAX scores were similar between the groups. Comparing outpatient to inpatient PCI, there were no significant differences in MACE at 30 days (4.0% vs 5.0% respectively, adjusted OR 0.52 95% CI 0.12 to 2.22; p = 0.38) or 5 years (20.6% vs 22.1% respectively, adjusted OR 0.72, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.29; p = 0.27). Similar results were observed in patients with distal left main bifurcation lesions. In conclusion, in the EXCEL trial, outpatient PCI of patients with LMCAD was not associated with an excess early or late hazard of MACE. These data suggest that outpatient PCI may be safely performed in select patients with LMCAD., Competing Interests: Disclosures 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 study., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)