Search

Background The COMPASS (Cardiovascular Outcomes for People Using Anticoagulation Strategies) trial decreased major adverse cardiovascular events with very low‐dose rivaroxaban and aspirin in patients with coronary artery disease and peripheral artery disease. We examined the eligibility and potential real‐world impact of this strategy on the COMPASS‐eligible population. Methods and Results COMPASS eligibility criteria were applied to the CANHEART (Cardiovascular Health in Ambulatory Care Research Team) registry, a population‐based cohort of Ontario adults. We compared 5‐year major adverse cardiovascular events and major bleeding rates stratified by COMPASS eligibility and by clinical risk factors. We applied COMPASS trial rivaroxaban/aspirin arm hazard ratios to estimate the potential impact on the COMPASS‐eligible cohort. Among 362 797 patients with coronary artery disease or peripheral artery disease, 38% were deemed eligible, 47% ineligible, and 15% indeterminate. Among eligible patients, a greater number of risk factors was associated with higher rates of cardiovascular outcomes, whereas bleeding rates increased minimally. Over 5 years, applying COMPASS treatment effects to eligible patients resulted in a 2.4% absolute risk reduction of major adverse cardiovascular events and a number needed to treat of 42, and a 1.3% absolute risk increase of major bleeding and number needed to harm (NNH) of 77. Those with at least 2 risk factors had a 3.0% absolute risk reduction of major adverse cardiovascular events (number needed to treat =34) and a 1.6% absolute risk increase of major bleeding (number needed to harm =61). Conclusions Implementation of very‐low‐dose rivaroxaban therapy would potentially impact ≈ $$ \approx $$ 2 in 5 patients with atherosclerotic disease in Ontario. Eligible individuals with ≥ $$ \ge $$ 2 comorbidities represent a high‐risk subgroup that may derive the greatest benefit‐to‐risk ratio. Selection of patients with high‐risk predisposing factors appears appropriate in routine practice.

Background: Recent clinical trial results showed that transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is noninferior and may be superior to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for mortality, stroke, and rehospitalization. However, the impact of transcatheter valve durability remains uncertain. Methods: Discrete event simulation was used to model hypothetical scenarios of TAVR versus SAVR durability in which TAVR failure times were varied to determine the impact of TAVR valve durability on life expectancy in a cohort of low-risk patients similar to those in recent trials. Discrete event simulation modeling was used to estimate the tradeoff between a less invasive procedure with unknown valve durability (TAVR) and that of a more invasive procedure with known durability (SAVR). Standardized differences were calculated, and a difference >0.10 was considered clinically significant. In the base-case analysis, patients with structural valve deterioration requiring reoperation were assumed to undergo a valve-in-valve TAVR procedure. A sensitivity analysis was conducted to determine the impact of TAVR valve durability on life expectancy in younger age groups (40, 50, and 60 years). Results: Our cohort consisted of patients with aortic stenosis at low surgical risk with a mean age of 73.4±5.9 years. In the base-case scenario, the standardized difference in life expectancy was Conclusions: According to our simulation models, the durability of TAVR valves must be 70% shorter than that of surgical valves to result in reduced life expectancy in patients with demographics similar to those of recent trials. However, in younger patients, this threshold for TAVR valve durability was substantially higher. These findings suggest that durability concerns should not influence the initial treatment decision concerning TAVR versus SAVR in older low-risk patients on the basis of current evidence supporting TAVR valve durability. However, in younger low-risk patients, valve durability must be weighed against other patient factors such as life expectancy.

Background: Observational studies have shown better survival in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with 2 arterial grafts compared with 1. However, whether a third arterial graft is associated with incremental benefit remains uncertain. We sought to analyze the outcomes of 3 versus 2 arterial grafts during CABG. As a secondary objective, we compared CABG with 2 or 3 arterial grafts (multiple arterial grafts [MAG]) with CABG using a single arterial graft (SAG). Methods: Retrospective cohort analyses of all patients undergoing primary isolated CABG in Ontario, Canada, from October 2008 to March 2016. Propensity score matching was performed between patients with 3 arterial grafts (3Art group) versus 2 (2Art group). The primary outcome was time to first event of a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeat revascularization (major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events). Additional analyses were performed to evaluate the association between MAG versus SAG and long-term outcomes using propensity score matching. Results: Fifty thousand, two hundred thirty patients underwent isolated CABG during our study period; 3044 (6.1%) and 8253 (16.4%) patients had 3 and 2 arterial grafts, respectively, resulting in 2789 propensity score matching pairs for the primary analyses. Mean and maximum follow-up was 4.2 and 8.5 years, respectively. Radial artery grafting was more common in the 3Art versus 2Art group (79.3% versus 65.6%, P P =0.26). Up to 8 years, there were no differences in major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (3Art 27%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 24% to 30% versus 2Art 25%, 95% CI, 22% to 28%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.08, 95% CI, 0.94–1.25), death (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.90–1.29), myocardial infarction (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.87–1.51), stroke (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.95–2.06), or repeat revascularization (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.82–1.32). When evaluating MAG versus SAG, 8629 patient pairs were formed using propensity score matching. At 8 years, cumulative incidences of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (HR, 0.82, 95% CI, 0.77–0.88), survival (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73–0.88), repeat revascularization (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69–0.90), and myocardial infarction (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72–0.97) were superior in the MAG group. Conclusions: CABG with 3 arterial grafts was not associated with increased in-hospital death nor with better clinical outcomes at 8-year follow-up, compared with CABG with 2 arterial grafts. MAG was associated with superior outcomes compared with SAG.

Introduction: Multiple arterial grafting (MAG) in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is associated with improved survival and freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) in observational studies of mostly males. It is not known whether the MAG is beneficial in females. Herein, we compared the late clinical outcomes of MAG versus single arterial grafting (SAG) in females undergoing CABG for multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) Methods: Clinical and administrative databases for Ontario, Canada, were linked to obtain all female patients with angiographic evidence of left main, triple, or double vessel disease undergoing isolated non-emergent primary CABG from 2008-2019. Baseline characteristics were compared and 1:1 propensity score matching was performed to account for differences. 30-day mortality was compared in the matched groups. Late mortality and MACCE ( composite of stroke, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and death) was compared between the matched groups with a stratified log rank test and Cox-proportional hazard model. Results: In total 2,961 and 7,954 females underwent CABG with MAG and SAG respectively for multivessel CAD. Prior to propensity-score matching, compared to SAG, those that underwent MAG were younger (66.0 vs. 68.9 years) and had less comorbidities. After propensity-score matching, 2,446 well-matched pairs were formed. In matched patients, there was no significant difference in 30-day mortality (1.6% vs 1.8%, P=0.43) between MAG and SAG. The median and maximum follow-up was 5.0 and 11.0 years respectively. Over the entire follow-up, MAG was associated with improved survival (Figure, hazard ratio (HR): 0.85, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.75-0.98) and freedom from MACCE (HR: 0.85, 95%CI: 0.76-0.95). Conclusions: MAG was associated with improved survival and freedom from MACCE and should be considered for female patients with good life expectancy requiring CABG.

The purpose of this article is to review the strengths and weaknesses of systematic reviews and meta-analyses to inform our current understanding of cardiac surgery.A systematic review and meta-analysis of a focused topic can provide a quantitative estimate for the effect of a treatment intervention or exposure. In cardiac surgery, observational studies and small, single-center prospective trials provide most of the clinical outcomes that form the evidence base for patient management and guideline recommendations. As such, meta-analyses can be particularly valuable in synthesizing the literature for a particular focused surgical question. Since the year 2000, there are over 800 meta-analysis-related publications in our field. There are some limitations to this technique, including clinical, methodological and statistical heterogeneity, among other challenges. Despite these caveats, results of meta-analyses have been useful in forming treatment recommendations or in providing guidance in the design of future clinical trials.There is a growing number of meta-analyses in the field of cardiac surgery. Knowledge translation via meta-analyses will continue to guide and inform cardiac surgical practice and our practice guidelines.

Background Observational studies suggest a survival advantage with bilateral single internal thoracic artery (BITA) versus single internal thoracic artery grafting for coronary surgery, whereas this conclusion is not supported by randomized trials. We hypothesized that this inconsistency is attributed to unmeasured confounders intrinsic to observational studies. To test our hypothesis, we performed a meta‐analysis of the observational literature comparing BITA and single internal thoracic artery, deriving incident rate ratio for mortality at end of follow‐up and at 1 year. We postulated that BITA would not affect 1‐year survival based on the natural history of coronary artery bypass occlusion, so that a difference between groups at 1 year could not be attributed to the intervention. Methods and Results We searched MEDLINE and Pubmed to identify all observational studies comparing the outcome of BITA versus single internal thoracic artery. One‐year and long‐term mortality for BITA and single internal thoracic artery were compared in the propensity‐score–matched (PSM) series, that is, the form of observational evidence less prone to confounders. Thirty‐eight observational studies (174 205 total patients) were selected for final comparison. In the 12 propensity‐score–matched series (34 019 patients), the mortality reduction for BITA was similar at 1 year and at the end of follow‐up (incident rate ratio, 0.70; 95% confidence interval, 0.60–0.82 versus 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.70–0.85; P for subgroup difference=0.43). Conclusions Unmeasured confounders, rather than biological superiority, may explain the survival advantage of BITA in observational series.