Search

There is an ongoing debate whether coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) provide better results for the treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD). We aimed to evaluate the impact of CABG or PCI on long-term survival based on local reports from different regions in the world. We systematically searched MEDLINE selecting studies that compared outcomes for CABG or PCI as a treatment for CAD in the last 10 years. Reports without all-cause mortality, multi-national cohorts, hybrid revascularization populations were excluded. Qualifying studies were statistically compared, and their geographic location visualized on a world map. From 5126 studies, one randomized and twenty-two observational studies (19 risk-adjusted) met the inclusion criteria. The mean follow-up was 4.7 ± 7 years and 18 different countries were included. In 17 studies, CABG was associated with better survival during follow-up, six studies showed no significant difference, and no study favored PCI. Periprocedural mortality was not different in seven, lower with PCI in one, lower with CABG in three and not reported in 12 studies. In regional registry-type comparisons, CABG is associated with better long-term survival compared to PCI in most regions of the world without evidence for higher periprocedural mortality. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) affects millions of patients. Although an invasive strategy can improve survival, the optimal treatment [i.e., percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)] is not clear. We performed a meta-analysis of studies reporting outcomes between PCI and CABG in patients with NSTE-ACS. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were assessed. The primary outcome was long-term mortality. Inverse variance method and random model were performed. We identified 13 observational studies (48,891 patients). No significant difference was found in the primary endpoint [CABG vs. PCI, incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70; 1.23]. CABG was associated with lower long-term major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (IRR 0.64, 95% CI 0.54; 0.76) and lower long-term re-revascularization (IRR 0.37, 95% CI 0.30; 0.47). There was no significant difference in long-term myocardial infarction (CABG vs. PCI, IRR 0.96, 95% CI 0.50; 1.84) and peri-operative mortality (CABG vs. PCI, odds ratio 1.36, 95% CI 0.94; 1.95). For the treatment of NSTE-ACS, CABG and PCI are associated with similar rates of long-term mortality and myocardial infarction. CABG is associated with lower rates of long-term MACE and re-revascularization. Randomized comparisons in this setting are necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) affects millions of patients. Although an invasive strategy can improve survival, the optimal treatment [i.e., percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)] is not clear. We performed a meta-analysis of studies reporting outcomes between PCI and CABG in patients with NSTE-ACS. MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library were assessed. The primary outcome was long-term mortality. Inverse variance method and random model were performed. We identified 13 observational studies (48,891 patients). No significant difference was found in the primary endpoint [CABG vs. PCI, incidence rate ratio (IRR) 0.93, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.70; 1.23]. CABG was associated with lower long-term major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (IRR 0.64, 95% CI 0.54; 0.76) and lower long-term re-revascularization (IRR 0.37, 95% CI 0.30; 0.47). There was no significant difference in long-term myocardial infarction (CABG vs. PCI, IRR 0.96, 95% CI 0.50; 1.84) and peri-operative mortality (CABG vs. PCI, odds ratio 1.36, 95% CI 0.94; 1.95). For the treatment of NSTE-ACS, CABG and PCI are associated with similar rates of long-term mortality and myocardial infarction. CABG is associated with lower rates of long-term MACE and re-revascularization. Randomized comparisons in this setting are necessary. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article discusses the use of computed tomography (CT) in the diagnosis and treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD). The evidence suggests that CT can accurately detect CAD and improve patient outcomes compared to invasive procedures. Three fundamental changes are proposed for integrating CT into clinical pathways for CAD: better prevention of cardiovascular events, individual determination of treatment strategy, and improved procedural planning. However, there are limitations to the current evidence base, and further research is needed to assess the use of CT in different patient populations. Overall, multidisciplinary research has made important advancements in CAD diagnosis and treatment, and there is potential for further improvements in non-invasive cardiovascular imaging. [Extracted from the article]

PubMed displayed almost 37,000 hits for the search term "cardiac surgery AND 2022." As before, we used the PRISMA approach and selected relevant publications for a results-oriented summary. We focused on coronary and conventional valve surgery, their overlap with interventional alternatives, and briefly assessed surgery for aorta or terminal heart failure. In the field of coronary artery disease (CAD), key manuscripts addressed prognostic implications of invasive treatment options, classically compared modern interventions (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI]) with surgery (coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]), and addressed technical aspects of CABG. The general direction in 2022 confirms the superiority of CABG over PCI in patients with anatomically complex chronic CAD and supports an infarct-preventative effect as underlying mechanism. In addition, the relevance of proper surgical technique to achieve durable graft patency and the need for optimal medical treatment in CABG patients was impressively illustrated. In structural heart disease, the comparisons of interventional and surgical techniques have been characterized by prognostic and mechanistic investigations underscoring the need for durable treatment effects and reductions of valve-related complications. Early surgery for most valve pathologies appears to provide significant survival advantages, and two publications on the Ross operation prototypically illustrate an inverse association between long-term survival and valve-related complications. For surgical treatment of heart failure, the first xenotransplantation was certainly dominant, and in the aortic surgery field, innovations in arch surgery prevailed. This article summarizes publications perceived as important by us. It cannot be complete nor free of individual interpretation, but provides up-to-date information for decision-making and patient information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

PubMed displayed more than 35,000 hits for the search term "cardiac surgery AND 2021." We used the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses) approach and selected relevant publications for a results-oriented summary. As in recent years, we reviewed the fields of coronary and conventional valve surgery and their overlap with their interventional alternatives. COVID reduced cardiac surgical activity around the world. In the coronary field, the FAME 3 trial dominated publications by practically repeating SYNTAX, but with modern stents and fractional flow reserve (FFR)-guided percutaneous coronary interventions (PCIs). PCI was again unable to achieve non-inferiority compared with coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) in patients with triple-vessel disease. Survival advantages of CABG over PCI could be linked to a reduction in myocardial infarctions and current terminology was criticized because the term "myocardial revascularization" is not precise and does not reflect the infarct-preventing collateralization effect of CABG. In structural heart disease, new guidelines were published, providing upgrades of interventional treatments of both aortic and mitral valve disease. While for aortic stenosis, transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) received a primary recommendation in older and high-risk patients; recommendations for transcatheter mitral edge-to-edge treatment were upgraded for patients considered inappropriate for surgery. For heart team discussions it is important to know that classic aortic valve replacement currently provides strong signals (from registry and randomized evidence) for a survival advantage over TAVI after 5 years. This article summarizes publications perceived as important by us. It can neither be complete nor free of individual interpretation, but provides up-to-date information for decision-making and patient information. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction Aortic valve reimplantation is considered technically demanding. We searched for predictors of long-term outcome including the surgeon as risk factor. Methods We selected all aortic valve reimplantations performed in our department between December 1999 and January 2017 and obtained a complete follow-up. The main indications were combined aortic aneurysm plus aortic valve regurgitation (AR), 69% and aortic dissections (15%). In 14%, valves were bicuspid. Cusp repair was performed in 27% of patients. One-third received additional procedures (coronary artery bypass grafting, mitral, or arch surgery). We performed multivariable analyses for independent risk factors of short- and long-term outcomes, including "surgeon" as variable. Twelve different surgeons operated on 193 patients. We created three groups: surgeons A and B with 84 and 64 procedures, respectively, and surgeon C (10 surgeons for 45 patients). Results Cardiopulmonary bypass and clamp times were 176 ± 45 and 130 ± 24 minutes, respectively. In-hospital mortality was 2%. Postoperatively, 5% had mild and 0.5% had moderate AR. Kaplan–Meier's survival estimates, freedom from reoperation, and freedom from severe AR at 12 years were 97 ± 1, 93 ± 2, and 91 ± 3%, respectively. Age and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease appeared as risk factors for perioperative complications by univariate analysis. Age, coronary artery disease, and duration of cardiopulmonary bypass, but not surgeon, presented as risk factors by multivariable analysis. Conclusion The results suggest that if a David procedure is performed successfully, long-term durability may be excellent. They also suggest that good and durable results are possible even with limited experience of the operating surgeon. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]