Search

Background: The prevalence of coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients undergoing TAVR varies and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. We evaluated the outcomes of complex and high-risk percutaneous coronary interventions (CHIP-PCIs) and TAVR compared with standard PCI and TAVR. Between January 2014 and March 2021, a total of 276 consecutive patients with severe aortic stenosis (AS) who underwent TAVR and PCI at 3 centers within Northwell Health were retrospectively reviewed. CHIP-PCI was defined as PCI with one of the following: left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) <30%; left main coronary artery (LMCA)/chronic total occlusion (CTO) intervention; atherectomy; or need for left ventricular (LV) support. One hundred twenty- seven patients (46%) had CHIP-PCI prior to TAVR and 149 patients (54%) had standard PCI. Thirteen percent of CHIP-PCI and 22% of standard PCI cases were done concomitantly with TAVR. CHIP-PCI criteria were met for low EF (19%), LMCA (25%), CTO (3%), LV support (20%), and atherectomy (50%). The types of valves used were similarly divided (49% balloon expandable vs 51% self expanding. Major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rate for CHIP-PCI/TAVR was 4.9% at 30 days vs 1.3% for standard PCI/TAVR (P=.09), driven by in-hospital stroke. At 1 year, the rates of MACCE for CHIP-PCI/TAVR remained higher than for standard PCI/TAVR, but was not statistically significant (8.7% vs 4%; P=.06), driven by revascularization. We found no differences between major and/or minor vascular complications. New York Heart Association classification at 1 month was similar (I/II 93% vs 95%; P=.87). Our study suggests that CHIP-PCI can be safely performed in patients with complex CAD and concomitant severe AS.

Objective: Debate continues as to the optimal minimally invasive treatment modality for complex disease of the left anterior descending coronary artery, with advocates for both robotic-assisted minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass and percutaneous coronary intervention with a drug-eluting stent. We analyzed the midterm outcomes of patients with isolated left anterior descending disease, revascularized by minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass or drug-eluting stent percutaneous coronary intervention, focusing on those with complex lesion anatomy., Methods: A retrospective review was undertaken of all patients who underwent coronary revascularization between January 2008 and December 2016. From this population, 158 propensity-matched pairs of patients were generated from 158 individuals who underwent minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass for isolated complex left anterior descending disease and from 373 patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention using a second-generation drug-eluting stent. Midterm survival and incidence of repeat left anterior descending intervention were analyzed for both patient groups., Results: Overall 9-year survival was not significantly different between patient groups both before and after propensity matching. Midterm mortality in the matched minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass group was low, irrespective of patient risk profile. By contrast, advanced age (hazard ratio, 1.10; P = .012) and obesity (hazard ratio, 1.09; P = .044) predicted increased late death after drug-eluting stent percutaneous coronary intervention among matched patients. Patients who underwent minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass were significantly less likely to require repeat left anterior descending revascularization than those who had percutaneous coronary intervention, both before and after propensity matching. Smaller stent diameter in drug-eluting stent percutaneous coronary intervention was associated with increased left anterior descending reintervention (hazard ratio, 3.53; P = .005)., Conclusions: In patients with complex disease of the left anterior descending artery, both minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass and percutaneous coronary intervention are associated with similar excellent intermediate-term survival, although reintervention requirements are lower after surgery., (Copyright © 2020 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: We sought to evaluate midterm survival data and resource use for patients who received hybrid coronary revascularization for 2-vessel coronary disease (robotic-assisted left internal thoracic artery graft to left anterior descending coronary artery (minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass), coupled with a stent to the circumflex or right coronary artery), compared with a concurrent cohort who had traditional coronary artery bypass grafting., Methods: A comprehensive retrospective review was undertaken of our prospectively collected database from January 2009 to December 2016. We propensity matched 207 patients who underwent hybrid coronary revascularization for double-vessel disease with patients who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting. Eight-year survival data were obtained from the National Death Index., Results: Thirty-day mortality was 1 patient (0.5%) in each of the hybrid coronary revascularization and coronary artery bypass grafting groups. Eight-year survival for the hybrid coronary revascularization group was 187 of 207 patients (90.3%) compared with 182 of 207 patients (87.9%) for the coronary artery bypass grafting cohort. End-stage renal disease independently predicted late mortality in all patients (overall hazard ratio, 5.60, P < .001; hybrid coronary revascularization hazard ratio, 5.58, P = .002; coronary artery bypass grafting hazard ratio, 4.59, P = .006). Female patients who underwent hybrid coronary revascularization had a higher incidence of late death (hazard ratio, 2.47, P = .05). Length of stay and perioperative transfusion requirements were lower in the hybrid coronary revascularization group (P < .0001)., Conclusions: Hybrid coronary revascularization for double-vessel coronary disease is associated with similar short-term outcomes and intermediate-term survival as traditional coronary artery bypass grafting. Hybrid coronary revascularization is associated with lower transfusion requirements and a shorter length of stay than coronary artery bypass grafting., (Copyright © 2018 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) constitutes a left internal mammary artery graft to the left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery, coupled with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) for non‐LAD lesions. This management strategy is not commonly offered to patients with complex multivessel disease. Our objective was to evaluate 8‐year survival in patients with triple‐vessel disease (TVD) treated by HCR, compared with that of concurrent matched patients managed by traditional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or multivessel PCI. Methods: A retrospective review was undertaken of 4805 patients with TVD who presented between January 2009 and December 2016. A cohort of 100 patients who underwent HCR were propensity‐matched with patients treated by CABG or multivessel PCI. The primary endpoint was all‐cause mortality at 8 years. Results: Patients with TVD who underwent HCR had similar 8‐year mortality (5.0%) as did those with CABG (4.0%) or multivessel PCI (9.0%). A composite endpoint of death, repeat revascularization, and new myocardial infarction, was not significantly different between patient groups (HCR 21.0% vs CABG 15.0%, P =.36; HCR 21.0% vs PCI 25.0%, P =.60). Despite a higher baseline synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with taxus and cardiac surgery(SYNTAX) score, HCR was able to achieve a lower residual SYNTAX score than multivessel PCI (P =.001). Conclusions: In select patients with TVD, long‐term survival and FREEDOM from major adverse cardiovascular events after HCR are similar to that seen after traditional CABG or multivessel PCI. HCR should be considered for patients with multivessel disease, presuming a low residual SYNTAX score can be achieved. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The SYNTAX score (SX) is an angiographic grading system to determine the burden and complexity of coronary artery disease (CAD) and to guide operators as to the appropriateness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). However, variability of the SX may exist since the assessment relies on individual clinicians to visually interpret lesion severity and characteristics. We therefore aimed to assess SX variability and reproducibility among interpreting physicians.Methods: Fifty patient angiograms were randomly selected from a registry of patients with multi-vessel CAD (treated with PCI or CABG) completed at our institution during the years 2011-2018. Each angiogram was evaluated by 6 clinicians on 2 separate occasions (minimum 8 weeks between occasions) for a total of 600 SX. Our goal was to evaluate both inter- and intra- observer reliability of SX scores. Variation in both raw score as well as risk classification (low, intermediate or high SX) was observed. Inter- and intra-observer reliability were assessed using the intra-class correlation coefficient (ICC), Cohen's weighted Kappa, and Fleiss' Kappa.Results: SYNTAX scores on both assessments and across all 6 cardiologists had a mean score of 25.3. On the first assessment, the ICC for the inter-observer reliability of SX scores was 0.61 (95% CI: 0.50, 0.73). Across the 6 observers, only 16% of angiograms were classified in the same risk classification by all observers. 34% of angiograms had less than a majority agreement (3 or less observers) on risk classification. The weighted Kappa for intra-observer reliability of risk classification scores ranged from 0.30 to 0.81. Across the 6 observers, the proportion of angiograms classified as the same risk classification between each observer's 1st and 2nd assessment ranged from 46% to 84%.Conclusion: This study shows a wide inter- and intra- user variability in calculating SX. Our data indicates a significant limitation in using the SX to guide revascularization strategies. Further studies are needed to determine more reliable ways to quantitate burden of CAD. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]