Search

Background: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of saphenous vein grafts (SVG) poses a high-risk for distal coronary thromboembolic events. Glycoprotein IIb/IIIa inhibitors are frequently used in hope of reducing the impact of this, although the safety and efficacy of these drugs to improve outcomes in this setting are understudied., Methods: Patients were included if they had prior coronary artery bypass surgery and subsequently underwent PCI of ≥1 SVG graft at a Dutch academic center between 1997 and 2008. These patients were matched 1:1 based on peri-procedural use of abciximab using a propensity-score matching algorithm based on 17 variables. Conditional logistic regression and Cox regression stratified on matched pairs were performed to evaluate the association between abciximab use and MACCE (the composite measure of mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke and repeat revascularization) at 30days and up to 1year., Results: The composite of 30-day MACCE occurred in 18 patients (15.3%) in the abciximab group and 16 patients (13.6%) in the propensity matched control group (OR: 1.13, 95% CI: 0.57-2.21, p=0.73). At 1-year follow-up, MACCE rates were also similar (32.5% vs. 33.9%, HR: 0.97, 95% CI: 0.59-1.59). Major bleeding (BARC types 3a-c) was higher in the abciximab group (11.9% vs. 4.2%, OR: 2.80, 95% CI: 1.01-7.77). Ischemic outcomes did not differ among patients with acute coronary syndromes., Conclusion: The use of intravenous abciximab was not associated with improved clinical outcomes up to 1-year among patients undergoing SVG PCI, but was related to more bleeding., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines minimally invasive left internal mammary artery to left anterior descending bypass with percutaneous coronary intervention of non-left anterior descending vessels. Its safety and effectiveness compared with conventional CABG have been under studied., Study Design: Patients with multivessel disease and/or left main disease who underwent HCR at a US academic center between October 2003 and September 2013 were included. These patients were matched 1:3 to patients treated with CABG using a propensity-score matching algorithm. Conditional logistic regression and Cox regression analyses stratified on matched pairs were performed to evaluate the adjusted association between HCR and short- and long-term outcomes., Results: The 30-day composite of death, MI, or stroke after HCR and CABG was 3.3% and 3.1% (odds ratio = 1.07; 95% CI, 0.52-2.21; p = 0.85) in the matched cohort of 1,224 patients (HCR, n =306; CABG, n = 918). Hybrid coronary revascularization was associated with lower rates of in-hospital major morbidity (8.5% vs 15.5%; p = 0.005), lower blood transfusion use (21.6% vs 46.6%; p < 0.001), lower chest tube drainage (690 mL; 25th to 75th percentile: 485 to 1,050 mL vs 920 mL, 25th to 75th percentile: 710 to 1,230 mL; p < 0.001), and shorter postoperative length of stay (<5-day stay: 52.6% vs 38.1%; p = 0.001). During a 3-year follow-up period, mortality was similar after HCR and CABG (8.8% vs 10.2%; hazard ratio = 0.91; 95% CI, 0.55-1.52; p = 0.72). Subgroup analyses in patients stratified by 2-vessel, 3-vessel, left main disease, and by Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk scores rendered similar results., Conclusions: The use of HCR appeared to be safe, with faster recovery and similar outcomes when compared with conventional CABG. These findings were consistent irrespective of anatomic or predicted procedural risk., (Copyright © 2015 American College of Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines a surgical and percutaneous approach for treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease., Methods: A survey was conducted among 200 cardiologists and cardiac surgeons from 100 top-ranked US hospitals. Questions were asked involving the perception, experience, and future expectations of HCR., Results: Of physicians invited to the survey, 90 completed the survey (45.5%). Relative to nonresponders, responders were more often affiliated with an academic institution (80.0% vs 61.8%, P=.005), with higher patient volumes, and with the availability of a hybrid operating room (90.0% vs 67.3%, P<.001). Survey responders felt that HCR should be considered in an older and relatively healthy patient population without complex lesions. Cardiac surgeons were more favorable to use HCR in patients with chronic lung disease (42.0% vs 10.0%, P<.001) or renal failure (28.0% vs 15.0%, P=.06). Among responders with HCR experience (n=54), 94% reported good to excellent results, and the learning curve differed depending on the surgical technique used. Inappropriate patient selection (41.2%) was the most common cause for complications. Three-quarter of responders believe that the future role for HCR will expand in the next decade. Important determinants of greater HCR use in the future were collaborative associations between cardiac surgeons and cardiologists (86.7%), appropriate patient selection (67.8%), and the outcomes of ongoing clinical trials (57.8%)., Conclusion: In this nationwide survey, cardiologists and cardiac surgeons felt that HCR is a reasonable alternative technique for coronary revascularization among suitable patients. Most felt that use of HCR would increase in the next decade., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: To compare the outcomes between minimally invasive coronary artery bypass (MINI-CAB) and drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation for isolated left anterior descending artery disease., Methods: Randomized and observational comparative publications were identified using MEDLINE and Google Scholar databases (January 2003 to December 2013). Studies without outcomes data, without DES use, or using conventional bypass surgery were excluded. The outcomes of interest were cardiac death, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and periprocedural stroke. Data were compared using the Mantel-Haenszel methods and are presented as odds ratios (ORs), 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and number needed to treat., Results: From 230 publications, we identified 4 studies (2 randomized and 2 observational) with 941 patients (478 had undergone MINI-CAB and 463 DES implantation). The incidence of target vessel revascularization at maximum follow-up (range, 6-60 months) was significantly lower in the MINI-CAB group (OR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.08-0.30; P<.0001; number needed to treat, 13). The incidence of cardiac mortality and MI was similar between the MINI-CAB and DES groups during follow-up (OR, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.44-2.47; and OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.43-1.58, respectively). In addition, a similar incidence of periprocedural death (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.21-3.47; P=.82), myocardial infarction (OR, 0.98; 95% CI, 0.38-2.58; P=.97), and stroke (OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 0.28-6.70; P=.70) was observed between the 2 treatment modalities., Conclusions: Given the available evidence, MINI-CAB will result in lower target vessel revascularization rates but otherwise similar clinical outcomes compared with DESs in patients with left anterior descending artery disease., (Copyright © 2014 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) involves minimally invasive left internal mammary artery to left anterior descending coronary artery grafting combined with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of non-left anterior descending vessels. The safety and efficacy of HCR among diabetic patients are unknown., Methods: Patients with diabetes were included who underwent HCR at a US academic center between October 2003 and September 2013. These patients were matched 1:5 to similar patients treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) using a propensity score (PS)-matching algorithm. Conditional logistic regression and Cox regression stratified on matched pairs were performed to evaluate the association between HCR and inhospital complications, a composite measure of 30-day mortality, myocardial infarction and stroke, and up to 3-year all-cause mortality., Results: Of 618 patients (HCR = 103; CABG = 515) in the PS-matched cohort, the 30-day composite of death, MI, or stroke after HCR and CABG was 4.9% and 3.9% (odds ratio: 1.25; 95% CI [0.47-3.33]; P = .66). Compared with CABG, HCR also had similar need for reoperation (7.6% versus 6.3%; P = .60) and renal failure (4.2% versus 4.9%; P = .76) but required less blood products (31.4% versus. 65.8%; P < .0001), lower chest tube drainage (655 mL [412-916] versus 898 mL [664-1240]; P < .0001), and shorter length of stay (<5 days: 48.3% versus 25.3%; P < .0001). Over a 3-year follow-up period, mortality was similar after HCR and CABG (12.3% versus 14.9%, hazard ratio: 0.94, 95% CI [0.47-1.88]; P = .86)., Conclusion: Among diabetic patients, the use of HCR appears to be safe and has similar longitudinal outcomes but is associated with less blood product usage and faster recovery than conventional CABG surgery., (Copyright © 2014 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines minimally invasive left internal mammary artery-to-left anterior descending coronary artery grafting with percutaneous coronary intervention of non-left anterior descending coronary arteries. The safety and efficacy of HCR in patients≥65 years of age is unknown. In this study, patients aged≥65 years were included who underwent HCR at an academic center from October 2003 to September 2013. These patients were matched 1:4 to similar patients treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) using a propensity-score matching algorithm. Conditional logistic regression and Cox regression stratified on matched pairs were performed to evaluate the association between HCR and CABG, and 30-day major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (a composite of mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke), periprocedural complications, and 3-year all-cause mortality. Of 715 patients (143 of whom underwent HCR and 572 CABG) in the propensity score-matched cohort, rates of 30-day major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events were comparable after HCR and CABG (5.6% vs 3.8%, odds ratio 1.46, 95% confidence interval 0.65 to 3.27, p=0.36). Compared with CABG, HCR resulted in fewer procedural complications (9.1% vs 18.2%, p=0.018), fewer blood transfusions (28.0% vs 53.3%, p<0.0001), less chest tube drainage (838±484 vs 1,100±579 cm3, p<0.001), and shorter lengths of stay (<5 days: 45.5% vs 27.4%, p=0.001). Over a 3-year follow-up period, mortality rates were similar after HCR and CABG (13.2% vs 16.6%, hazard ratio 0.81, 95% confidence interval 0.46 to 1.43, p=0.47). Subgroup analyses in high-risk patients (Charlson index≥6, age≥75 years) rendered similar results. In conclusion, although the present data are limited, we found that in older patients, the use of HCR is safe, has fewer procedural complications, entails less blood product use, and results in faster recovery with similar longitudinal outcomes relative to conventional CABG., (Copyright © 2014 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) represents a minimally invasive revascularization strategy in which the durability of the internal mammary artery to left anterior descending artery graft is combined with percutaneous coronary intervention to treat remaining lesions. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare clinical outcomes after HCR with conventional coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery., Methods: A comprehensive EMBASE and PUBMED search was performed for comparative studies evaluating in-hospital and 1-year death, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and repeat revascularization., Results: Six observational studies (1 case control, 5 propensity adjusted) comprising 1,190 patients were included; 366 (30.8%) patients underwent HCR (185 staged and 181 concurrent), and 824 (69.2%) were treated with CABG (786 off-pump, 38 on-pump). Drug-eluting stents were used in 328 (89.6%) patients undergoing HCR. Hybrid coronary revascularization was associated with lower in-hospital need for blood transfusions, shorter length of stay, and faster return to work. No significant differences were found for the composite of death, MI, stroke, or repeat revascularization during hospitalization (odds ratio 0.63, 95% CI 0.25-1.58, P = .33) and at 1-year follow-up (odds ratio 0.49, 95% CI 0.20-1.24, P = .13). Comparisons of individual components showed no difference in all-cause mortality, MI, or stroke, but higher repeat revascularization among patients treated with HCR., Conclusions: Hybrid coronary revascularization is associated with lower morbidity and similar in-hospital and 1-year major adverse cerebrovascular or cardiac events rates, but greater requirement for repeat revascularization compared with CABG. Further exploration of this strategy with adequately powered randomized trials is warranted., (Copyright © 2014 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: While extracardiac vascular disease (ECVD), defined as a history of peripheral vascular disease (PVD) or cerebrovascular disease (CBVD), is common in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery, there are limited data available on the association between ECVD, vein graft failure (VGF), and clinical outcomes., Methods: Using data from the Project of Ex-vivo Vein Graft Engineering via Transfection IV (PREVENTIV) trial (n = 3,014), 1-year angiographic follow-up and 5-year clinical outcomes (death, myocardial infarction, and revascularization) were determined in patients with and without ECVD. Logistic regression was used to assess risk of VGF. Generalized estimating equations methods were used to account for correlations in a graft-level analysis. Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox hazards regression were used to compare clinical outcomes. We similarly explored the association of the individual components CBVD and PVD with both VGF and clinical outcomes in an additive model., Results: Patients with ECVD (n = 634, 21%) were older, more commonly female, and had more comorbidities, lower use of internal thoracic artery grafting, and overall worse graft quality than patients without ECVD. VGF rates tended to be higher (patient-level: odds ratio [OR]: 1.23, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.96 to 1.58, p = 0.099; graft-level: OR: 1.23, 95% CI: 1.00 to 1.53, p = 0.053) in patients with ECVD. VGF rates were significantly higher among CBVD patients (OR: 1.42, 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.97, p = 0.035; graft-level: OR: 1.40, 95% CI: 1.06 to 1.85, p = 0.019). Patients with ECVD had a higher risk of death, myocardial infarction, or revascularization 5 years after CABG surgery (hazard ratio [HR]: 2.96, 95% CI: 2.02 to 4.35, p < 0.001). This relationship was driven by the subset of patients with PVD (HR = 3.32, 95% CI: 2.16 to 5.09, p < 0.001) and not by those with CBVD (HR = 1.10, 95% CI: 0.88 to 1.37, p = 0.40)., Conclusions: ECVD is common among patients undergoing CABG surgery and is associated with similar short-term but increasingly worse long-term clinical outcomes. This higher risk may be partly, but not exclusively, due to higher rates of VGF among these patients., (Copyright © 2014 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Patients with non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) and three-vessel or left main coronary disease (3VD/LMD) have a high risk of long-term mortality when treated with a medical management strategy (MMS) compared with revascularization., Methods: We evaluated patterns of use and patient features across United States hospitals designated by MMS for NSTEMI patients with 3VD/LMD included in the ACTION Registry-GWTG from 2007-2012., Results: A total of 42,535 patients without prior bypass surgery were found to have 3VD (≥50% stenosis in all major coronary vessels) or LMD (≥50% lesion) during in-hospital angiography at 423 hospitals with percutaneous and surgical revascularization capabilities. Hospitals (n = 316) with an adequate volume (≥25 NSTEMI patients treated) were stratified into tertiles defined by use of MMS; differences in patient characteristics and outcomes were analyzed. The proportion of NSTEMI patients treated with MMS at all hospitals varied from 16% to 19% each quarter and did not change significantly from 2007 to 2012 (P trend = .11). Among hospitals with adequate volume, the proportion of patients treated with MMS also varied widely (median 17.1%, range: 0.0-44.8%, P < .0001). Patient baseline characteristics, predicted mortality risk, actual in-hospital mortality rates, and discharge treatments were similar across hospital tertiles., Conclusions: Close to 20% of patients with NSTEMI and 3VD/LMD identified during in-hospital angiography are treated with MMS without revascularization in contemporary practice. Since the use of MMS varies widely across hospitals despite a relatively similar hospital-level case mix, these findings suggest that there is no standard threshold for the use of revascularization in NSTEMI patients with 3VD/LMD., (Copyright © 2014 Mosby, Inc. All rights reserved.)

Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines bypass grafting of the left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) of non-LAD vessels. HCR has been performed as an alternative to CABG or multi-vessel PCI in thousands of patients since the late 1990s. In this review article, we provide an overview on patient selection, procedural sequence and timing, use of surgical techniques and anti-platelet agents. Additionally, patient recovery, satisfaction, costs and clinical outcomes of individual studies after HCR are evaluated. Future directions are also discussed, including the need for adequately powered randomized trials.

Background: Cardiac tamponade, characterized by inflow obstruction of the heart chambers by extracardiac compression, is a potentially lethal complication following cardiac surgery., Case Report: We present a case of recurrent cardiac tamponade following valve surgery. At first presentation, diagnosis was delayed because of atypical symptoms and the absence of accumulated pericardial fluid on the transthoracic echocardiogram. After succesful treatment, tamponade reoccurred with typical clinical and echocardiographic features., Conclusion: This case teaches us to appreciate the varied presentation of tamponade after cardiac surgery, and shows the need for a high index of suspicion and the early use of echocardiography to confirm the diagnosis. Depending on pericardial morphology and the postoperative time window, treatment consists of drainage, either by surgical therapy or percutaneous pericardiocenthesis. Postoperative follow-up is warranted in patients with risk factors for tamponade, such as a history of previous tamponade, valve surgery, clotting abnormalities and the use of anticoagulants.