Search

Objective: To derive and validate models to predict the risk of a cardiac readmission within one year after specific cardiac surgeries using information that is commonly available from hospital electronic medical records. Methods: In this retrospective cohort study, we derived and externally validated clinical models to predict the likelihood of cardiac readmissions within one-year of isolated CABG, AVR, and combined CABG+AVR in Ontario, Canada, using multiple clinical registries and routinely collected administrative databases. For all adult patients who underwent these procedures, multiple Fine and Gray subdistribution hazard models were derived within a competing-risk framework using the cohort from April 2015 to March 2018 and validated in an independent cohort (April 2018 to March 2020). Results: For the model that predicted post-CABG cardiac readmission, the c-statistic was 0.73 in the derivation cohort and 0.70 in the validation cohort at one-year. For the model that predicted post-AVR cardiac readmission, the c-statistic was 0.74 in the derivation and 0.73 in the validation cohort at one-year. For the model that predicted cardiac readmission following CABG+AVR, the c-statistic was 0.70 in the derivation and 0.66 in the validation cohort at one-year. Conclusions: Prediction of one-year cardiac readmission for isolated CABG, AVR, and combined CABG+AVR can be achieved parsimoniously using multidimensional data sources. Model discrimination was better than existing models derived from single and multicenter registries.

Background Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR)/intervention has become the standard of care for treatment of severe aortic stenosis across the spectrum of risk. There are socioeconomic disparities in access to TAVR. The impact of these disparities on postprocedural outcomes remains unknown. Our objective was to examine the association between neighborhood‐level social deprivation and post‐TAVR mortality and hospital readmission. Methods and Results We conducted a population‐based retrospective cohort study of all 4145 patients in Ontario, Canada, who received TAVR from April 1, 2017, to March 31, 2020. Our co‐primary outcomes were 1‐year postprocedure mortality and 1‐year postprocedure readmission. Using Cox proportional hazards models for mortality and cause‐specific competing risk hazard models for readmission, we evaluated the relationship between neighborhood‐level measures of residential instability, material deprivation, and concentration of racial and ethnic groups with post‐TAVR outcomes. After multivariable adjustment, we found a statistically significant relationship between residential instability and postprocedural 1‐year mortality, ranging from a hazard ratio of 1.64 to a hazard ratio of 2.05. There was a significant association between the highest degree of residential instability and 1‐year readmission (hazard ratio, 1.23 [95% CI, 1.01–1.49]). There was no association between material deprivation and concentration of racial and ethnic groups with post‐TAVR outcomes. Conclusions Residential instability was associated with increased risk for post‐TAVR mortality, and the highest quintile of residential instability was associated with increased post‐TAVR readmission. To reduce health disparities and promote an equitable health care system, further research and policy interventions will be required to identify and support economically and socially minoritized patients undergoing TAVR.

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: Although cardiac rehabilitation (CR) has proven to have short- and mid-term benefit in treatment of coronary artery disease, its long-term benefit in patients who have undergone coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is less certain. Our objective was to examine the late outcomes of patients who attended CR within the first year after CABG. Methods: Adult CABG patients referred to Toronto Rehabilitation Institute (CR group: were referred and attended at least 1 session; No-CR group: were referred but did not attend) between January 1996 and September 2008 were identified through linkages with clinical and provincial administrative databases for comorbidities and outcome ascertainment. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, acute myocardial infarction, stroke or repeat revascularization (major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events [MACCE]). The secondary outcome was all-cause mortality. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard models were used to assess the CR treatment effect, adjusting for baseline characteristics. Results: The study cohort consisted of 5,000 patients—3,685 (73.7%) in the CR group and 1,315 (26.3%) in the No-CR group. Median referral time was 32.5 days, and follow-up was 13.1 years. The CR group patients, compared with the No-CR group, were younger (age 62.6 ± 9.6 vs 64.0 ± 10.5 years), were more likely to be male (85.0% vs 79.5%), and had fewer cardiac comorbidities. In adjusted analyses, the CR group was associated with decreased MACCE (hazard ratio 0.83, 95% confidence interval 0.75-0.91, P < 0.0001) and a higher adjusted survival at 15 years (66.3% vs 60.1%, hazard ratio 0.76, 95% confidence interval 0.68-0.84, P < 0.0001), as compared with the No-CR group. Conclusions: There was a reduction in MACCE and late mortality associated with CR attendance, highlighting the importance of patient referral and participation in CR after CABG. Résumé: Contexte: La réadaptation cardiaque (RC) s’est révélée bénéfique à court et à moyen terme dans le traitement des coronaropathies, mais on en sait moins sur ses bienfaits à long terme chez les patients ayant subi un pontage aortocoronarien (PAC). Nous avons donc examiné les issues à long terme chez des patients ayant participé à un programme de RC dans l’année suivant un PAC. Méthodologie: À partir des données couplées des bases de données des cliniques et de l’administration provinciale, nous avons relevé tous les patients adultes ayant subi un PAC qui ont été orientés vers l’Institut de réadaptation de Toronto (groupe RC : patients orientés vers le programme et ayant participé à au moins 1 séance; groupe sans RC : patients orientés vers le programme, mais n’ayant participé à aucune séance) entre janvier 1996 et septembre 2008, afin d’établir les affections concomitantes et les résultats obtenus. Le critère d’évaluation principal composé comprenait la mortalité toutes causes confondues, l’infarctus du myocarde aigu, l’accident vasculaire cérébral (AVC) ou une nouvelle revascularisation en raison d’un événement cardiaque ou cérébrovasculaire majeur (ECCVM). Le critère d’évaluation secondaire était la mortalité toutes causes confondues. Nous avons utilisé des modèles à risques proportionnels de Cox multivariés pour évaluer l’effet thérapeutique de la RC, en apportant les corrections nécessaires pour tenir compte des caractéristiques initiales des patients. Résultats: La cohorte de l’étude réunissait 5 000 patients – 3 685 (73,7 %) dans le groupe RC et 1 315 (26,3 %) dans le groupe sans RC. Les valeurs médianes du temps écoulé avant l’orientation vers un programme de RC et de la période du suivi étaient de 32,5 jours et de 13,1 ans, respectivement. Comparativement aux patients du groupe sans RC, les patients du groupe RC étaient plus jeunes (62,6 ± 9,6 ans vs 64,0 ± 10,5 ans), étaient dans une plus forte proportion des hommes (85,0 % vs 79,5 %) et présentaient un moins grand nombre d’affections cardiaques concomitantes. À l’issue des analyses après corrections, on a observé dans le groupe RC une réduction du taux d’ECCVM (rapport des risques instantanés de 0,83; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 %, de 0,75 à 0,91; p < 0,0001) et une augmentation du taux de survie à 15 ans corrigé (66,3 % vs 60,1 %; rapport des risques instantanés de 0,76; IC à 95 %, de 0,68 à 0,84; p < 0,0001), comparativement au groupe sans RC. Conclusions: La participation à un programme de RC a été associée à une diminution du risque d’ECCVM et de mortalité tardive, ce qui fait ressortir l’importance d’orienter les patients ayant subi un PAC vers de tels programmes et de les encourager à y participer.

Background The degree of hospital‐level variation in the ratio of percutaneous coronary interventions to coronary artery bypass grafting procedures (PCI:CABG) and the association of the PCI:CABG ratio with clinical outcome are unknown. Methods and Results In a multicenter population‐based study conducted in Ontario, Canada, we identified 44 288 patients from 19 institutions who had nonemergent diagnostic angiograms indicating severe multivessel coronary artery disease (2013–2017) and underwent a coronary revascularization procedure within 90 days. Hospitals were divided into tertiles according to their adjusted PCI:CABG ratio into low (0.70–0.85, n=17 487), medium (1.01–1.17, n=15 275), and high (1.18–1.29, n=11 526) ratio institutions. Compared with low PCI:CABG ratio hospitals, hazard ratios (HRs) for major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events were higher at medium (HR, 1.19; 95% CI, 1.14–1.25) and high ratio (HR, 1.21; 95% CI, 1.15–1.27) hospitals during a median 3.3 (interquartile range 2.1–4.6) years follow‐up. When interventional cardiologists performed the diagnostic angiogram, the odds of the patient receiving PCI was higher (odds ratio, 1.37; 95% CI, 1.23–1.52) than when it was performed by noninterventional cardiologists, after accounting for patient characteristics. Having the diagnostic angiogram at an institution without cardiac surgical capabilities was independently associated with a higher risk of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (HR, 1.07; 95% CI, 1.02–1.11), death (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.02–1.18), and myocardial infarction (HR, 1.10; 95% CI, 1.03–1.17). Conclusions Patients undergoing diagnostic angiography in hospitals with higher PCI:CABG ratio had higher rates of adverse outcomes, including major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. Presence of on‐site cardiac surgery was associated with better survival and lower major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events.

Abstract Background The objective of this study was to assess the overall quality of study-level meta-analyses in high-ranking journals using commonly employed guidelines and standards for systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Methods 100 randomly selected study-level meta-analyses published in ten highest-ranking clinical journals in 2016–2017 were evaluated by medical librarians against 4 assessments using a scale of 0–100: the Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies (PRESS), Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA), Institute of Medicine’s (IOM) Standards for Systematic Reviews, and quality items from the Cochrane Handbook. Multiple regression was performed to assess meta-analyses characteristics’ associated with quality scores. Results The overall median (interquartile range) scores were: PRESS 62.5(45.8–75.0), PRISMA 92.6(88.9–96.3), IOM 81.3(76.6–85.9), and Cochrane 66.7(50.0–83.3). Involvement of librarians was associated with higher PRESS and IOM scores on multiple regression. Compliance with journal guidelines was associated with higher PRISMA and IOM scores. Conclusion This study raises concerns regarding the reporting and methodological quality of published MAs in high impact journals Early involvement of information specialists, stipulation of detailed author guidelines, and strict adherence to them may improve quality of published meta-analyses.

Abstract Background Single centre studies support No Touch (NT) saphenous vein graft (SVG) harvesting technique. The primary objective of the SUPERIOR SVG study was to determine whether NT versus conventional (CON) SVG harvesting was associated with improved SVG patency 1 year after coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (CABG). Methods Adults undergoing isolated CABG with at least 1 SVG were eligible. CT angiography was performed 1-year post CABG. Leg adverse events were assessed with a questionnaire. A systematic review was performed for published NT graft patency studies and results aggregated including the SUPERIOR study results. Results Two hundred and-fifty patients were randomized across 12-centres (NT 127 versus CON 123 patients). The primary outcome (study SVG occlusion or cardiovascular (CV) death) was not significantly different in NT versus CON (NT: 7/127 (5.5%), CON 13/123 (10.6%), p = 0.15). Similarly, the proportion of study SVGs with significant stenosis or total occlusion was not significantly different between groups (NT: 8/102 (7.8%), CON: 16/107 (15.0%), p = 0.11). Vein harvest site infection was more common in the NT patients 1 month postoperatively (23.3% vs 9.5%, p

Background Several randomized trials have compared the patency of coronary artery bypass conduits. All of the published studies, however, have performed pairwise comparisons and a comprehensive evaluation of the patency rates of all conduits has yet to be published. We set out to investigate the angiographic patency rates of all conduits used in coronary bypass surgery by performing a network meta‐analysis of the current available randomized evidence. Methods and Results A systematic literature search was conducted for randomized controlled trials comparing the angiographic patency rate of the conventionally harvested saphenous vein, the no‐touch saphenous vein, the radial artery (RA), the right internal thoracic artery, or the gastroepiploic artery. The primary outcome was graft occlusion. A total of 4160 studies were retrieved of which 14 were included with 3651 grafts analyzed. The weighted mean angiographic follow‐up was 5.1 years. Compared with the conventionally harvested saphenous vein, both the RA (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35–0.82) and the no‐touch saphenous vein (IRR 0.55; 95% CI, 0.39–0.78) were associated with lower graft occlusion. The RA ranked as the best conduit (rank score for RA 0.87 versus 0.85 for no‐touch saphenous vein, 0.23 for right internal thoracic artery, 0.29 for gastroepiploic artery, and 0.25 for the conventionally harvested saphenous vein). Conclusions Compared with the conventionally harvested saphenous vein, only the RA and no‐touch saphenous vein grafts are associated with significantly lower graft occlusion rates. The RA ranks as the best conduit. Registration URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero; Unique identifier: CRD42020164492.

Randomized controlled trials (RCT) were impacted by the COVID-19 pandemic, but no systematic analysis has evaluated the overall impact of COVID-19 on non-COVID-19-related RCTs. The ClinicalTrials.gov database was queried in February 2020. Eligible studies included all randomized trials with a start date after 1 January 2010 and were active during the period from 1 January 2015 to 31 December 2020. The effect of the pandemic period on non-COVID-19 trials was determined by piece-wise regression models using 11 March 2020 as the start of the pandemic and by time series analysis (models fitted using 2015–2018 data and forecasted for 2019–2020). The study endpoints were early trial stoppage, normal trial completion, and trial activation. There were 161,377 non-COVID-19 trials analyzed. The number of active trials increased annually through 2019 but decreased in 2020. According to the piece-wise regression models, trial completion was not affected by the pandemic (p = 0.56) whereas trial stoppage increased (p = 0.001). There was a pronounced decrease in trial activation early during the pandemic (p < 0.001) which then recovered. The findings from the time series models were consistent comparing forecasted and observed results (trial completion p = 0.22; trial stoppage p < 0.01; trial activation, p = 0.01). During the pandemic, there was an increase in non-COVID-19 RCTs stoppage without changes in RCT completion. There was a sharp decline in new RCTs at the beginning of the pandemic, which later recovered.

Background There remains uncertainty regarding the second‐best conduit after the internal thoracic artery in coronary artery bypass grafting. Few studies directly compared the clinical results of the radial artery (RA), right internal thoracic artery (RITA), and saphenous vein (SV). No network meta‐analysis has compared these 3 strategies. Methods and Results MEDLINE and EMBASE were searched for adjusted observational studies and randomized controlled trials comparing the RA, SV, and/or RITA as the second conduit for coronary artery bypass grafting. The primary end point was all‐cause long‐term mortality. Secondary end points were operative mortality, perioperative stroke, perioperative myocardial infarction, and deep sternal wound infection (DSWI). Pairwise and network meta‐analyses were performed. A total of 149 902 patients (4 randomized, 31 observational studies) were included (RA, 16 201, SV, 112 018, RITA, 21 683). At NMA, the use of SV was associated with higher long‐term mortality compared with the RA (incidence rate ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.12–1.34) and RITA (incidence rate ratio, 1.26; 95% CI, 1.17–1.35). The risk of DSWI for SV was similar to RA but lower than RITA (odds ratio, 0.71; 95% CI, 0.55–0.91). There were no differences for any outcome between RITA and RA, although DSWI trended higher with RITA (odds ratio, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.92–2.1). The risk of DSWI in bilateral internal thoracic artery studies was higher when the skeletonization technique was not used. Conclusions The use of the RA or the RITA is associated with a similar and statistically significant long‐term clinical benefit compared with the SV. There are no differences in operative risk or complications between the 2 arterial conduits, but DSWI remains a concern with bilateral ITA when skeletonization is not used.

Background The debate on the relative benefits of off‐pump and on‐pump coronary artery bypass surgery (OPCABG and ONCABG) is still open. We aimed to provide an updated and complete summary of the evidence on the differences between OPCABG and ONCABG and to explore whether the length of the follow‐up and the surgeons’ experience in OPCABG modify the comparative results. Methods and Results All randomized clinical trials comparing OPCABG and ONCABG were included. Primary outcome was follow‐up mortality. Secondary outcomes were operative mortality, perioperative stroke, perioperative myocardial infarction, and late repeated revascularization. Subgroup analyses were performed based on the length of the follow‐up and the percentage of crossover from the OPCABG group (used as a surrogate of surgeon experience with OPCABG). One hundred four trials were included (20 627 patients, OPCABG: 10 288; ONCABG: 10 339). Weighted mean follow‐up time was 3.7 years (range 1–7.5 years). OPCABG was associated with a higher risk of follow‐up mortality (incidence rate ratio 1.11, 95% confidence interval 1.00–1.23, P=0.05). The difference was significant only for trials with mean follow‐up of ≥3 years and for studies with a crossover rate of ≥10%. There was a trend toward lower risk of perioperative stroke and higher need for late repeated revascularization in the OPCABG arm. Conclusions OPCABG is associated with a higher incidence of incomplete revascularization, an increased need for repeated revascularization, and decreased midterm survival compared with ONCABG. Surgeon inexperience in OPCABG is associated with late mortality.

BackgroundThis meta‐analysis was designed to assess whether center experience affects the short‐ and long‐term results and the relative benefits of bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting (BITA) for coronary artery bypass grafting. Methods and ResultsMEDLINE and EMBASE were searched to identify all articles reporting the outcome of BITA in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. The BITA center experience was gauged according to the percentage use of BITA in the institutional overall coronary artery bypass grafting population (%BITA). The primary outcome was long‐term all‐cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were operative mortality, perioperative myocardial infarction, perioperative stroke, deep sternal wound infections (DSWIs), and major postoperative adverse event. The rates of the primary and secondary outcomes were calculated after adjusting for %BITA. Primary and secondary outcomes were also compared between the BITA and the single internal thoracic artery arms in the adjusted studies. Meta‐regression was used to evaluate the effect of %BITA on the primary and secondary outcomes. Thirty‐four studies (27 894 patients undergoing BITA) were included. In the pooled analysis, the incidence rate for long‐term mortality was 2.83% (95% confidence interval, 2.21%–3.61%). %BITA was significantly and inversely associated with long‐term mortality and the rate of DSWI. In the pairwise comparison, %BITA was significantly and inversely associated with the risk of long‐term mortality and DSWI in the group undergoing BITA. ConclusionsBITA series with higher %BITA report significantly lower long‐term mortality and DSWI rate as well as higher long‐term survival advantage and lower relative risk of DSWI in their BITA cohort. These findings suggest that a specific volume‐outcome relationship exists for BITA grafting.

BackgroundObservational 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 ResultsWe 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). ConclusionsUnmeasured confounders, rather than biological superiority, may explain the survival advantage of BITA in observational series.