Revascularization or medical therapy for stable coronary artery disease: To do or not to do, that is the question

Revascularization or medical therapy for stable coronary artery disease: To do or not to do, that is the questio

Pacemaker dependency after transcatheter aortic valve replacement compared to surgical aortic valve replacement

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is a standard treatment indicated for severe aortic stenosis in high-risk patients. The objective of this study was to evaluate the incidence of pacemaker dependency after permanent pacemaker implantation (PPI) following TAVR or surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) and the risk of mortality at a tertiary center in Korea. In this retrospective study conducted at a single tertiary center, clinical outcomes related to pacemaker dependency were evaluated for patients implanted with pacemakers after TAVR from January 2012 to November 2018 and post-SAVR from January 2005 to May 2015. Investigators reviewed patients' electrocardiograms and baseline rhythms as well as conduction abnormalities. Pacemaker dependency was defined as a ventricular pacing rate > 90% with an intrinsic rate of <40 bpm during interrogation. Of 511 patients who underwent TAVR for severe AS, 37(7.3%) underwent PPI after a median duration of 6 (3-7) days, whereas pacemakers were implanted after a median interval of 13 (8-28) days post-SAVR in 10 of 663 patients (P < .001). Pacemaker dependency was observed in 36 (97.3%) patients during 7 days immediately post-TAVR and in 25 (64.9%) patients between 8 and 180 days post-TAVR. Pacemaker dependency occurred after 180 days in 17 (50%) patients with TAVR and in 4 (44.4%) patients with SAVR. Twelve (41.4%) patients were pacemaker-dependent after 365 days post-TAVR. Pacemaker dependency did not differ at 6 months after TAVR vs SAVR. In patients undergoing post-TAVR PPI, 58.6% were not pacemaker-dependent at 1 year after the TAVR procedure

Real-World Outcomes of On- vs Off-Pump Coronary Bypass Surgery: Result from Korean Nationwide Cohort

-----------e-pub(22.1.12 현재)---------- Background: While several randomized trials have shown conflicting results regarding the comparative effectiveness of on- and off-pump coronary arterial bypass grafting (CABG), research on long-term outcomes in large-scale, real-world clinical settings are limited. We sought to examine the comparative effectiveness of on- and off-pump CABG in a real-world clinical setting. Methods: Using the nationwide claims database of the Korean National Health Insurance Service, we identified patients who underwent isolated CABG from 2004 to 2013. Propensity-score matching with multivariable adjustment was used to assemble a cohort of patients with similar baseline characteristics. Results: Among 23,828 patients, 12,639 in the off-pump (53.0%) and 11,189 in the on-pump (47.0%) groups were enrolled. After matching, 6,483 pairs were included in the final analysis. At 30 days, there was no significant difference in adjusted mortality between the off- and on-pump groups (hazard ratio [HR], 1.00; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87-1.16). During long-term follow-up (100% complete; median 5.3yrs, maximum 13.2yrs), however, off-pump CABG was associated with a higher risk of mortality than on-pump CABG (HR, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.03-1.15). The risks of myocardial infarction (MI) (HR, 1.3; 95% CI, 1.16-1.45) and repeat revascularization (HR, 1.50; 95% CI, 1.37-1.63) were also significantly higher in the off-pump CABG group than in the on-pump CABG group, while the stroke risk was similar inter-groups (HR, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.87-1.13). Conclusions: In this contemporary, nationwide, clinical practice claim registry, off-pump CABG was associated with higher long-term risks of mortality, MI, and repeat revascularization than on-pump CABG. Keywords: Cardiopulmonary bypass; Comparative effectiveness; Coronary artery bypass graft surgery; Prognosis; Survival

Comparison of dopamine versus norepinephrine in circulatory shock after cardiac surgery: A randomized controlled trial

Background and Aim of the Study Although dopamine and norepinephrine are recommended as first-line agents in the treatment of shock, it is unclear which is the optimal vasoactive inotropic agent (VIA) to manage postcardiotomy circulatory shock. This single-center, randomized clinical trial aimed to investigate the efficacy and safety of dopamine versus norepinephrine in postcardiotomy circulatory shock. Methods We randomly assigned the patients with postcardiotomy circulatory shock to receive either dopamine or norepinephrine. When shock persisted despite the dose of 20 mu g/kg/min of dopamine or the dose of 0.2 mu g/kg/min of norepinephrine, epinephrine or vasopressin could be added. The primary endpoint was new-onset tachyarrhythmic event during drug infusion. Secondary endpoints included requirement of additional VIAs, postoperative complications, and all-cause mortality within 30 days of drug initiation. Results At the planned interim analysis of 100 patients, the boundary for the benefit of norepinephrine has been crossed, and the study was stopped early. Excluding two patients withdrawing a consent, 48 patients were assigned to dopamine and 50 patients to norepinephrine. New-onset tachyarrhythmic event occurred in 12 (25%) patients in the dopamine and one (2%) patient in the norepinephrine group (p = .009). The requirement for additional VIAs was more common in the dopamine group (p < .001). Other secondary endpoints were similar between groups. Conclusions Despite the limited study subjects with early determination, in patients with postcardiotomy circulatory shock, dopamine as a first-line vasopressor was associated with higher tachyarrhythmic events and greater need for additional VIAs compared with norepinephrine

Comparison of simple versus complex stenting in patients with true distal left main bifurcation lesions

Introduction: Distal left main (LM) bifurcation disease is one of the most challenging lesion subsets for percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and optimal stenting strategy for such complex lesions is still debated. This study aimed to compare clinical outcomes following single versus dual stenting for true distal LM bifurcation lesions. Methods: Patients with true distal LM bifurcation lesions (type 1,1,1 or 0,1,1: both left anterior descending and circumflex artery >2.5 mm diameter) receiving PCI with drug-eluting stents (DES) from two large clinical registries were evaluated. The primary outcome was target-lesion failure (TLF), defined as a composite of cardiac death, target-vessel myocardial infarction (MI), or target-lesion revascularization (TLR). Outcomes were compared with the use of propensity scores and inverse probability-weighting adjustment to reduce treatment selection bias. Results: Among 1,002 patients undergoing true distal LM PCI, 440 (43.9%) and 562 (56.1%) were treated with single and dual stents, respectively. The TLF rates at 3 year was 20.3% in the single-stent group and 24.1% in the dual-stenting group (log-rank p = 0.18). The adjusted risk for TLF did not differ significantly between two groups (hazard ratio [HR] with dual-stent vs. single-stent: 1.27, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.95?1.71). The adjusted risks for death, MI, repeat revascularization, or stent thrombosis were also similar between the single- and dual-stenting groups. Conclusions: In patients undergoing PCI for true distal LM disease, single- and dual-stent strategies showed a similar adjusted risk of TLF at 3 years. Our findings should be confirmed or refuted through large, randomized clinical trials