9 research outputs found

    Comparative effectiveness of coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention in a real-world Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure trial population.

    No full text
    OBJECTIVE: There are no prospective randomized trial data to guide decisions on optimal revascularization strategies for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and reduced ejection fraction. In this analysis, we describe the comparative effectiveness of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in this patient population. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective analysis of all CABG (n = 18,292) and PCIs (n = 55,438) performed from 2004 to 2014 among 7 medical centers reporting to the Northern New England Cardiovascular Disease Study Group. After applying inclusion and exclusion criteria from the Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure trial, there were 955 CABG and 718 PCI patients with an ejection fraction ≤ 35% and 2- or 3-vessel disease. Inverse probability weighting was used for risk adjustment. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points included rates of 30-day mortality, stroke, acute kidney injury, and incidence of repeat revascularization. RESULTS: The median duration of follow-up was 4.3 years (range, 1.59-6.71 years). CABG was associated with improved long-term survival compared with PCI after risk adjustment (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-0.71; P \u3c .01). Although CABG and PCI had similar 30-day mortality rates (P = .14), CABG was associated with a higher frequency of stroke (P \u3c .001) and acute kidney injury (P \u3c .001), whereas PCI was associated with a higher incidence of repeat revascularization (P \u3c .001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients with reduced ejection fraction and multivessel disease, CABG was associated with improved long-term survival compared with PCI. CABG should be strongly considered in patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy and multivessel coronary disease

    Tissue versus mechanical aortic valve replacement in younger patients: A multicenter analysis.

    No full text
    OBJECTIVE: The goal of this study was to examine the long-term survival of patients between the ages of 50 and 65 years who underwent tissue versus mechanical aortic valve replacement (AVR) in a multicenter cohort. METHODS: A multicenter, retrospective analysis of all AVR patients (n = 9388) from 1991 to 2015 among 7 medical centers reporting to a prospectively maintained clinical registry was conducted. Inclusion criteria were: patients aged 50 to 65 years who underwent isolated AVR. Baseline comorbidities were balanced using inverse probability weighting for a study cohort of 1449 AVRs: 840 tissue and 609 mechanical. The primary end point of the analysis was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points included in-hospital morbidity, 30-day mortality, length of stay, and risk of reoperation. RESULTS: During the study period, there was a significant shift from mechanical to tissue valves (P \u3c .001). There was no significant difference in major in-hospital morbidity, mortality, or length of hospitalization. Also, there was no significant difference in adjusted 15-year survival between mechanical versus tissue valves (hazard ratio, 0.87; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67-1.13; P = .29), although tissue valves were associated with a higher risk of reoperation with a cumulative incidence of 19.1% (95% CI, 14.4%-24.3%) versus 3.0% (95% CI, 1.7%-4.9%) for mechanical valves. The reoperative 30-day mortality rate was 2.4% (n = 2) for the series. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients 50 to 65 years old who underwent AVR, there was no difference in adjusted long-term survival according to prosthesis type, but tissue valves were associated with a higher risk of reoperation

    Intensity of Glycemic Control Affects Long-Term Survival After Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery.

    No full text
    BACKGROUND: A patient\u27s hemoglobin (Hb) A METHODS: From a regional registry of consecutive cases, we identified 6,415 patients undergoing on-pump isolated CABG from 2008 to 2015 with documented preoperative HbA RESULTS: The study included 3,740 patients (58%) not diagnosed as having diabetes and 2,674 with diabetes. Prediabetes (HbA CONCLUSIONS: Preadmission glycemic control, as assessed by Hb

    Variability in surgeons\u27 perioperative practices may influence the incidence of low-output failure after coronary artery bypass grafting surgery.

    No full text
    BACKGROUND: Postoperative low-output failure (LOF) is an important contributor to morbidity and mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. We sought to understand which pre- and intra-operative factors contribute to postoperative LOF and to what degree the surgeon may influence rates of LOF. METHODS AND RESULTS: We identified 11 838 patients undergoing nonemergent, isolated coronary artery bypass grafting surgery using cardiopulmonary bypass by 32 surgeons at 8 centers in northern New England from 2001 to 2009. Our cohort included patients with preoperative ejection fractions \u3e40%. Patients with preoperative intraaortic balloon pumps were excluded. LOF was defined as the need for ≥2 inotropes at 48 hours, an intra- or post-operative intraaortic balloon pumps, or return to cardiopulmonary bypass (for hemodynamic reasons). Case volume varied across the 32 surgeons (limits, 80-766; median, 344). The overall rate of LOF was 4.3% (return to cardiopulmonary bypass, 2.6%; intraaortic balloon pumps, 1.0%; inotrope usage, 0.8%; combination, 1.0%). The predicted risk of LOF did not differ across surgeons, P=0.79, and the observed rates varied from 1.1% to 10.2%, P CONCLUSIONS: Rates of LOF significantly varied across surgeons and could not be explained solely by patient case mix, suggesting that variability in perioperative practices influences risk of LOF
    corecore