Invasive versus conservative management in spontaneous coronary artery dissection: A meta-analysis and meta-regression study.

Abstract Background There is a paucity of data regarding the best treatment for spontaneous coronary artery dissection (SCAD). Purpose To compare the prognostic impact of conservative versus invasive treatment in patients with SCAD. Methods We systematically searched the literature for studies evaluating the comparative efficacy and safety of invasive revascularization versus medical therapy for the treatment of SCAD from 1990 to 2019. Random-effect meta-analysis was performed comparing clinical outcomes between the two groups. Results 24 observational studies with 1720 patients were included. After 28±14 months, a conservative approach reduced target vessel revascularization rate compared with invasive treatment (OR=0.50; 95% CI 0.28–0.90; P=0.02). No difference was found regarding all-cause mortality (OR=0.81; 95% CI 0.31–2.08; P=0.66), cardiovascular mortality (OR=0.89; 95% CI 0.15–5.40; P=0.89), myocardial infarction (OR=0.95; 95% CI 0.50–1.81; P=0.87), heart failure (OR 0.96; 95% CI 0.41–2.22; P=0.92) and SCAD recurrence (OR=0.94; 95% CI 0.52–1.72; P=0.85). The meta-regression analysis suggested that male gender, diabetes mellitus, smoking habit, prior coronary artery disease, left main coronary artery involvement and lower ejection fraction at admission are related with higher overall mortality, whereas SCAD recurrence was higher among patients with fibromuscular dysplasia. Conclusion A conservative approach provides similar clinical outcomes and lower target vessel revascularization rates compared to an invasive strategy in the setting of SCAD; therefore, when feasible, it should be preferred in this scenario. Forest plots on the study outcomes Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Non

Reduced Rate of Hospital Admissions for ACS during Covid-19 Outbreak in Northern Italy

To address the coronavirus (Covid-19) pandemic,1 strict social containment measures have been adopted worldwide, and health care systems have been reorganized to cope with the enormous increase in the numbers of acutely ill patients.2,3 During this same period, some changes in the pattern of hospital admissions for other conditions have been noted. The aim of the present analysis is to investigate the rate of hospital admissions for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) during the early days of the Covid-19 outbreak

Two-Year clinical outcomes after coronary bifurcation stenting in older patients from Korea and Italy

BackgroundOlder patients who treated by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) are at a higher risk of adverse cardiac outcomes. We sought to investigate the clinical impact of bifurcation PCI in older patients from Korea and Italy.MethodsWe selected 5,537 patients who underwent bifurcation PCI from the BIFURCAT (comBined Insights from the Unified RAIN and COBIS bifurcAtion regisTries) database. The primary outcome was a composite of target vessel myocardial infarction, clinically driven target lesion revascularization, and stent thrombosis at two years.ResultsIn patients aged ≥75 years, the mean age was 80.1 ± 4.0 years, 65.2% were men, and 33.7% had diabetes. Older patients more frequently presented with chronic kidney disease (CKD), severe coronary calcification, and left main coronary artery disease (LMCA). During a median follow-up of 2.1 years, older patients showed similar adverse clinical outcomes compared to younger patients (the primary outcome, 5.7% vs. 4.5%; p = 0.21). Advanced age was not an independent predictor of the primary outcome (p = 0.93) in overall patients. Both CKD and LMCA were independent predictors regardless of age group.ConclusionsOlder patients (≥75 years) showed similar clinical outcomes to those of younger patients after bifurcation PCI. Advanced age alone should not deter physicians from performing complex PCIs for bifurcation disease

Global disparities in surgeons’ workloads, academic engagement and rest periods: the on-calL shIft fOr geNEral SurgeonS (LIONESS) study

: The workload of general surgeons is multifaceted, encompassing not only surgical procedures but also a myriad of other responsibilities. From April to May 2023, we conducted a CHERRIES-compliant internet-based survey analyzing clinical practice, academic engagement, and post-on-call rest. The questionnaire featured six sections with 35 questions. Statistical analysis used Chi-square tests, ANOVA, and logistic regression (SPSS® v. 28). The survey received a total of 1.046 responses (65.4%). Over 78.0% of responders came from Europe, 65.1% came from a general surgery unit; 92.8% of European and 87.5% of North American respondents were involved in research, compared to 71.7% in Africa. Europe led in publishing research studies (6.6 ± 8.6 yearly). Teaching involvement was high in North America (100%) and Africa (91.7%). Surgeons reported an average of 6.7 ± 4.9 on-call shifts per month, with European and North American surgeons experiencing 6.5 ± 4.9 and 7.8 ± 4.1 on-calls monthly, respectively. African surgeons had the highest on-call frequency (8.7 ± 6.1). Post-on-call, only 35.1% of respondents received a day off. Europeans were most likely (40%) to have a day off, while African surgeons were least likely (6.7%). On the adjusted multivariable analysis HDI (Human Development Index) (aOR 1.993) hospital capacity > 400 beds (aOR 2.423), working in a specialty surgery unit (aOR 2.087), and making the on-call in-house (aOR 5.446), significantly predicted the likelihood of having a day off after an on-call shift. Our study revealed critical insights into the disparities in workload, access to research, and professional opportunities for surgeons across different continents, underscored by the HDI