Competing risks after coronary bypass surgeryThe influence of death on reintervention

AbstractObjective: For groups of patients at high risk of death, such as older patients, the actual probability of experiencing a nonfatal event, such as reintervention, must be far smaller than the potential probability were there no attrition by death. Competing risks analysis quantifies the difference. Methods: Multivariable analyses were performed for the competing events death before reintervention, reoperation, and percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty in 2001 patients after bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting and in 8123 after single internal thoracic artery grafting. Follow-up was 9.7 ± 3.0 years and 10.8 ± 5.2 years in bilateral and single internal thoracic artery groups, respectively. Results: Patients receiving single grafts experienced shorter survival and more reinterventions (P < .0001). However, other risk factors for death included old age (P < .0001), but risk factors for reintervention included young age (P < .0001). This difference confounds interpretation of event-free survival that is clarified by competing risks analysis. Death reduced the potential benefit of bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting on reintervention by angioplasty from a median of 8.5% to 5.5% at 12 years and by reoperation from 9.3% to 6.8%, with progressively greater erosion of benefit from attrition by death as age increased. Competing risks simulation confirmed that young age was a true risk factor for reintervention, excluding the explanation that it reflected simply passive attrition by death as patients age. Conclusions: Even after accounting for attrition by interim deaths, bilateral versus single internal thoracic artery grafting and older age are associated with fewer reinterventions. However, in high-risk patients, its benefit on freedom from reintervention is eroded considerably by death. (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2000;119:1221-32

Adverse events during reoperative cardiac surgery: Frequency, characterization, and rescue

ObjectivesTo (1) determine frequency of occurrence and risk factors for intraoperative adverse events (IAE) during reoperative cardiac surgery, (2) characterize them with respect to structure injured, timing, and use of preventive strategies, and (3) identify the impact on outcome in terms of successful and unsuccessful rescue and cost.MethodsOperative notes of 1847 patients undergoing reoperative cardiac surgery were reviewed to identify and characterize documented intraoperative adverse events. Logistic regression modeling was used to identify risk factors for intraoperative adverse events and outcomes. Expected versus observed poor outcomes (stroke, myocardial infarction, death) was used to measure rescue.ResultsAmong 127 patients, 145 (7%) intraoperative adverse events occurred. These included injuries to bypass grafts (n = 47), heart (n = 38), and great vessels (n = 28) and ischemia without graft injury (n = 22). Most occurred on opening (n = 34, 23%) and during prebypass dissection (n = 57, 39%). Risk incremented as reoperations increased. Seventy-seven patients experienced 1 or more lapses in preventive strategies. Patients with intraoperative adverse events had a greater number of poor outcomes (n = 24 [19%] vs n = 107 [6.2%]; P < .0001) and incurred higher direct technical intraoperative and postoperative costs (ratio 1.3). Twelve patients with intraoperative adverse events were predicted to have poor outcomes versus 24 who did (P < .0001), indicating 12 “failures to rescue.”ConclusionsAdverse events still occur regularly during cardiac reoperation, are related to complexity of the procedure, and occur particularly during dissection and often when preventive strategies have not been used. Compensatory rescue measures are not always successful. Adverse events lead to poor patient outcome and higher cost

Outcomes of less invasive J-incision approach to aortic valve surgery

ObjectiveLess invasive approaches to aortic valve surgery are increasingly used; however, few studies have investigated their impact on outcome. We sought to compare clinical outcomes after these approaches with full sternotomy using propensity-matching methods.MethodsFrom January 1995 to January 2004, a total of 2689 patients underwent isolated aortic valve surgery, 1193 via upper J-hemisternotomy and 1496 via full sternotomy. Because of important differences in patient characteristics between these groups, a propensity score based on 42 variables was used to obtain 832 well-matched patient pairs (70% of possible cases).ResultsIn-hospital mortality was identical for propensity-matched patients, 0.96% (8 in each). Occurrences of stroke (P > .9), renal failure (P = .8), and myocardial infarction (P = .7) were similar. However, 24-hour mediastinal drainage was a third less after less invasive surgery (median, 250 vs 350 mL; P < .0001), and fewer patients received transfusions (24% vs 34%; P < .0001). More patients undergoing less invasive surgery were extubated in the operating room (12% vs 1.6%; P < .0001), postoperative forced 1-second expiratory volume was higher (P = .009), and fewer had respiratory failure (P = .01). Early after operation, pain scores were lower (P < .0001) after less-invasive surgery and postoperative length of stay shorter (P < .0001).ConclusionsWithin that portion of the spectrum of isolated aortic valve surgery where propensity matching was possible, minimally invasive aortic valve surgery had not only cosmetic advantages, but blood product use, respiratory, pain, and resource utilization advantages over full sternotomy, and no apparent detriments. Less invasive aortic valve surgery should be considered for most aortic valve operations

Results of matching valve and root repair to aortic valve and root pathology

ObjectiveFor patients with aortic root pathology and aortic valve regurgitation, aortic valve replacement is problematic because no durable bioprosthesis exists, and mechanical valves require lifetime anticoagulation. This study sought to assess outcomes of combined aortic valve and root repair, including comparison with matched bioprosthesis aortic valve replacement.MethodsFrom November 1990 to January 2005, 366 patients underwent modified David reimplantation (n = 72), root remodeling (n = 72), or valve repair with sinotubular junction tailoring (n = 222). Active follow-up was 99% complete, with a mean of 5.6 ± 4.0 years (maximum 17 years); follow-up for vital status averaged 8.5 ± 3.6 years (maximum 19 years). Propensity-adjusted models were developed for fair comparison of outcomes.ResultsThirty-day and 5-, 10-, and 15-year survivals were 98%, 86%, 74%, and 58%, respectively, similar to that of the US matched population and better than that after bioprosthesis aortic valve replacement. Propensity-score–adjusted survival was similar across procedures (P > .3). Freedom from reoperation at 30 days and 5 and 10 years was 99%, 92%, and 89%, respectively, and was similar across procedures (P > .3) after propensity-score adjustment. Patients with tricuspid aortic valves were more likely to be free of reoperation than those with bicuspid valves at 10 years (93% vs 77%, P = .002), equivalent to bioprosthesis aortic valve replacement and superior after 12 years. Bioprostheses increasingly deteriorated after 7 years, and hazard functions for reoperation crossed at 7 years.ConclusionsValve preservation (rather than replacement) and matching root procedures have excellent early and long-term results, with increasing survival benefit at 7 years and fewer reoperations by 12 years. We recommend this procedure for experienced surgical teams

ACC/AHA 2007 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non–ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Writing Committee to Revise the 2002 Guidelines for the Management of Patients With Unstable Angina/Non–ST-Elevation Myocardial Infarction) Developed in Collaboration with the American College of Emergency Physicians, the Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions, and the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Endorsed by the American Association of Cardiovascular and Pulmonary Rehabilitation and the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine

"The ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines was formed to make recommendations regarding the diagnosis and treatment of patients with known or suspected cardiovascular disease (CVD). Coronary artery disease (CAD) is the leading cause of death in the United States. Unstable angina (UA) and the closely related condition of non–ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) are very common manifestations of this disease. The committee members reviewed and compiled published reports through a series of computerized literature searches of the English-language literature since 2002 and a final manual search of selected articles. Details of the specific searches conducted for particular sections are provided when appropriate. Detailed evidence tables were developed whenever necessary with the specific criteria outlined in the individual sections. The recommendations made were based primarily on these published data. The weight of the evidence was ranked highest (A) to lowest (C). The final recommendations for indications for a diagnostic procedure, a particular therapy, or an intervention in patients with UA/NSTEMI summarize both clinical evidence and expert opinion.

ACC/AHA/ACP-ASIM guidelines for the management of patients with chronic stable angina: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines (Committee on Management of Patients With Chronic Stable Angina)

The ACC/AHA Task Force on Practice Guidelines was formed to make recommendations regarding the diagnosis and treatment of patients with known or suspected cardiovascular disease. Ischemic heart disease is the single leading cause of death in the U.S. The most common manifestation of this disease is chronic stable angina. Recognizing the importance of the management of this common entity and the absence of national clinical practice guidelines in this area, the task force formed the current committee to develop guidelines for the management of patients with stable angina. Because this problem is frequently encountered in the practice of internal medicine, the task force invited the American College of Physicians-American Society of Internal Medicine (ACP-ASIM) to serve as a partner in this effort by naming four general internists to serve on the committee

2009 focused update incorporated into the ACC/AHA 2005 guidelines for the diagnosis and management of heart failure in adults: A report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines: Developed in collaboration with the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation

Heart failure (HF) is a major and growing public health problem in the United States. Approximately 5 million patients in this country have HF, and over 550,000 patients are diagnosed with HF for the first time each year. The disorder is the primary reason for 12 to 15 million office visits and 6.5 million hospital days each year. From 1990 to 1999, the annual number of hospitalizations has increased from approximately 810,000 to over 1 million for HF as a primary diagnosis and from 2.4 to 3.6 million for HF as a primary or secondary diagnosis. In 2001, nearly 53 000 patients died of HF as a primary cause. The number of HF deaths has increased steadily despite advances in treatment, in part because of increasing numbers of patients with HF due to better treatment and “salvage” of patients with acute myocardial infarctions (MIs) earlier in life. Heart failure is primarily a condition of the elderly, and thus the widely recognized “aging of the population” also contributes to the increasing incidence of HF. The incidence of HF approaches 10 per 1000 population after age 65, and approximately 80% of patients hospitalized with HF are more than 65 years old. Heart failure is the most common Medicare diagnosis-related group (i.e., hospital discharge diagnosis), and more Medicare dollars are spent for the diagnosis and treatment of HF than for any other diagnosis. The total estimated direct and indirect costs for HF in 2005 were approximately $27.9 billion. In the United States, approximately$2.9 billion annually is spent on drugs for the treatment of HF