Off-Pump Coronary Artery Surgery for Reducing Mortality and Morbidity Meta-Analysis of Randomized and Observational Studies

ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to assess the effects of off-pump coronary bypass surgery (OPCAB) on mortality and morbidity.BackgroundDespite its potential for reducing morbidity and mortality, OPCAB’s role in clinical practice remains controversial.MethodsA meta-analysis of 37 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (n=3,449) and 22 risk-adjusted (logistic regression or propensity-score) observational studies (n=293,617) was performed. Two reviewers performed literature searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, reference lists), quality assessment, and data extraction. Treatment effects were calculated as odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).ResultsIn RCTs, OPCAB was associated with reduced atrial fibrillation (OR 0.59; 95% CI 0.46 to 0.77) and trends toward reduced 30-day mortality (OR 0.91 95% CI 0.45 to 1.83), stroke (OR 0.52; 95% CI 0.25 to 1.05), and myocardial infarction (OR 0.79; 95% CI 0.50 to 1.25). Observational studies showed OPCAB to be associated with reduced 30-day mortality (OR 0.72; 95% CI 0.66 to 0.78), stroke (OR 0.62; 95% CI 0.55 to 0.69), infarction (OR 0.66; 95% CI 0.50 to 0.88), and atrial fibrillation (OR 0.78; 95% CI 0.74 to 0.82). At one to two years, OPCAB was associated with trends toward reduced mortality, but also increased repeat revascularization (RCT: OR 1.75, 95% CI 0.78 to 3.94; Observational: OR 1.35, 95% CI 0.76 to 2.39).ConclusionsRandomized controlled trials did not find, aside from atrial fibrillation, the statistically significant reductions in short-term mortality and morbidity demonstrated by observational studies. These discrepancies might be due to differing patient-selection and study methodology. Future studies must focus on improving research methodology, recruiting high-risk patients, and collecting long-term data

Early versus late tracheostomy in cardiovascular intensive care patients

Background: Benefits of tracheostomy have been well established. Most of the literature, refers these benefits to general intensive care population, excluding cardiac surgery or including only small number of these patients. On the other hand, there is no clear definition describing the proper time to perform the procedure and defining what are potential benefits of early compared to late tracheostomy. This retrospective cohort aims to assess the potential benefits of early tracheostomy on post-operative outcomes, length of stay and post-tracheostomy complications within cardiac surgical population. Methods: After obtaining REB approval, we conducted a retrospective chart review in a single, tertiary care institution, identifying patients who underwent tracheostomy after cardiac surgery from 1999 to 2006. Time-to-tracheostomy was defined as “early” if < 7 days or “late” if ≥ 7 days post-cardiac surgery). Results: 14,101 patients underwent cardiac surgery over the 7-year study period; from those, 147 (1.36%) received tracheostomy. 32 (22%) patients underwent early tracheostomy and 115 (78%) late tracheostomy. Incidence of atrial fibrillation (31.2% vs 61.7%; P = 0.003), kidney dysfunction (6.3% vs 27.2%; P=0.015) and kidney failure 18.8% vs 43.5%; P = 0.013) were lower in the early tracheostomy group. There were no differences on post tracheostomy infection or presence of acute respiratory distress syndrome. Both the ICU and hospital length of stay were significantly shorter in early tracheostomy group, 21.5 (ET) vs 36.9 (LT) days and 37.5 (ET) vs 57.6 (LT) days respectively. There were no differences in mortality between groups. Conclusions: There are significant benefits in reduction of postoperative morbidities with overall shorter ICU and hospital stay. These benefits may promote faster patient rehabilitation with reduced healthcare costs

Safety of hyperbaric oxygen therapy in patients with heart failure: A retrospective cohort study.

BackgroundHyperbaric oxygen therapy (HBOT) has several hemodynamic effects including increases in afterload (due to vasoconstriction) and decreases in cardiac output. This, along with rare reports of pulmonary edema during emergency treatment, has led providers to consider HBOT relatively contraindicated in patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). However, there is limited evidence regarding the safety of elective HBOT in patients with heart failure (HF), and no existing reports of complications among patients with HF and preserved LVEF. We aimed to retrospectively review patients with preexisting diagnoses of HF who underwent elective HBOT, to analyze HBOT-related acute HF complications.MethodsResearch Ethics Board approvals were received to retrospectively review patient charts. Patients with a history of HF with either preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF), mid-range ejection fraction (HFmEF), or reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF) who underwent elective HBOT at two Hyperbaric Centers (Toronto General Hospital, Rouge Valley Hyperbaric Medical Centre) between June 2018 and December 2020 were reviewed.ResultsTwenty-three patients with a history of HF underwent HBOT, completing an average of 39 (range 6-62) consecutive sessions at 2.0 atmospheres absolute (ATA) (n = 11) or at 2.4 ATA (n = 12); only two patients received fewer than 10 sessions. Thirteen patients had HFpEF (mean LVEF 55 ± 7%), and seven patients had HFrEF (mean LVEF 35 ± 8%) as well as concomitantly decreased right ventricle function (n = 5), moderate/severe tricuspid regurgitation (n = 3), or pulmonary hypertension (n = 5). The remaining three patients had HFmEF (mean LVEF 44 ± 4%). All but one patient was receiving fluid balance therapy either with loop diuretics or dialysis. Twenty-one patients completed HBOT without complications. We observed symptoms consistent with HBOT-related HF exacerbation in two patients. One patient with HFrEF (LVEF 24%) developed dyspnea attributed to pulmonary edema after the fourth treatment, and later admitted to voluntarily holding his diuretics before the session. He was managed with increased oral diuretics as an outpatient, and ultimately completed a course of 33 HBOT sessions uneventfully. Another patient with HFpEF (LVEF 64%) developed dyspnea and desaturation after six sessions, requiring hospital admission. Acute coronary ischemia and pulmonary embolism were ruled out, and an elevated BNP and normal LVEF on echocardiogram confirmed a diagnosis of pulmonary edema in the context of HFpEF. Symptoms subsided after diuretic treatment and the patient was discharged home in stable condition, but elected not to resume HBOT.ConclusionsPatients with HF, including HFpEF, may develop HF symptoms during HBOT and warrant ongoing surveillance. However, these patients can receive HBOT safely after optimization of HF therapy and fluid restriction