Coronary artery bypass grafting: Part 2—optimizing outcomes and future prospects

Since first introduced in the mid-1960s, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has become the standard of care for patients with coronary artery disease. Surprisingly, the fundamental surgical technique itself did not change much over time. Nevertheless, outcomes after CABG have dramatically improved over the first 50 years. Randomized trials comparing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to CABG have shown converging outcomes for select patient populations, providing more evidence for wider use of PCI. It is increasingly important to focus on the optimization of the short- and long-term outcomes of CABG and to reduce the level of invasiveness of this procedure. This review provides an overview on how new techniques and widespread consideration of evolving strategies have the potential to optimize outcomes after CABG. Such developments include off-pump CABG, clampless/anaortic CABG, minimally invasive CABG with or without extending to hybrid procedures, arterial revascularization, endoscopic vein harvesting, intraprocedural epiaortic scanning, graft flow assessment, and improved secondary prevention measures. In addition, this review represents a framework for future studies by summarizing the areas that need more rigorous clinical (randomized) evaluatio

Evaluation of the PAS-Port Proximal Anastomosis System in coronary artery bypass surgery (the EPIC trial)

ObjectiveDuring coronary surgery, proximal vein graft anastomoses have been performed by using an aortic partial occlusion clamp to allow for a hand-sewn anastomosis. The purpose of this multicenter, prospective, randomized trial was to evaluate the efficacy of the PAS-Port device (Cardica, Inc, Redwood City, Calif), which allows an automated proximal anastomosis to be performed without aortic clamping.MethodsBetween June 22, 2006, and March 22, 2007, 220 patients requiring coronary artery bypass grafting with at least 2 vein grafts were enrolled. Within each patient, 1 graft was randomly assigned to receive a PAS-Port device, and the other was assigned to receive a hand-sewn anastomosis to the ascending aorta. The primary end point was angiographic patency (<50% stenosis) 9 months after surgical intervention. Secondary end points included average time to complete each anastomosis and 9-month freedom from major adverse cardiac events.ResultsOne hundred eighty-three patients received matched grafts that were angiographically assessed at 9 months. The 9-month graft patency was 82.0% (150/183) for hand-sewn and 80.3% (147/183) for PAS-Port grafts. The patency rate of PAS-Port anastomoses was statistically noninferior to that of hand-sewn anastomoses (95% lower confidence limit for difference, −7.95%). The freedom from major adverse cardiac events at 9 months was 97.7% for PAS-Port (95% confidence interval, 94.5%–99.0%) and 98.2% for hand-sewn (95% confidence interval, 95.1%–99.3%) grafts. The PAS-port device was associated with a 4.6 ± 3.9–minute reduction in anastomotic time compared with that seen with a hand-sewn anastomosis (P < .001).ConclusionsThe PAS-Port proximal anastomotic device produces an effective anastomosis with a 9-month patency rate that is comparable with that of a hand-sewn anastomosis. It allows for construction of a proximal anastomosis without aortic clamping and requires less time than a hand-sewn anastomosis

Pretreatment with phenoxybenzamine attenuates the radial artery's vasoconstrictor response to α-adrenergic stimuli

AbstractBackgroundAlthough the radial artery bypass conduit has excellent intermediate-term patency, it has a proclivity to vasospasm. We tested the hypothesis that brief pretreatment of a radial artery graft with the irreversible adrenergic antagonist phenoxybenzamine attenuates the vasoconstrictor response to the vasopressors phenylephrine and norepinephrine compared with the currently used papaverine/lidocaine.MethodsSegments of human radial artery grafts were obtained after a 30-minute intraoperative pretreatment with a solution containing 20 mL of heparinized blood, 0.4 mL of papaverine (30 mg/mL), and 1.6 mL of lidocaine (1%). The segments were transported to the laboratory and placed into a bath containing Krebs-Henseleit solution and 10, 100, or 1000 μmol/L phenoxybenzamine or vehicle. The segments were tested in organ chambers for contractile responses to increasing concentrations of phenylephrine and norepinephrine (0.5-15 μmol/L).ResultsContractile responses to 15 μmol/L phenylephrine in control radial artery segments averaged 44.2% ± 9.1% of the maximal contractile response to 30 mmol/L KCl. Papaverine/lidocaine modestly attenuated contraction to 15 μmol/L phenylephrine (32.1% ± 5.9%; P = .22), but 1000 μmol/L phenoxybenzamine completely abolished radial artery contraction (−7.2% ± 4.4%; P < .001). The effect of 10 and 100 μmol/L phenoxybenzamine on attenuating vasocontraction was intermediate between 1000 μmol/L phenoxybenzamine and papaverine/lidocaine. Responses to 15 μmol/L norepinephrine in control radial artery segments averaged 54.7% ± 7.5% of maximal contraction to 30 mmol/L KCl. Papaverine/lidocaine modestly attenuated the contraction response of radial artery segments (35.6% ± 5.1%; P = .04). In contrast, 1000 μmol/L phenoxybenzamine showed the greatest attenuation of norepinephrine-induced contraction (−10.5% ± 2.0%; P < .001).ConclusionsA brief pretreatment of the human radial artery bypass conduit with 1000 μmol/L phenoxybenzamine completely attenuates the vasoconstrictor responses to the widely used vasopressors norepinephrine and phenylephrine. Papaverine/lidocaine alone did not block vasoconstriction to these α-adrenergic agonists

Impact of left ventricular ejection fraction on clinical outcomes after left main coronary artery revascularization

Aim: To evaluate the impact of left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) on 3-year outcomes in patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in the EXCEL trial. Methods and results: The EXCEL trial randomized patients with LMCAD to PCI with everolimus-eluting stents (n = 948) or CABG (n = 957). Among 1804 patients with known baseline LVEF, 74 (4.1%) had LVEF <40% [heart failure with reduced ejection fraction (HFrEF)], 152 (8.4%) LVEF 40–49% [heart failure with mid-range ejection fraction (HFmrEF)] and 1578 (87.5%) LVEF ≥50% (heart failure with preserved ejection fraction). Patients with HFrEF vs. HFmrEF vs. preserved LVEF experienced a longer postoperative hospital stay (9.0 vs. 7.0 vs. 6.0 days, P = 0.02) with greater peri-procedural complications after CABG, while hospital stay after PCI was unaffected by LVEF (1.5 vs. 2.0 vs. 1.0 days, P = 0.20). The composite primary endpoint of death, stroke, or myocardial infarction at 3 years was 29.3% (PCI) vs. 27.6% (CABG) in patients with HFrEF, 16.2% vs. 15.0% in patients with HFmrEF, and 14.5% vs. 14.6% in those with preserved LVEF, respectively (Pinteraction = 0.90). Smoothing spline analysis demonstrated that the 3-year risk of all-cause death increased when LVEF decreased, both in patients undergoing CABG and PCI. Conclusion: In the EXCEL trial, the composite rate of death, stroke or myocardial infarction at 3 years was significantly higher in patients with HFrEF compared with HFmrEF or preserved LVEF, driven by an increased rate of all-cause death. No significant differences after PCI vs. CABG were observed among patients with HFrEF, HFmrEF and preserved LVEF. Longer-term follow-up could provide important insights on differences in clinical outcomes that might emerge over time. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID NCT01205776

New-Onset Atrial Fibrillation After PCI or CABG for Left Main Disease: The EXCEL Trial

Background: There is limited information on the incidence and prognostic impact of new-onset atrial fibrillation (NOAF) following percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD). Objectives: This study sought to determine the incidence of NOAF following PCI and CABG for LMCAD and its effect on 3-year cardiovascular outcomes. Methods: In the EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial, 1,905 patients with LMCAD and low or intermediate SYNTAX scores were randomized to PCI with everolimus-eluting stents versus CABG. Outcomes were analyzed according to the development of NOAF during the initial hospitalization following revascularization. Results: Among 1,812 patients without atrial fibrillation on presentation, NOAF developed at a mean of 2.7 ± 2.5 days after revascularization in 162 patients (8.9%), including 161 of 893 (18.0%) CABG-treated patients and 1 of 919 (0.1%) PCI-treated patients (p < 0.0001). Older age, greater body mass index, and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction were independent predictors of NOAF in patients undergoing CABG. Patients with versus without NOAF had a significantly longer duration of hospitalization, were more likely to be discharged on anticoagulant therapy, and had an increased 30-day rate of Thrombolysis In Myocardial Infarction major or minor bleeding (14.2% vs. 5.5%; p < 0.0001). By multivariable analysis, NOAF after CABG was an independent predictor of 3-year stroke (6.6% vs. 2.4%; adjusted hazard ratio [HR]: 4.19; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.74 to 10.11; p = 0.001), death (11.4% vs. 4.3%; adjusted HR: 3.02; 95% CI: 1.60 to 5.70; p = 0.0006), and the primary composite endpoint of death, MI, or stroke (22.6% vs. 12.8%; adjusted HR: 2.13; 95% CI: 1.39 to 3.25; p = 0.0004). Conclusions: In patients with LMCAD undergoing revascularization in the EXCEL trial, NOAF was common after CABG but extremely rare after PCI. The development of NOAF was strongly associated with subsequent death and stroke in CABG-treated patients. Further studies are warranted to determine whether prophylactic strategies to prevent or treat atrial fibrillation may improve prognosis in patients with LMCAD who are undergoing CABG. (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularizatio

Improving coronary artery bypass grafting: a systematic review and meta-analysis on the impact of adopting transit-time flow measurement

Despite there being numerous studies of intraoperative graft flow assessment by transit-time flow measurement (TTFM) on outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), the adoption of contemporary TTFM is low. Therefore, on 31 January 2018, a systematic literature search was performed to identify articles that reported (i) the amount of grafts classified as abnormal or which were revised or (ii) an association between TTFM and outcomes during follow-up. Random-effects models were used to create pooled estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) of (i) the rate of graft revision per patient, (ii) the rate of graft revision per graft and (iii) the rate of graft revision among grafts deemed abnormal based on TTFM parameters. The search yielded 242 articles, and 66 original articles were included in the systematic review. Of those articles, 35 studies reported on abnormal grafts or graft revisions (8943 patients, 15 673 grafts) and were included in the meta-analysis. In 4.3% of patients (95% CI 3.3–5.7%, I 2 = 73.9) a revision was required and 2.0% of grafts (95% CI 1.5–2.5%; I 2 = 66.0) were revised. The pooled rate of graft revisions among abnormal grafts was 25.1% (95% CI 15.5–37.9%; I 2 = 80.2). Studies reported sensitivity ranging from 0.250 to 0.457 and the specificity from 0.939 to 0.984. Reported negative predictive values ranged from 0.719 to 0.980 and reported positive predictive values ranged from 0.100 to 0.840. This systematic review and meta-analysis showed that TTFM could improve CABG procedures. However, due to heterogeneous data, drawing uniform conclusions appeared challenging. Future studies should focus on determining the optimal use of TTFM and assessing its diagnostic accuracy

Three Arterial Grafts Improve Late Survival:A Meta-Analysis of Propensity-Matched Studies

Background: Little evidence shows whether a third arterial graft provides superior outcomes compared with the use of 2 arterial grafts in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. A meta-analysis of all the propensity score-matched observational studies comparing the long-term outcomes of coronary artery bypass grafting with the use of 2-arterial versus 3-arterial grafts was performed. Methods: A literature search was conducted using MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Web of Science to identify relevant articles. Long-term mortality in the propensity score-matched populations was the primary end point. Secondary end points were in-hospital/30-day mortality for the propensity score-matched populations and long-term mortality for the unmatched populations. In the matched population, time-to-event outcome for long-term mortality was extracted as hazard ratios, along with their variance. Statistical pooling of survival (time-to-event) was performed according to a random effect model, computing risk estimates with 95% confidence intervals. Results: Eight propensity score-matched studies reporting on 10 287 matched patients (2-arterial graft: 5346; 3-arterial graft: 4941) were selected for final comparison. The mean follow-up time ranged from 37.2 to 196.8 months. The use of 3 arterial grafts was not statistically associated with early mortality (hazard ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.71-1.22; P=0.62). The use of 3 arterial grafts was associated with statistically significantly lower hazard for late death (hazard ratio, 0.8; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-0.87; P<0.001), irrespective of sex and diabetic mellitus status. This result was qualitatively similar in the unmatched population (hazard ratio, 0.57; 95% confidence interval, 0.33-0.98; P=0.04). Conclusions: The use of a third arterial conduit in patients with coronary artery bypass grafting is not associated with higher operative risk and is associated with superior long-term survival, irrespective of sex and diabetic mellitus status