Current concepts on coronary revascularization in diabetic patients

Diabetic mellitus (DM) patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) are at higher risk of cardiovascular events compared with non-DM individuals. While aggressive cardiovascular prevention and adequate blood glucose control remain cornerstones of therapy, the decision when and how to proceed to coronary revascularization in an individual DM patient should be based on the extent of CAD, ischaemic burden, ventricular function, as well as comorbidities. While in patients with stable symptoms, moderate CAD on coronary angiography and preserved left ventricular function a conservative strategy may be a valuable initial strategy, in patients with acute coronary syndromes (ACS) an early invasive approach should be favoured. The revascularization strategy for DM patients with complex multivessel CAD should be discussed within a heart team consisting of cardiologists, cardiac surgeons, and anaesthesiologists. In general, the threshold for coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) should be lower for DM than for non-DM individuals. In patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention, the use of drug-eluting stents (DES) and—in the setting of ACS—of potent platelet inhibitors, such as prasugrel or ticagrelor, should be favoured. In the near future, multiple strategies may further favourably impact the prognosis of DM patients undergoing coronary revascularization. These include alternative antiplatelet agents such as thromboxane receptor inhibitors, the broad use of second generation DES, and possibly the implantation of bioresorbable stents. Coronary artery bypass surgery outcomes may also further improve by wide implementation of arterial revascularization, reduction in perioperative stroke by avoiding clamping of the aorta, reduction in wound infection by minimally invasive techniques, and optimization of post-operative medical managemen

Coronary artery bypass grafting: Part 1—the evolution over the first 50 years

Surgical treatment for angina pectoris was first proposed in 1899. Decades of experimental surgery for coronary artery disease finally led to the introduction of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in 1964. Now that we are approaching 50 years of CABG experience, it is appropriate to summarize the advancement of CABG into a procedure that is safe and efficient. This review provides a historical recapitulation of experimental surgery, the evolution of the surgical techniques and the utilization of CABG. Furthermore, data on contemporary clinical outcomes are discusse

Acute pulmonary embolectomy

Acute pulmonary embolism (PE) is a common condition frequently associated with a high mortality worldwide. It can be classified into non-massive, sub-massive and massive, based on the degree of haemodynamic compromise. Surgical pulmonary embolectomy, despite having been in existence for over 100 years, is generally regarded as an option of last resort, with expectedly high mortality rates. Recent advances in diagnosis and recognition of key qualitative predictors of mortality, such as right ventricular stress on echocardiography, have enabled the re-exploration of surgical pulmonary embolectomy for use in patients prior to the development of significant circulatory collapse, with promising results. We aim to review the literature and discuss the indications, perioperative workup and outcomes of surgical pulmonary embolectomy in the management of acute P

Surgery in current therapy for infective endocarditis

The introduction of the Duke criteria and transesophageal echocardiography has improved early recognition of infective endocarditis but patients are still at high risk for severe morbidity or death. Whether an exclusively antibiotic regimen is superior to surgical intervention is subject to ongoing debate. Current guidelines indicate when surgery is the preferred treatment, but decisions are often based on physician preferences. Surgery has shown to decrease the risk of short-term mortality in patients who present with specific symptoms or microorganisms; nevertheless even then it often remains unclear when surgery should be performed. In this review we i) systematically reviewed the current literature comparing medical to surgical therapy to evaluate if surgery is the preferred option, ii) performed a meta-analysis of studies reporting propensity matched analyses, and iii), briefly summarized the current indications for surgery

Risk Profile and 3-Year Outcomes From the SYNTAX Percutaneous Coronary Intervention and Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Nested Registries

ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to evaluate the use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in “real-world” patients unsuitable for the alternative treatment.BackgroundNo data are available on the risk profile and outcomes of patients that can only undergo PCI or CABG.MethodsIn the SYNTAX (Synergy between PCI with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery) trial, a multidisciplinary Heart Team reached a consensus on whether PCI and CABG could result in clinical equipoise; if so, the patient was randomized. If not, the patient was enrolled in a CABG-ineligible PCI registry or PCI-ineligible CABG registry. A proportion (60%) of patients in the CABG registry was randomly assigned to be followed up for 5 years. No statistical comparisons were performed between randomized and registry patients. Major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rates are presented as observational only.ResultsA total of 3,075 patients were treated in the SYNTAX trial; 198 (6.4%) and 1,077 (35.0%) patients were included in PCI and CABG registries, respectively. The main reason for inclusion in the CABG registry was too complex coronary anatomy (70.9%), and the main reason for inclusion in the PCI registry was too high-risk for surgery (70.7%). Three-year MACCE was 38.0% after PCI and 16.4% after CABG. Stratification by SYNTAX score terciles demonstrated a step-wise increase of MACCE rates in both PCI and CABG registries.ConclusionsThe SYNTAX Heart Team concluded that PCI and CABG remained the only treatment options for 6.4% and 35.0% of patients, respectively. Inoperable patients with major comorbidities that underwent PCI had high MACCE rates. In patients not suitable for PCI, surgical results were excellent. (SYNTAX Study: TAXUS Drug-Eluting Stent Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for the Treatment of Narrowed Arteries, NCT00114972

Surgical Implications of Coronary Arterial Anatomy in Adults with Congenital Cardiac Disease

In adults with congenital heart disease coronary arterial anatomy, normal as well as anomalous, may have implications in surgical reconstruction of an underlying cardiac structure

Causes of Death Following PCI Versus CABG in Complex CAD 5-Year Follow-Up of SYNTAX

AbstractBackgroundThere are no data available on specific causes of death from randomized trials that have compared coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI).ObjectivesThe purpose of this study was to investigate specific causes of death, and its predictors, after revascularization for complex coronary disease in patients.MethodsAn independent Clinical Events Committee consisting of expert physicians who were blinded to the study treatment subclassified causes of death as cardiovascular (cardiac and vascular), noncardiovascular, or undetermined according to the trial protocol. Cardiac deaths were classified as sudden cardiac, related to myocardial infarction (MI), and other cardiac deaths.ResultsIn the randomized cohort, there were 97 deaths after CABG and 123 deaths after PCI during a 5-year follow-up. After CABG, 49.4% of deaths were cardiovascular, with the greatest cause being heart failure, arrhythmia, or other causes (24.6%), whereas after PCI, the majority of deaths were cardiovascular (67.5%) and as a result of MI (29.3%). The cumulative incidence rates of all-cause death were not significantly different between CABG and PCI (11.4% vs. 13.9%, respectively; p = 0.10), whereas there were significant differences in terms of cardiovascular (5.8% vs. 9.6%, respectively; p = 0.008) and cardiac death (5.3% vs. 9.0%, respectively; p = 0.003), which were caused primarily by a reduction in MI-related death with CABG compared with PCI (0.4% vs. 4.1%, respectively; p <0.0001). Treatment with PCI versus CABG was an independent predictor of cardiac death (hazard ratio: 1.55; 95% confidence interval: 1.09 to 2.33; p = 0.045). The difference in MI-related death was seen largely in patients with diabetes, 3-vessel disease, or high SYNTAX (TAXUS Drug-Eluting Stent Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for the Treatment of Narrowed Arteries) trial scores.ConclusionsDuring a 5-year follow-up, CABG in comparison with PCI was associated with a significantly reduced rate of MI-related death, which was the leading cause of death after PCI. Treatments following PCI should target reducing post-revascularization spontaneous MI. Furthermore, secondary preventive medication remains essential in reducing events post-revascularization. (TAXUS Drug-Eluting Stent Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for the Treatment of Narrowed Arteries [SYNTAX]; NCT00114972

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