Use and Outcomes Associated With Perioperative Amiodarone in Cardiac Surgery

Background: In randomized controlled trials, perioperative administration of amiodarone has been shown to reduce the incidence of postoperative atrial arrhythmias and length of stay (LOS) among patients undergoing coronary bypass surgery. However, little is known about the use or effectiveness of perioperative amiodarone in routine clinical practice. Methods and Results: We studied patients \u3e /=18 years old without a previous history of atrial or ventricular arrhythmias who underwent elective coronary bypass surgery between 2013 and 2014 within a network of 235 US hospitals. Perioperative amiodarone was defined as receipt of amiodarone either on the day of or the day preceding surgery. We used covariate-adjusted modeling and instrumental variable methods to examine the association between receipt of amiodarone and the development of atrial arrhythmias, in-hospital mortality, readmission, LOS, and cost. Of 12 758 patients, 2195 (17.2%) received perioperative amiodarone, 3330 (26.1%) developed atrial arrhythmias postoperatively, and the average LOS was 6.4 days (+/-2.6 days). Instrumental variable analysis showed that receipt of perioperative amiodarone was associated with lower risk of atrial arrhythmias (risk difference -11 percentage points, 95% CI -19 to -4 percentage points; P=0.002) and a shorter LOS (-0.7 day, 95% CI -1.39 to -0.01 days; P=0.048). There was no association between receipt of perioperative amiodarone and in-hospital mortality, cost, or readmission. Conclusions: Among patients undergoing coronary bypass surgery without previous arrhythmias, perioperative amiodarone is associated with a lower risk of atrial arrhythmias and shorter LOS. These findings are consistent with previous randomized trials and lend support to current guideline recommendations

The global burden of cancer attributable to risk factors, 2010-19 : a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2019

Background Understanding the magnitude of cancer burden attributable to potentially modifiable risk factors is crucial for development of effective prevention and mitigation strategies. We analysed results from the Global Burden of Diseases, Injuries, and Risk Factors Study (GBD) 2019 to inform cancer control planning efforts globally. Methods The GBD 2019 comparative risk assessment framework was used to estimate cancer burden attributable to behavioural, environmental and occupational, and metabolic risk factors. A total of 82 risk-outcome pairs were included on the basis of the World Cancer Research Fund criteria. Estimated cancer deaths and disability-adjusted life-years (DALYs) in 2019 and change in these measures between 2010 and 2019 are presented. Findings Globally, in 2019, the risk factors included in this analysis accounted for 4.45 million (95% uncertainty interval 4.01-4.94) deaths and 105 million (95.0-116) DALYs for both sexes combined, representing 44.4% (41.3-48.4) of all cancer deaths and 42.0% (39.1-45.6) of all DALYs. There were 2.88 million (2.60-3.18) risk-attributable cancer deaths in males (50.6% [47.8-54.1] of all male cancer deaths) and 1.58 million (1.36-1.84) risk-attributable cancer deaths in females (36.3% [32.5-41.3] of all female cancer deaths). The leading risk factors at the most detailed level globally for risk-attributable cancer deaths and DALYs in 2019 for both sexes combined were smoking, followed by alcohol use and high BMI. Risk-attributable cancer burden varied by world region and Socio-demographic Index (SDI), with smoking, unsafe sex, and alcohol use being the three leading risk factors for risk-attributable cancer DALYs in low SDI locations in 2019, whereas DALYs in high SDI locations mirrored the top three global risk factor rankings. From 2010 to 2019, global risk-attributable cancer deaths increased by 20.4% (12.6-28.4) and DALYs by 16.8% (8.8-25.0), with the greatest percentage increase in metabolic risks (34.7% [27.9-42.8] and 33.3% [25.8-42.0]). Interpretation The leading risk factors contributing to global cancer burden in 2019 were behavioural, whereas metabolic risk factors saw the largest increases between 2010 and 2019. Reducing exposure to these modifiable risk factors would decrease cancer mortality and DALY rates worldwide, and policies should be tailored appropriately to local cancer risk factor burden. Copyright (C) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Ltd. This is an Open Access article under the CC BY 4.0 license.Peer reviewe

Left Main Coronary Artery Revascularization in Patients with Impaired Renal Function: Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Introduction: The evidence about the optimal revascularization strategy in patients with left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease and impaired renal function is limited. Thus, we aimed to compare the outcomes of LMCA disease revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] vs. coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]) in patients with and without impaired renal function. Methods: This retrospective cohort study included 2,138 patients recruited from 14 centers between 2015 and 2,019. We compared patients with impaired renal function who had PCI (n= 316) to those who had CABG (n = 121) and compared patients with normal renal function who had PCI (n = 906) to those who had CABG (n = 795). The study outcomes were in-hospital and follow-up major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Results: Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that the risk of in-hospital MACCE was significantly higher in CABG compared to PCI in patients with impaired renal function (odds ratio [OR]: 8.13 [95% CI: 4.19–15.76], p < 0.001) and normal renal function (OR: 2.59 [95% CI: 1.79–3.73]; p < 0.001). There were no differences in follow-up MACCE between CABG and PCI in patients with impaired renal function (HR: 1.14 [95% CI: 0.71–1.81], p = 0.585) and normal renal function (HR: 1.12 [0.90–1.39], p = 0.312). Conclusions: PCI could have an advantage over CABG in revascularization of LMCA disease in patients with impaired renal function regarding in-hospital MACCE. The follow-up MACCE was comparable between PCI and CABG in patients with impaired and normal renal function