Clinical Outcomes by Race and Ethnicity in the Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT): A Randomized Clinical Trial

BACKGROUND: The Systolic Blood Pressure Intervention Trial (SPRINT) showed that targeting a systolic blood pressure (SBP) of ≤ 120 mm Hg (intensive treatment) reduced cardiovascular disease (CVD) events compared to SBP of ≤ 140 mm Hg (standard treatment); however, it is unclear if this effect is similar in all racial/ethnic groups. METHODS: We analyzed SPRINT data within non-Hispanic White (NHW), non-Hispanic Black (NHB), and Hispanic subgroups to address this question. High-risk nondiabetic hypertensive patients (N = 9,361; 30% NHB; 11% Hispanic) 50 years and older were randomly assigned to intensive or standard treatment. Primary outcome was a composite of the first occurrence of a myocardial infarction, acute coronary syndrome, stroke, decompensated heart failure, or CVD death. RESULTS: Average postbaseline SBP was similar among NHW, NHB, and Hispanics in both treatment arms. Hazard ratios (HRs) (95% confidence interval) (intensive vs. standard treatment groups) for primary outcome were 0.70 (0.57–0.86), 0.71 (0.51–0.98), 0.62 (0.33–1.15) (interaction P value = 0.85) in NHW, NHB, and Hispanics. CVD mortality HRs were 0.49 (0.29–0.81), 0.77 (0.37–1.57), and 0.17 (0.01–1.08). All-cause mortality HRs were 0.61 (0.47–0.80), 0.92 (0.63–1.35), and 1.58 (0.73–3.62), respectively. A test for differences among racial/ethnic groups in the effect of treatment assignment on all-cause mortality was not significant (Hommel-adjusted P value = 0.062) after adjustment for multiple comparisons. CONCLUSION: Targeting a SBP goal of ≤ 120 mm Hg compared to ≤ 140 mm Hg led to similar SBP control and was associated with similar benefits and risks among all racial ethnic groups, though NHBs required an average of ~0.3 more medications

Is a minimally invasive approach for resection of benign cardiac masses superior to standard full sternotomy?

A best evidence topic in cardiac surgery was written according to a structured protocol. The question addressed was ‘is a minimally invasive approach for resection of benign cardiac masses superior to standard full sternotomy?’ A total of 50 papers were found using the reported search, of which, 11 represented the best evidence to answer the clinical question. The authors, country, journal, date of publication, patient group studied, study type, relevant outcomes and results of these papers are tabulated. All 11 papers were retrospective studies, from which 4 were case–control studies comparing the minimally invasive approach with conventional full sternotomy, and 7 were case series. There were two minimally invasive techniques used, a right mini-thoracotomy and a partial hemi-sternotomy, the former being the most commonly used. The resection of benign cardiac masses is a low-risk procedure, with no mortality or conversions to full sternotomy reported. From the 4 case–control studies, cross-clamp time was similar in both groups, and only one report found a prolonged perfusion time with the minimally invasive approach. The incidence of major postoperative complications, including bleeding requiring reoperation (average from case–control studies: 0–4.5 vs 0–5.8%), renal failure (0 vs 0–10%) and prolonged ventilation (6–13 vs 11–19%), for the two approaches was similar. The incidence of postoperative stroke was better for the minimally invasive approach in one study (0 vs 14%, P = 0.023). The main advantages of this technique are shorter intensive care unit (26–31 vs 46–60 h) and hospital stay (3.6–5.2 vs 6.2–7.4 days), the minimally invasive approach being significantly better in one and three reports, respectively. We conclude that minimally invasive resection of a benign cardiac mass using a right mini-thoracotomy approach can be performed with an operative morbidity and mortality at least similar to the standard full sternotomy approach. The information currently available for the minimally invasive approach for the resection of benign cardiac masses is limited and based only on retrospective studies and, therefore, prospective studies are required to confirm the potential benefits of minimally invasive surgery

Hybrid approach of percutaneous coronary intervention followed by minimally invasive valve operations

A subset of patients requiring coronary revascularization and valve operations may benefit from a hybrid approach of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) followed by a minimally invasive valve operation, rather than the standard combined median sternotomy coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and a valve operation. This study sought to evaluate the outcomes of this approach in a heterogeneous group of patients with concomitant coronary artery and valvular disease. We retrospectively evaluated 222 consecutive patients with coronary artery and valvular heart disease who underwent PCI followed by elective minimally invasive valve operations at our institution between February 2009 and August 2013. A total of 136 men and 86 women were identified. The mean age was 74.6 ± 8.2 years, with 181 (81.5%) undergoing 1-vessel, 27 (12.2%) undergoing 2-vessel, and 14 (6.3%) undergoing 3-vessel PCI. Within a median of 38 days (interquartile range [IQR] 18-65 days), 182 (82%) patients underwent primary and 34 (15.3%) underwent repeated valve operations, which consisted of 185 (83.3%) single-valve and 37 (16.7%) double-valve procedures. Operative mortality occurred in 8 patients (3.6%). At a mean follow-up of 16.2 ± 12 months, 6 patients required PCI, with target-vessel revascularization performed in 4 patients (2.1%). Survival at 1 and 4.5 years was 91.9% and 88.3%, respectively. In a heterogeneous group of patients, a hybrid approach of PCI followed by minimally invasive valve operations in patients undergoing primary or repeated valve operations can be performed with excellent outcomes

Peripheral Artery Disease and Non-Coronary Atherosclerosis in Hispanics: Another Paradox?

Hispanic Americans (HA) are a significant and increasing segment of the population who must be considered in future health planning. HA, compared to European Americans (EA), have a lower prevalence of coronary artery disease, but higher burden of cardiovascular disease risk factors. It remains unclear if this observation termed the ‘Hispanic Paradox’ also exists for vascular beds outside the heart. We present a review of the literature which suggests that this paradox may also exist for arteries in the extremities and neck