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

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

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

Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting provides complete revascularization with reduced myocardial injury, transfusion requirements, and length of stay: A prospective randomized comparison of two hundred unselected patients undergoing off-pump versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting

AbstractObjective: Retrospective comparisons of selected patients undergoing off-pump versus conventional on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting have yielded inconsistent results and raised concerns about completeness of revascularization in off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Methods: Two hundred unselected patients referred for elective primary coronary artery bypass grafting were randomly assigned to undergo off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting with an Octopus tissue stabilizer (Medtronic, Inc, Minneapolis, Minn) or conventional coronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass by a single surgeon. Revascularization intent determined before random assignment was compared with the revascularization performed. All management followed strict, unbiased, criteria-driven protocols. Patients and nonoperative care providers were blinded to surgical group. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar. The number of grafts performed per patient (mean ± SD 3.39 ± 1.04 for off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting, 3.40 ± 1.08 for conventional coronary artery bypass grafting) and the index of completeness of revascularization (number of grafts performed/number of grafts intended, 1.00 ± 0.18 for off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting, 1.01 ± 0.09 for conventional coronary artery bypass grafting) were similar. Likewise, the index of completeness of revascularization was similar between groups for the lateral wall. Combined hospital and 30-day mortalities and stroke rates were similar. Postoperative myocardial serum enzyme measures were significantly lower after off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting, suggesting less myocardial injury. Adjusted postoperative thromboelastogram indices, fibrinogen, international normalized ratio, and platelet levels all showed significantly less coagulopathy after off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting received fewer units of blood, were more likely to avoid transfusion altogether, and had a higher hematocrit at discharge. Cardiopulmonary bypass was an independent predictor of transfusion (odds ratio 2.42, P =.0073) by multivariate analysis. More patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting were extubated in the operating room and within 4 hours. Postoperative length of stay (in days) was shorter for off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (5.1 ± 6.5 for off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting, 6.1 ± 8.2 for conventional coronary artery bypass grafting, P =.005 by Wilcoxon test). One patient (in the conventional coronary artery bypass grafting group) required angioplasty for graft closure within 30 days. Conclusions: When compared with conventional coronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass, off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting achieved similar completeness of revascularization, similar in-hospital and 30-day outcomes, shorter length of stay, reduced transfusion requirement, and less myocardial injury.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003;125:797-80

Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting provides complete revascularization with reduced myocardial injury, transfusion requirements, and length of stay: A prospective randomized comparison of two hundred unselected patients undergoing off-pump versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting

AbstractObjective: Retrospective comparisons of selected patients undergoing off-pump versus conventional on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting have yielded inconsistent results and raised concerns about completeness of revascularization in off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Methods: Two hundred unselected patients referred for elective primary coronary artery bypass grafting were randomly assigned to undergo off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting with an Octopus tissue stabilizer (Medtronic, Inc, Minneapolis, Minn) or conventional coronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass by a single surgeon. Revascularization intent determined before random assignment was compared with the revascularization performed. All management followed strict, unbiased, criteria-driven protocols. Patients and nonoperative care providers were blinded to surgical group. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar. The number of grafts performed per patient (mean ± SD 3.39 ± 1.04 for off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting, 3.40 ± 1.08 for conventional coronary artery bypass grafting) and the index of completeness of revascularization (number of grafts performed/number of grafts intended, 1.00 ± 0.18 for off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting, 1.01 ± 0.09 for conventional coronary artery bypass grafting) were similar. Likewise, the index of completeness of revascularization was similar between groups for the lateral wall. Combined hospital and 30-day mortalities and stroke rates were similar. Postoperative myocardial serum enzyme measures were significantly lower after off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting, suggesting less myocardial injury. Adjusted postoperative thromboelastogram indices, fibrinogen, international normalized ratio, and platelet levels all showed significantly less coagulopathy after off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting received fewer units of blood, were more likely to avoid transfusion altogether, and had a higher hematocrit at discharge. Cardiopulmonary bypass was an independent predictor of transfusion (odds ratio 2.42, P =.0073) by multivariate analysis. More patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting were extubated in the operating room and within 4 hours. Postoperative length of stay (in days) was shorter for off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (5.1 ± 6.5 for off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting, 6.1 ± 8.2 for conventional coronary artery bypass grafting, P =.005 by Wilcoxon test). One patient (in the conventional coronary artery bypass grafting group) required angioplasty for graft closure within 30 days. Conclusions: When compared with conventional coronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass, off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting achieved similar completeness of revascularization, similar in-hospital and 30-day outcomes, shorter length of stay, reduced transfusion requirement, and less myocardial injury.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2003;125:797-80

[Accepted Manuscript] Left Main Revascularization With PCI or CABG in Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease: EXCEL Trial.

The optimal revascularization strategy for patients with left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) and chronic kidney disease (CKD) remains unclear. This study investigated the comparative effectiveness of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) versus coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery in patients with LMCAD and low or intermediate anatomical complexity according to baseline renal function from the multicenter randomized EXCEL (Evaluation of XIENCE Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Effectiveness of Left Main Revascularization) trial. CKD was defined as an estimated glomerular filtration rate &lt;60 ml/min/1.73 m2 using the CKD Epidemiology Collaboration equation. Acute renal failure (ARF) was defined as a serum creatinine increase ≥5.0 mg/dl from baseline or a new requirement for dialysis. The primary composite endpoint was the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), or stroke at 3-year follow-up. CKD was present in 361 of 1,869 randomized patients (19.3%) in whom baseline estimated glomerular filtration rate was available. Patients with CKD had higher 3-year rates of the primary endpoint compared with those without CKD (20.8% vs. 13.5%; hazard ratio [HR]: 1.60; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.22 to 2.09; p = 0.0005). ARF within 30 days occurred more commonly in patients with compared with those without CKD (5.0% vs. 0.8%; p &lt; 0.0001), and was strongly associated with the 3-year risk of death, stroke, or MI (50.7% vs. 14.4%; HR: 4.59; 95% CI: 2.73 to 7.73; p &lt; 0.0001). ARF occurred less commonly after revascularization with PCI compared with CABG both in patients with CKD (2.3% vs. 7.7%; HR: 0.28; 95% CI: 0.09 to 0.87) and in those without CKD (0.3% vs. 1.3%; HR: 0.20; 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.90; pinteraction = 0.71). There were no significant differences in the rates of the primary composite endpoint after PCI and CABG in patients with CKD (23.4% vs. 18.1%; HR: 1.25; 95% CI: 0.79 to 1.98) and without CKD (13.4% vs. 13.5%; HR: 0.97; 95% CI: 0.73 to 1.27; pinteraction = 0.38). Patients with CKD undergoing revascularization for LMCAD in the EXCEL trial had increased rates of ARF and reduced event-free survival. ARF occurred less frequently after PCI compared with CABG. There were no significant differences between PCI and CABG in terms of death, stroke, or MI at 3 years in patients with and without CKD. (EXCEL Clinical Trial [EXCEL]; NCT01205776)