Quality of life after on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting surgery

FUNDAMENTO: Técnicas de cirurgia de revascularização miocárdica (RM) sem o uso de circulação extracorpórea (CEC) possibilitou resultados operatórios com menor dano sistêmico, menor ocorrência de complicações clínicas, menor permanência na sala de terapia intensiva e também no tempo de internação, gerando expectativas de melhor qualidade de vida (QV) dos pacientes. OBJETIVO: Avaliar a QV em pacientes submetidos à cirurgia de revascularização com e sem CEC. MÉTODOS: Em pacientes com doença multiarterial coronariana (DAC) estável e função ventricular preservada, aplicou-se o Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) Questionnaire antes da cirurgia e depois de 6 e 12 meses. RESULTADOS: Entre janeiro de 2002 e dezembro de 2006, foram randomizados 202 pacientes para cirurgia de RM. As características demográficas clínicas laboratoriais e angiográficas foram semelhantes nos dois grupos. Desses pacientes, 105 foram operados sem CEC e 97 com CEC. Na evolução, 22 pacientes sofreram infarto, 29 relataram angina, um reoperou, 3 tiveram AVC e nenhum morreu. A avaliação da QV mostrou similaridade nos dois grupos em relação ao componente físico e mental. Todavia, encontrou-se significativa melhora da capacidade funcional e percepção do aspecto físico nos pacientes do sexo masculino. Além disso, um expressivo número de pacientes dos dois grupos retornou ao trabalho. CONCLUSÃO: Em todos os pacientes estudados, observaram-se melhora progressiva da qualidade de vida e retorno precoce ao trabalho, independentemente da técnica cirúrgica empregada. Exceto pela melhor percepção da capacidade funcional e do aspecto físico experimentado pelos homens, não houve diferença estatística nos resultados dos demais domínios alcançados pelos dois grupos estudados.BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass grafting techniques without using cardiopulmonary bypass (off-pump CABG) result in less systemic damage, less clinical complications, less time spent in the intensive care unit, and shorter hospital stays, thereby raising the perspective of improved quality of life (QOL) for patients. OBJECTIVE: To assess quality of life in patients who underwent on-pump and off-pump CABG. METHODS: The Short-Form Health Survey (SF-36) Questionnaire was administered to patients with stable multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) and preserved ventricular function before and at six and 12 months after surgery. RESULTS: Between January 2002 and December 2006, a total of 202 patients were randomized to either on-pump or off-pump CABG. Demographic, clinical, laboratory, and angiographic characteristics were similar in both groups. One hundred and five patients underwent off-pump CABG and 97 underwent on-pump CABG. In the postoperative course, 22 patients had myocardial infarction, 29 reported angina, one was reoperated, and three experienced stroke. No patient died. Quality of life, as measured by the SF-36 questionnaire, was shown to be similar in both groups regarding physical and mental components. However, male patients showed a significant improvement in physical functioning and role limitations due to physical problems. Also, a large number of patients in both groups returned to work. CONCLUSION: Progressive enhancement in quality of life and early return to work were observed for all patients, regardless of the surgical technique used. Save for a greater improvement in physical functioning and role limitations due to physical problems experienced by male patients, no statistically significant differences were found in the other domains between groups

Custos comparativos entre a revascularização miocárdica com e sem circulação extracorpórea Comparative costs between myocardial revascularization with or without extracorporeal circulation

FUNDAMENTO: Técnicas cirúrgicas de revascularização miocárdica sem o uso de circulação extracorpórea (CEC) projetaram esperanças de resultados operatórios com menor dano sistêmico, menor ocorrência de complicações clínicas e menor tempo de internação hospitalar, gerando expectativas de menor custo hospitalar. OBJETIVO: Avaliar o custo hospitalar em pacientes submetidos à cirurgia de revascularização miocárdica com e sem o uso de CEC, e em portadores de doença multiarterial coronariana estável com função ventricular preservada. MÉTODOS: Os custos hospitalares foram baseados na remuneração governamental vigente. Acrescentaram-se aos custos uso de órteses e próteses, complicações e intercorrências clínicas. Consideraram-se o tempo e os custos de permanência na UTI e de internação hospitalar. RESULTADOS: Entre janeiro de 2002 e agosto de 2006, foram randomizados 131 pacientes para cirurgia com CEC (CCEC) e 128 pacientes sem CEC (SCEC). As características basais foram semelhantes para os dois grupos. Os custos das intercorrências cirúrgicas foram significativamente menores (p < 0,001) para pacientes do grupo SCEC comparados ao grupo CCEC (606,00 &plusmn; 525,00 vs. 945,90 &plusmn; 440,00), bem como os custos na UTI: 432,20 &plusmn; 391,70 vs. 717,70 &plusmn; 257,70, respectivamente. Os tempos de permanência na sala cirúrgica foram (4,9 &plusmn; 1,1 h vs. 3,9 &plusmn; 1,0 h), (p < 0,001) na UTI (48,2 &plusmn; 17,2 h vs. 29,2 &plusmn; 26,1h) (p < 0,001), com tempo de entubação (9,2 &plusmn; 4,5 h vs. 6,4 &plusmn; 5,1h) (p < 0,001) para pacientes do grupo com e sem CEC, respectivamente. CONCLUSÃO: Os resultados permitem concluir que a cirurgia de revascularização miocárdica, sem circulação extracorpórea, proporciona diminuição de custos operacionais e de tempo de permanência em cada setor relacionado ao tratamento cirúrgico.<br>BACKGROUND: Surgical techniques of myocardial revascularization without the use of extracorporeal circulation (ECC) have raised hopes of attaining operative results with less systemic damage, lower occurrence of clinical complications and shorter hospital stay duration, generating expectations of lower hospital costs. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the hospital costs in patients submitted to myocardial revascularization with and without ECC and in those with stable multiarterial coronary disease with preserved ventricular function. METHODS: The hospital costs were based on the existing governmental reimbursement. The costs included that of ortheses and prostheses and clinical complications. The time and costs of ICU stay and hospital stay duration were considered. RESULTS: Between January 2002 and August 2006, 131 patients were randomized to surgery with ECC (SECC), whereas 128 were randomized to surgery without ECC (WECC). The basal characteristics were similar for both groups. The costs of surgical complications were significantly lower (p < 0.001) in patients from the WECC when compared to the SECC group (606.00 &plusmn; 525.00 vs. 945.90 &plusmn; 440.00), as well as ICU costs: 432.20 &plusmn; 391.70 vs. 717.70 &plusmn; 257.70, respectively. The duration of the operating room stay were 4.9 &plusmn; 1.1 h vs. 3.9 &plusmn; 1.0 h, p < 0.001; at the ICU it was 48.2 &plusmn; 17.2 h vs. 29.2 &plusmn; 26.1h) (p < 0.001), with intubation time of 9.2 &plusmn; 4.5 h vs. 6.4 &plusmn; 5.1h, p < 0.001 for patients from the group with and without ECC, respectively. CONCLUSION: The present study allowed us to conclude that the myocardial revascularization surgery without extracorporeal circulation results in the decrease of operational costs and duration of the stay in each section related to the surgical treatment

Health status after invasive or conservative care in coronary and advanced kidney disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA-CKD trial, the primary analysis showed no significant difference in the risk of death or myocardial infarction with initial angiography and revascularization plus guideline-based medical therapy (invasive strategy) as compared with guideline-based medical therapy alone (conservative strategy) in participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease (an estimated glomerular filtration rate of &lt;30 ml per minute per 1.73 m2 or receipt of dialysis). A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status. METHODS We assessed health status with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) before randomization and at 1.5, 3, and 6 months and every 6 months thereafter. The primary outcome of this analysis was the SAQ Summary score (ranging from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating less frequent angina and better function and quality of life). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate the treatment effect with the invasive strategy. RESULTS Health status was assessed in 705 of 777 participants. Nearly half the participants (49%) had had no angina during the month before randomization. At 3 months, the estimated mean difference between the invasive-strategy group and the conservative-strategy group in the SAQ Summary score was 2.1 points (95% credible interval, 120.4 to 4.6), a result that favored the invasive strategy. The mean difference in score at 3 months was largest among participants with daily or weekly angina at baseline (10.1 points; 95% credible interval, 0.0 to 19.9), smaller among those with monthly angina at baseline (2.2 points; 95% credible interval, 122.0 to 6.2), and nearly absent among those without angina at baseline (0.6 points; 95% credible interval, 121.9 to 3.3). By 6 months, the between-group difference in the overall trial population was attenuated (0.5 points; 95% credible interval, 122.2 to 3.4). CONCLUSIONS Participants with stable ischemic heart disease, moderate or severe ischemia, and advanced chronic kidney disease did not have substantial or sustained benefits with regard to angina-related health status with an initially invasive strategy as compared with a conservative strategy

Management of coronary disease in patients with advanced kidney disease

BACKGROUND Clinical trials that have assessed the effect of revascularization in patients with stable coronary disease have routinely excluded those with advanced chronic kidney disease. METHODS We randomly assigned 777 patients with advanced kidney disease and moderate or severe ischemia on stress testing to be treated with an initial invasive strategy consisting of coronary angiography and revascularization (if appropriate) added to medical therapy or an initial conservative strategy consisting of medical therapy alone and angiography reserved for those in whom medical therapy had failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction. A key secondary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. RESULTS At a median follow-up of 2.2 years, a primary outcome event had occurred in 123 patients in the invasive-strategy group and in 129 patients in the conservative-strategy group (estimated 3-year event rate, 36.4% vs. 36.7%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.29; P=0.95). Results for the key secondary outcome were similar (38.5% vs. 39.7%; hazard ratio, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.79 to 1.29). The invasive strategy was associated with a higher incidence of stroke than the conservative strategy (hazard ratio, 3.76; 95% CI, 1.52 to 9.32; P=0.004) and with a higher incidence of death or initiation of dialysis (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% CI, 1.04 to 2.11; P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease, advanced chronic kidney disease, and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used