Incidence and Prognostic Impact of Incomplete Revascularization Documented by Coronary Angiography 1 Year After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Complete Coronary Revascularization and Outcomes in Patients Who Underwent Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Insights from The REGROUP Trial

There is growing evidence in support of coronary complete revascularization (CR). Nonetheless, there is no universally accepted definition of CR in patients who undergo coronary bypass grafting surgery (CABG). We sought to investigate the outcomes of CR, defined as surgical revascularization of any territory supplied by a suitable coronary artery with ≥50% stenosis. We performed a preplanned subanalysis in the Randomized Trial of Endoscopic or Open Saphenous Vein Graft Harvesting (REGROUP) clinical trial cohort. Of 1,147 patients who underwent CABG, 810 (70.6%) received CR. The primary outcome was a composite of major adverse cardiac events (MACEs), including death from any cause, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or repeat revascularization over a median 4.7 years of follow-up. MACE occurred in 175 patients (21.6%) in the CR group and 86 patients (25.5%) in the incomplete revascularization (IR) group (hazard ratio [HR] 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.67 to 1.13, p = 0.29). A total of 97 patients (12.0%) in the CR group and 48 patients (14.2%) in the IR group died (HR 0.93, 95% CI 0.65 to 1.32, p = 0.67); nonfatal myocardial infarction occurred in 49 patients (6.0%) in the CR group and 30 patients (8.9%) in the IR group (HR 0.76, 95% CI 0.48 to 1.2, p = 0.24), and repeat revascularization occurred in 62 patients (7.7%) in the CR group and 39 patients (11.6%) in the IR group (HR 0.64; 95% CI 0.42 to 0.95, p = 0.027). In conclusion, in patients with a great burden of co-morbidities who underwent CABG in the REGROUP trial over a median follow-up period of a median 4.7 years, CR was associated with similar MACE rates but a reduced risk of repeat revascularization. Longer-term follow-up is warranted.

Direct cardiac reprogramming: A new technology for cardiac repair

Cardiovascular disease is one of the leading causes of morbidity and mortality worldwide, with myocardial infarctions being amongst the deadliest manifestations. Reduced blood flow to the heart can result in the death of cardiac tissue, leaving affected patients susceptible to further complications and recurrent disease. Further, contemporary management typically involves a pharmacopeia to manage the metabolic conditions contributing to atherosclerotic and hypertensive heart disease, rather than regeneration of the damaged myocardium. With modern healthcare extending lifespan, a larger demographic will be at risk for heart disease, driving the need for novel therapeutics that surpass those currently available in efficacy. Transdifferentiation and cellular reprogramming have been looked to as potential methods for the treatment of diseases throughout the body. Specifically targeting the fibrotic cells in cardiac scar tissue as a source to be reprogrammed into induced cardiomyocytes remains an appealing option. This review aims to highlight the history of and advances in cardiac reprogramming and describe its translational potential as a treatment for cardiovascular disease.

The Role of Angiogenesis and Arteriogenesisin Myocardial Infarction and Coronary Revascularization

Surgical myocardial revascularization is associated with long-term survival benefit in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. However, the exact biological mechanisms underlying the clinical benefits of myocardial revascularization have not been elucidated yet. Angiogenesis and arteriogenesis biologically leading to vascular collateralization are considered one of the endogenous mechanisms to preserve myocardial viability during ischemia, and the presence of coronary collateralization has been regarded as one of the predictors of long-term survival in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD). Some experimental studies and indirect clinical evidence on chronic CAD confirmed an angiogenetic response induced by myocardial revascularization and suggested that revascularization procedures could constitute an angiogenetic trigger per se. In this review, the clinical and basic science evidence regarding arteriogenesis and angiogenesis in both CAD and coronary revascularization is analyzed with the aim to better elucidate their significance in the clinical arena and potential therapeutic use.

What does complete revascularization mean in 2021? - Definitions, implications, and biases

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Coronary revascularization is known to be an excellent treatment for coronary artery disease. However, whether incomplete myocardial revascularization compromises long-term outcomes, as compared to complete revascularization (CR), remains contentious. Herein, we review the concept of and evidence on CR/incomplete revascularization (ICR) and discuss future perspectives.

RECENT FINDINGS

When possible, achieving CR in coronary artery bypass grafting is desirable; nonetheless, ICR is also a reasonable option to balance the therapeutic benefits against the risks.

SUMMARY

Although angiography-based assessment currently remains the standard of care, fractional flow reserve guidance may reduce the number of lesions requiring revascularization, which may be helpful for an appropriate surgical revascularization strategy. In particular, utilizing this approach may refine hybrid revascularization procedures, especially among high-risk patients.

Clinical trials proposed for the VA Cooperative Studies Program: Success rates and factors impacting approval

The process by which funding organizations select among the myriad number of proposals they receive is a matter of significant concern for researchers and the public alike. Despite an extensive literature on the topic of peer review and publications on criteria by which clinical investigations are reviewed, publications analyzing peer review and other processes leading to government funding decisions on large multi-site clinical trials proposals are sparse. To partially address this gap, we reviewed the outcomes of scientific and programmatic evaluation for all letters of intent (LOIs) received by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) Cooperative Studies Program (CSP) between July 4, 2008, and November 28, 2016. If accepted, these LOIs represented initial steps towards later full proposals that also underwent scientific peer review. Twenty-two of 87 LOIs were ultimately funded and executed as CSP projects, for an overall success rate of 25%. Most proposals which received a negative decision did so prior to submission of a full proposal. Common reasons for negative scientific review of LOIs included investigator inexperience, perceived lack of major scientific impact, lack of preliminary data and flawed or confused experimental design, while the most common reasons for negative reviews of final proposals included questions of scientific impact and issues of study design, including outcome measures, randomization, and stratification. Completed projects have been published in high impact clinical journals. Findings highlight several factors leading to successfully obtaining funding support for clinical trials. While our analysis is restricted to trials proposed for CSP, the similarities in review processes with those employed by the National Institutes of Health and the Patient Centered Outcomes Research Institute suggest the possibility that they may also be important in a broader context.