Identification of candidates for coronary artery bypass grafting admitted with STEMI and Multivessel Disease

Safety and efficacy of surgical revascularization with percutaneous ventricular assist device for acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock: Japanese national registry study

BACKGROUND

This study aims to assess the safety of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with percutaneous ventricular assist device (PVAD) in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock (AMI-CS).

METHODS

A retrospective analysis was conducted on 1198 patients with AMI-CS from the J-PVAD registry, who underwent PVAD support using Impella® (Abiomed Inc., Danvers, MA) and subsequent revascularization between February 2020 and December 2021. Patients were divided into two groups based on the method of coronary revascularization: percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI, n = 1084) and CABG (n = 114). The study assessed short-term all-cause and cardiac-related mortality.

RESULTS AND CONCLUSION

The CABG group exhibited significantly lower short-term all-cause mortality compared with the PCI group (30-day: 26.2% vs. 39.9%, 90-day: 45.5% vs. 58.4%, log-rank p = 0.004). Short-term cardiac-related mortality was similar toward low in the CABG group compared with the PCI group (30-day: 18.7% vs. 25.6%, 90-day: 29.4% vs. 35.5%, log-rank p = 0.084). Multivariable analysis using the Cox proportional hazard model did not identify revascularization strategy as a risk factor for both all-cause mortality (Hazard ratio (HR): 0.743, 95% confidence intervals (CI): 0.457-1.208, p = 0.231) and cardiac-related mortality (HR: 0.762, 95% CI: 0.390-1.490, p = 0.427). These results were not attenuated even in subgroup analyses separately comparing CABG alone and hybrid therapy with PCI after propensity score matching. Thus, CABG can be a treatment option with feasible short-term outcomes in patients with AMI-CS under PVAD support.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Non-ST-Elevation Coronary Syndromes and Multivessel Disease: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

There is lack of evidence regarding the optimal revascularization strategy in patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndrome (NSTE-ACS) and multivessel disease (MVD). This systematic review and meta-analysis compares the clinical impact of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with that of coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) in this subset of patients. EMBASE, MEDLINE, and Web of Knowledge were searched for studies including patients with NSTE-ACS and MVD who underwent PCI or CABG up to September 1, 2021. The primary end point of the meta-analysis was all-cause mortality at 1 year. The secondary end points were myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, or repeat revascularization at 1 year. The analysis was conducted using the Mantel-Haenszel random-effects model to calculate the odds ratio (OR) with 95% confidence interval (CI). Four prospective observational studies met the inclusion criteria, including 1,542 patients who underwent CABG and 1,630 patients who underwent PCI. No significant differences were found in terms of all-cause mortality (OR 0.91, 95% CI 0.68 to 1.21, p = 0.51), MI (OR 0.78, 95% CI 0.40 to 1.51, p = 0.46), or stroke (OR 1.54, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.35, p = 0.42) between PCI and CABG. Repeat revascularization was significantly lower in the CABG group (OR 0.21, 95% CI 0.13 to 0.34, p <0.00001). In patients presenting with NSTE-ACS and MVD, 1-year mortality, MI, and stroke were similar between patients treated with either PCI or CABG, but the repeat revascularization rate was higher after PCI.

A low-cost wearable device for portable sequential compression therapy

In 2020, cardiovascular diseases resulted in 25% of unnatural deaths in the United States. Treatment with long-term administration of medication can adversely affect other organs, and surgeries such as coronary artery grafts are risky. Meanwhile, sequential compression therapy (SCT) offers a low-risk alternative, but is currently expensive and unwieldy, and often requires the patient to be immobilized during administration. Here, we present a low-cost wearable device to administer SCT, constructed using a stacked lamination fabrication approach. Expanding on concepts from the field of soft robotics, textile sheets are thermally bonded to form pneumatic actuators, which are controlled by an inconspicuous and tetherless electronic onboard supply of pressurized air. Our open-source, low-profile, and lightweight (140 g) device costs $62, less than one-third the cost the least expensive alternative and one-half the weight of lightest alternative approved by the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA), presenting the opportunity to more effectively provide SCT to socioeconomically disadvantaged individuals. Furthermore, our textile-stacking method, inspired by conventional fabrication methods from the apparel industry, along with the lightweight fabrics used, allows the device to be worn more comfortably than other SCT devices. By reducing physical and financial encumbrances, the device presented in this work may better enable patients to treat cardiovascular diseases and aid in recovery from cardiac surgeries.

Re-evaluating the Role of CABG in Acute Coronary Syndromes

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

The use of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) has markedly declined during the past decade, with an increase in the use of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). However, long-term data continues to show survival advantages for patients undergoing CABG over PCI. We describe the current indications for and outcomes of CABG in patients who present with ACS.

RECENT FINDINGS

Real-world studies demonstrate better long-term outcomes with CABG than with PCI after NSTE-ACS. Staged CABG after culprit-vessel PCI for STEMI is also a feasible option in certain patients. In patients presenting with ACS and cardiogenic shock who are treated with CABG, the use of mechanical circulatory support has produced a limited but significant reduction in mortality. The optimal revascularization strategy after ACS depends on many variables. The pre-eminent factor in selecting the best mode of revascularization and improving outcomes is careful patient selection based on deliberation by an interdisciplinary heart team.