Coronary artery bypass grafting surgery versus percutaneous coronary intervention: What is the clinical decision framework amid COVID-19 era?

Risk factors of in-hospital mortality for isolated on-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery in the northeast of Iran from 2007 to 2016

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

Coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery is the most common cardiac surgery worldwide. The reported mortality rates for this operation vary greatly. We aimed to determine the risk factors of in-hospital mortality for isolated on-pump CABG surgery.

METHODS

This was a large-scale retrospective cohort study of two heart centers in Golestan province. Patients over the age of 18 from both genders who underwent isolated on-pump CABG procedures from 2007 to 2016 were included. The study outcome was in-hospital mortality, which was determined according to the clinical records of study patients.

RESULTS

A total of 3704 patients were included in the study, and 63% were men. In-hospital mortality occurred in 2.8% (n=103) of the patients. The median (IQR) age of survived and not-survived patients were 59 (53-65) and 62 (55-75) years, respectively. 44% of the mortalities occurred in patients older than 65, while 28% of the survivors were older than 65. Multivariable logistic regression indicated that emergency CABG (OR 4.52, 95% CI, 1.45, 14.02; P = 0.009) and cardiopulmonary bypass time (CPB) (OR 1.004, 95% CI 1.001, 1.008; P = 0.034) were the risk factors of in-hospital mortality. The area under the receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve (AUC) of the model consisting of operative and preoperative variables was 0.70 (acceptable performance).

CONCLUSION

Our study revealed an acceptable mortality proportion for CABG surgeries conducted in the region. Emergency CABG and CPB time were the main risk factors for in-hospital mortality after CABG.

Coronary artery bypass grafting versus stent implantation in patients with chronic coronary syndrome and left main disease: insights from a register throughout Germany

BACKGROUND

Recent randomized controlled trials have sparked debate about the optimal treatment of patients suffering from left main coronary artery disease. The present study analyzes outcomes of left main stenting versus coronary bypass grafting (CABG) in a nationwide registry in patients with chronic coronary syndrome (CCS).

METHODS

All cases suffering from CCS and left main coronary artery disease treated either with CABG or stent, were identified within the database of the German bureau of statistics. Logistic or linear regression models were used with 20 baseline patient characteristics as potential confounders to compare both regimens.

RESULTS

In 2018, 1318 cases with left main stenosis were treated with CABG and 8,920 with stent. Patients assigned for stenting were older (72.58 ± 9.87 vs. 68.63 ± 9.40, p < 0.001) and at higher operative risk, as assessed by logistic EuroSCORE (8.77 ± 8.45 vs. 4.85 ± 4.65, p < 0.001). After risk adjustment, no marked differences in outcomes were found for in-hospital mortality and stroke (risk adjusted odds ratio (aOR) for stent instead of CABG: aOR mortality: 1.08 [95% CI 0.66; 1.78], p = 0.748; aOR stroke: 0.59 [0.27; 1.32], p = 0.199). Stent implantation was associated with a reduced risk of relevant bleeding (aOR 0.38 [0.24; 0.61], p < 0.001), reduced prolonged ventilation time (aOR 0.54 [0.37 0.79], p = 0.002), and postoperative delirium (aOR 0.16 [0.11; 0.22], p < 0.001). Furthermore, stent implantation was associated with shorter hospital stay (- 6.78 days [- 5.86; - 7.71], p < 0.001) and lower costs (- €10,035 [- €11,500; - €8570], p < 0.001).

CONCLUSION

Left main stenting is a safe and effective treatment option for CCS-patients suffering from left main coronary artery disease at reasonable economic cost. Coronary artery bypass grafting versus stent implantation in patients with chronic coronary syndrome and left main disease: insights from a register throughout Germany. All cases with chronic coronary syndrome and left main stenosis treated in 2018 in Germany either with left main stenting or coronary bypass grafting were extracted from a nation-wide database. In-hospital outcomes were compared after logistic regression analysis.

Temporary mechanical circulatory support for COVID-19 patients: A systematic review of literature

OBJECTIVE

Myocardial damage occurs in up to 25% of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. While veno-venous extracorporeal life support (V-V ECLS) is used as respiratory support, mechanical circulatory support (MCS) may be required for severe cardiac dysfunction. This systematic review summarizes the available literature regarding MCS use rates, disease drivers for MCS initiation, and MCS outcomes in COVID-19 patients.

METHODS

PubMed/EMBASE were searched until October 14, 2021. Articles including adults receiving ECLS for COVID-19 were included. The primary outcome was the rate of MCS use. Secondary outcomes included mortality at follow-up, ECLS conversion rate, intubation-to-cannulation time, time on ECLS, cardiac diseases, use of inotropes, and vasopressors.

RESULTS

Twenty-eight observational studies (comprising both ECLS-only populations and ECLS patients as part of larger populations) included 4218 COVID-19 patients (females: 28.8%; median age: 54.3 years, 95%CI: 50.7-57.8) of whom 2774 (65.8%) required ECLS with the majority (92.7%) on V-V ECLS, 4.7% on veno-arterial ECLS and/or Impella, and 2.6% on other ECLS. Acute heart failure, cardiogenic shock, and cardiac arrest were reported in 7.8%, 9.7%, and 6.6% of patients, respectively. Vasopressors were used in 37.2%. Overall, 3.1% of patients required an ECLS change from V-V ECLS to MCS for heart failure, myocarditis, or myocardial infarction. The median ECLS duration was 15.9 days (95%CI: 13.9-16.3), with an overall survival of 54.6% and 28.1% in V-V ECLS and MCS patients. One study reported 61.1% survival with oxy-right ventricular assist device.

CONCLUSION

MCS use for cardiocirculatory compromise has been reported in 7.3% of COVID-19 patients requiring ECLS, which is a lower percentage compared to the incidence of any severe cardiocirculatory complication. Based on the poor survival rates, further investigations are warranted to establish the most appropriated indications and timing for MCS in COVID-19.

Telemonitoring and Care Program for Left Ventricular Assist Device Patients During COVID-19 Outbreak: A European Experience

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) radically modified the organization of healthcare systems with shutdown of routine activities and outpatient clinics. Herein, we report our institutional experience with a Telemonitoring and Care Program (TC-Program) to monitor and support left ventricular assist device (LVAD) patients during COVID-19 outbreak. This single-arm cohort study analyzed 156 patients who entered the TC-Program at our institution between April and August 2020. The TC-Program was based on routine phone calls to patients and a 24/7 emergency line. In November 2020, patients were asked for feedback on the TC-Program and checked for survival, transplant, or explant. The primary endpoint was the rate of TC-Program-driven interventions. Patients (males: 82.8%) were 61 years old (interquartile range [IQR]: 53.0-67.5) and on LVAD support for 1,266 days (IQR: 475-2,211). Patients were included in the TC-Program for a median time of 99 days (min:15, max:120) and received a median number of six phone calls (min:1, max:14). Twenty-three patients (14.7%) were referred for clinical evaluation after phone contact. Two patients (1.27%) were diagnosed with COVID-19: one of them died after intensive care, and one remained paucisymptomatic and recovered. Three patients asked to exit the program considering it not useful while the others gave high rates in terms of usefulness (median: 9, IQR: 8-10), information (median: 9, IQR: 8-10), good medical care (median: 9, IQR: 8-10), and psychologic support (median: 8, IQR: 7-10). A TC-Program based on the four ICSA principles (Inform, Care, Support, and Adapt) is feasible in LVAD patients and can be rapidly implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic.

COVID-19: A perspective from Iran

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‐19) pandemic has presented unique challenges to healthcare systems the world over. The management of the current pandemic places a huge strain on healthcare sectors and demands new strategies on a global level. We herein review the latest epidemiologic data on the COVID‐19 pandemic, the Iranian healthcare system's response, and the impact on cardiac surgery practice in Iran.

An Indian study: impact of COVID-19 on clinical decision-making and consensus in cardiac surgery practice across the country

PURPOSE

There is a paucity of evidence and guidelines to support clinical decisions in the present unprecedented time. We aimed to use the experience and consensus of the cardiac surgeons for clinical decisions until evidence-based guidelines are formed.

METHODS

An electronic questionnaire was emailed to all the 1434 members of the Indian Association of Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery, starting from May 13, 2020, and the members were followed up with reminder emails. For a wider reach, social media like WhatsApp was also used to circulate the questionnaire. Participation was voluntary and anonymized. An effective consensus was considered when > 70% opted the same opinion, and moderate consensus when > 50% opted the same opinion.

RESULTS

A total of 174 responses were obtained from the surgeons across the country. An effective consensus was obtained for the following: (i) emergency surgery in acute type A aortic dissection, (ii) urgent surgery in significant left main stem disease and mitral/aortic valves with pulmonary oedema, (iii) elective surgery in stable triple vessel disease and (iv) preoperative nasal swab examination for all patients undergoing surgery.

CONCLUSION

In the present era, where evidence is evolving and the country is entering a phase after lockdown, the surgeons face a dilemma in operating patients. These consensuses provide interim recommendation; still further evidence is published.