Propensity analysis of outcome in coronary artery bypass graft surgery patients >75 years old

Is Bilateral Internal Mammary Arterial Grafting Beneficial for Patients Aged 75 Years or Older?

BACKGROUND

Although bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) grafting is performed with increasing regularity in elderly patients, whether it is truly beneficial, and therefore indicated, in these patients remains uncertain. We retrospectively investigated early and late outcomes of BIMA grafting in patients aged ≥75 years.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We identified 460 patients aged ≥75 years from among 2,618 patients who underwent either single internal mammary artery (SIMA) grafting (n=293) or BIMA grafting (n=107). Early outcomes did not differ between the SIMA and BIMA patients (30-day mortality: 1.7% vs. 0%, P=0.39; sternal wound infection: 1.0% vs. 4.7%; P=0.057). Late outcomes, 10-year survival in particular, were improved in the BIMA group (36.6% vs. 48.1%, P=0.033). In the analysis of the results in propensity score-matched groups (196 patients in the SIMA group, 98 patients in the BIMA group), improved 10-year survival was documented in the BIMA group (34.8% vs. 47.6%, P=0.030). Cox proportional regression analysis showed SIMA usage (non-use of BIMA) to be a predictor for late mortality (hazard ratio: 0.65, 95% confidence interval: 0.43-0.98, P=0.042). We further compared outcomes between the total non-elderly patients (n=2,158) and total elderly patients (n=460). BIMA usage was similar, as was 30-day mortality (1.0% vs. 1.3%, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

A survival advantage, with no increase in early mortality, can be expected from BIMA grafting in patients aged ≥75 years. (Circ J 2016; 80: 1756-1763).

The role of remote ischemic preconditioning in organ protection after cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Remote ischemic preconditioning (RIPC) appears to protect distant organs from ischemia-reperfusion injury. We undertook meta-analysis of clinical studies to evaluate the effects of RIPC on organ protection and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

METHODS

A review of evidence for cardiac, renal, and pulmonary protection after RIPC was performed. We also did meta-regressions on RIPC variables, such as duration of ischemia, cuff pressure, and timing of application of preconditioning. Secondary outcomes included length of hospital and intensive care unit stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and mortality at 30 days.

RESULTS

Randomized control trials (n = 25) were included in the study for quantitative analysis of cardiac (n = 16), renal (n = 6), and pulmonary (n = 3) protection. RIPC provided statistically significant cardiac protection (standardized mean difference [SMD], -0.77; 95% confidence interval [CI], -1.15, -0.39; Z = 3.98; P < 0.0001) and on subgroup analysis, the protective effect remained consistent for all types of cardiac surgical procedures. However, there was no evidence of renal protection (SMD, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.53, 1.02; Z = 1.81; P = 0.07) or pulmonary protection (SMD, -0.03; 95% CI, -0.56, 0.50; Z = 0.12; P = 0.91). There was no statistical difference in the short-term clinical outcomes between the RIPC and control groups.

CONCLUSIONS

RIPC provides cardiac protection, but there is no evidence of renal or pulmonary protection in patients undergoing cardiac surgery using cardiopulmonary bypass. Larger multicenter trials are required to define the role of RIPC in surgical practice.

The surgical Apgar score is strongly associated with intensive care unit admission after high-risk intraabdominal surgery

BACKGROUND

Understanding intensive care unit (ICU) triage decisions for high-risk surgical patients may ultimately facilitate resource allocation and improve outcomes. The surgical Apgar score (SAS) is a simple score that uses intraoperative information on hemodynamics and blood loss to predict postoperative morbidity and mortality, with lower scores associated with worse outcomes. We hypothesized that the SAS would be associated with the decision to admit a patient to the ICU postoperatively.

METHODS

We performed a retrospective cohort study of adults undergoing major intraabdominal surgery from 2003 to 2010 at an academic medical center. We calculated the SAS (0-10) for each patient based on intraoperative heart rate, mean arterial blood pressure, and estimated blood loss. Using logistic regression, we assessed the association of the SAS with the decision to admit a patient directly to the ICU after surgery.

RESULTS

The cohort consisted of 8501 patients, with 72.7% having an SAS of 7 to 10 and <5% an SAS of 0 to 4. A total of 8.7% of patients were transferred immediately to the ICU postoperatively. After multivariate adjustment, there was a strong association between the SAS and the decision to admit a patient to the ICU (adjusted odds ratio 14.41 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 6.88-30.19, P < 0.001] for SAS 0-2, 4.42 [95% CI, 3.19-6.13, P < 0.001] for SAS 3-4, and 2.60 [95% CI, 2.08-3.24, P < 0.001] for SAS 5-6 compared with SAS 7-8).

CONCLUSIONS

The SAS is strongly associated with clinical decisions regarding immediate ICU admission after high-risk intraabdominal surgery. These results provide an initial step toward understanding whether intraoperative hemodynamics and blood loss influence ICU triage for postsurgical patients.