Fourteen-Year Follow-Up From CABADAS: Vitamin K Antagonists or Dipyridamole Not Superior to Aspirin

Antiplatelet therapy and coronary artery bypass grafting: a systematic review and network meta-analysis

OBJECTIVES

Acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) monotherapy is the standard of care after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), but the benefits of more intense antiplatelet therapy, specifically dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT), require further exploration in CABG patients. We performed a network meta-analysis to compare the effects of various antiplatelet regimens on saphenous vein graft patency, mortality, major adverse cardiovascular events and bleeding among CABG patients.

METHODS

We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval Systems Online, Excerpta Medica Database, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, American College of Physicians Journal Club and conference proceedings for randomized controlled trials. Screening, data extraction, risk of bias assessment and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation were performed in duplicate. We conducted a random effect Bayesian network meta-analysis including both direct and indirect comparisons.

RESULTS

We included 43 randomized controlled trials studying 15 511 patients. DAPT with low-dose ASA and ticagrelor [odds ratio (OR) 2.53, 95% credible interval (CrI) 1.35–4.72; I2 = 55; low certainty] or clopidogrel (OR 1.56, 95% CrI 1.02–2.39; I2 = 55; very low certainty) improved saphenous vein graft patency when compared to low-dose ASA monotherapy. DAPT with low-dose ASA and ticagrelor was associated with lower mortality (OR 0.52, 95% CrI 0.30–0.87; I2 = 14; high certainty) and lower major adverse cardiovascular events (OR 0.63, 95% CrI 0.44–0.91; I2 = 0; high certainty) when compared to low-dose ASA monotherapy. Based on moderate certainty evidence, DAPT was associated with an increase in major bleeding.

CONCLUSIONS

Our results suggest that DAPT improves saphenous vein graft patency, mortality and major adverse cardiovascular event. As such, surgeons and physicians should consider re-initiating DAPT for acute coronary syndrome patients after their CABG, at the expense of an increased risk for major bleeding.

Clinical trial registration

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews ID Number CRD42019127695

Outcome Reporting in Cardiac Surgery Trials: Systematic Review and Critical Appraisal

BACKGROUND

There is currently no accepted standard for reporting outcomes following cardiac surgery. The objective of this paper was to systematically review the literature to evaluate the current use and definition of perioperative outcomes reported in cardiac surgery trials.

METHODS AND RESULTS

We reviewed 5 prominent medical and surgical journals on Medline from January 1, 2010, to June 30, 2014, for randomized controlled trials involving coronary artery bypass grafting and/or valve surgery. We identified 34 trials meeting inclusion criteria. Sample sizes ranged from 57 to 4752 participants (median 351). Composite end points were used as a primary outcome in 56% (n=19) of the randomized controlled trials and as a secondary outcome in 12% (n=4). There were 14 different composite end points. Mortality at any time (all-cause and/or cardiovascular) was reported as an individual end point or as part of a combined end point in 82% (n=28), myocardial infarction was reported in 68% (n=23), and bleeding was reported in 24% (n=8). Patient-centered outcomes, such as quality of life and functional classification, were reported in 29% (n=10). Definition of clinical events such as myocardial infarction, stroke, renal failure, and bleeding varied considerably among trials, particularly for postoperative myocardial infarction and bleeding, for which 8 different definitions were used for each.

CONCLUSIONS

Outcome reporting in the cardiac surgery literature is heterogeneous, and efforts should be made to standardize the outcomes reported and the definitions used to ascertain them. The development of standardizing outcome reporting is an essential step toward strengthening the process of evidence-based care in cardiac surgery.