Early and five-year results for coronary artery bypass grafting

Coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention in single-vessel left anterior descending artery disease: mid-term propensity matching study

Introduction

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been considered to be the proven therapeutic choice for coronary artery disease. However, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stents is increasingly used for extensive coronary artery disease with contradictory results. The aim of this study is to compare immediate- and mid-term results of CABG where skeletonized internal mammary artery (IMA) was used as in situ graft versus PCI with serolimus drug eluted stents (SES) in single-vessel left anterior descending artery (LAD) disease.

Methods

In 2014-2022, 938 patients treated for isolated LAD revascularization were included in this study. Among them, there were 346 patients with CABG-IMA and 592 patients with SES-PCI. CABG-IMA patients (n = 266) were compared with SES-PCI patients (n = 266) in propensity score-matched method.Primary outcome measures were identified as all-cause mortality at 30 days and 3 years after surgery, while secondary outcome measures were length of hospital stay and the incidence of postoperative major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE).

Results

Increased incidence for post procedural MACCE after PCI was recorded (CABG = 1.2% vs. PCI = 5.3%; p < 0.05). There was no difference in immediate-term (30 days: CABG = 1.2% vs. PCI = 1.5%; p = ns) and mid-term (3 years: CABG = 3.7% vs. PCI = 4.5%; p = ns) mortality between the groups. Patient after SES-PCI had shorter length of hospital stay (CABG = 7.7 days vs. PCI = 3.8 days; p < 0.05).

Conclusion

The results of the study indicated that CABG-IMA performed at the time of myocardial revascularization in single-vessel LAD disease is better than SES-PCI. Our conclusion is independent of traditionally accepted risk factors incorporated in the Logistic EuroSCORE II (European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation) and SYNTAX score II (Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention with TAXUS and Cardiac Surgery Score II) and is exclusively method related.

Cost reduction by combined carotid endarterectomy and coronary artery bypass grafting

A significant cost reduction is likely if patients who require coronary artery bypass grafting with significant carotid stenosis have simultaneous carotid endarterectomy and bypass grafting, provided risk is not increased. To investigate this issue, we retrospectively identified cases from February 1977 to May 1994 with first-time isolated carotid endarterectomy, coronary bypass, or combined procedures. In the isolated carotid endarterectomy population, median age was 69 years and 58% (85/146) were male, as compared with 68 years and 68% (68/100) male in the combined group; median age of the coronary bypass cohort was 65 years and 76% (381/500) male. A significantly higher percentage of patients in the coronary bypass versus combined group were in New York Heart Association functional class IV. In the combined group there was a significantly higher incidence of older age, diabetes, hypertension, hyperlipidemia, renal failure, and congestive heart failure. There was no difference among the three groups with respect to hospital mortality (0%, 3.4%, and 4.0%, respectively) and permanent stroke (0.7%, 1.2%, and 0%, respectively). Hospital costs were $4,896, $10,959 and $11,089, respectively, with a savings of $4,766 (30%), and Medicare hospital reimbursement was $8,575, $23,071, and $23,071, respectively, with a savings of $10,077 (25.3%). Thus, in appropriate patients, a combined procedure is cost effective, eliminating a second surgical procedure and the cost of the postoperative stay (3.7 +/- 2.4 days) associated with isolated carotid endarterectomy. Risk of permanent stroke or death is not increased.

Perioperative Myocardial Protection with Continuous Infusion of Diltiazem in Coronary Bypass Surgery

In a randomized study 120 patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting were investigated to evaluate the perioperative antiischemic and antiarrhythmic efficacy of diltiazem. The patients received a continuous, perioperative infusion of either diltiazem 0.1 mg/kg/h, N = 60) or nitroglycerin (control group lpg/kg/min, N = 60) over a period of 24 hours. Perioperative monitoring included hemodynamic measurements and 3-channel Holter monitoring up to 24 hours postoperatively; repeated assessment of 12–lead electrocardiogram; and analysis of ischenlia-specific laboratory parameters (CK-MB and troponin-T). Myocardial function was assessed preoperatively at 1 and 4 hours after cardiopulmonary bypass by transesophageal echocardiography (TEE, short axis view, monoplane 5 MHz faced array transducer). The 2 groups did not differ with respect to preoperative and operative data. Except for a significant reduction in perioperative heart rate by an average of 9 beats/min, diltiazem had no influence on hemodynamic parameters. The antiischemic efficacy of diltiazem led to a reduction of the number (17 ± 9 vs. 25 ± 5, p < 0.05) and duration (69 ± 47 vs. 104 ± 87 min, p < 0.05) of transient ischemic events and a lower incidence of perioperative myocardial infarction (3.3 vs. 6.7%) as compared to the nitroglycerin group. Peak values of CK-MB and troponin-T were significantly lower in the diltiazem group. Patients treated with diltiazem had a lower incidence of perioperative atrial fibrillation (5 vs. 18%, p < 0.05) and lower numbers of ventricular premature beats/hour (10 ± 8 vs. 19 ± 22, p < 0.05). The postoperative increase in myocardial function was more pronounced in the diltiazem group. The perioperative infusion of diltiazem does not adversely affect perioperative hemodynamics and myocardial contractility but provides potent antiischemic and antiarrhythmic protection of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. Future investigations must focus on the role of diltiazem in the improvement of long-term prognosis after coronary bypass surgery.

Angioplasty versus bypass surgery for multivessel coronary artery disease with left ventricular ejection fraction < or = 40%

Patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction represent a high-risk subgroup in whom coronary artery bypass grafting has been shown to improve survival compared with that of medically treated patients. The comparative benefits and risks of coronary angioplasty and bypass surgery in this subgroup of patients are unclear. This study retrospectively analyzes 100 consecutive patients treated with bypass surgery compared with a matched, concurrent cohort of 100 treated with multivessel angioplasty. Early results favored angioplasty; a hospital stay of 12.8 days was noted in the bypass group compared with 4.3 days in the angioplasty group (p < 0.001). In-hospital mortality rates were similar in the bypass (5%) and angioplasty (3%) groups (p = NS). Stroke was observed significantly more often in the bypass group (7 vs 0%). However, late follow-up favored bypass patients; repeat revascularization procedures and late myocardial infarction occurred more frequently during follow-up in the angioplasty group. During 5-year follow-up, superior relief from disabling angina (99 vs 89%; p = 0.01) and a trend toward improved survival (76 vs 67%; p = 0.09) were observed in the bypass group as compared with the angioplasty group. Multivariate correlates of late mortality included age and incomplete revascularization, but not mode of revascularization. Thus, in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction, early results favor angioplasty, whereas late follow-up favors bypass surgery. However, late survival was similar in both groups of patients who were completely revascularized.

Comparison of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty versus coronary artery bypass grafting for multivessel coronary artery disease

Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are both widely performed in the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease. Little data directly compare the outcomes of patients treated with these 2 techniques. We examined the characteristics and outcomes of 152 patients who underwent multivessel PTCA and 134 patients who had multivessel CABG. Patients who had prior PTCA or CABG were excluded. Baseline characteristics such as age, sex, and prior myocardial infarction were similar in the 2 groups. Ejection fraction was significantly lower in the CABG group (48 +/- 14%) versus the PTCA patients (53 +/- 15%) (p = 0.002). Narrowing distribution when analyzed by major vascular beds (left anterior descending, circumflex and right coronary arteries) as well as by individual arteries was not significantly different between the groups when left main stenosis was excluded. The surgical group received a larger number of bypasses per patient (3.9) when compared with narrowings dilated in the angioplasty group (3.7) (p less than 0.001). The left internal mammary artery was used in 75% of patients as one of the grafts. Angioplasty success was 95% by standard criteria. Over a mean follow-up of 110 weeks for PTCA patients and 134 weeks for CABG patients the occurrence of death was similar (10 and 14%, respectively) as was myocardial infarction (4 and 2%, respectively). However, all other cardiac events including subsequent cardiac catheterization (49 vs 10%), PTCA (30 vs 2%) and CABG (23 vs 2%) occurred significantly more often in the PTCA group (all p less than 0.001).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Nifedipine reduces the incidence of myocardial infarction and transient ischemia in patients undergoing coronary bypass grafting

A randomized study was performed on 104 patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting to examine whether the infusion of nifedipine (n = 53) reduces the incidence of perioperative myocardial ischemia and necrosis in the early postoperative period. Continuous hemodynamic and three-channel Holter monitoring was performed for 24 hours and serial assessment of serum enzymes and 12-lead electrocardiography were performed for 36 hours postoperatively. Nifedipine (minimum dose, 10 micrograms/kg/hr for 24 hours) was applied from the onset of extracorporal circulation. The control group (n = 51) received nitroglycerin (minimum dose, 1 micrograms/kg/min for 24 hours). Using the combined analyses of electrocardiography and Holter recordings, myocardial ischemia was defined as being either a transient ischemic event (TIE), transient coronary spasm (TCS), or myocardial infarction (MI). The two groups did not differ with respect to preoperative New York Heart Association classification, age, history of myocardial infarction, extracorporal circulation and aortic cross-clamp time, number of distal anastomoses, or systemic and pulmonary hemodynamics. The incidence of perioperative myocardial ischemia was substantially lower in the nifedipine than in the nitroglycerin group [TIE: three of 53 patients (6%) versus nine of 50 patients (18%), p less than 0.001; MI: two of 53 patients (4%) versus six of 50 patients (12%), p less than 0.001; and TCS: none of 53 patients (0%) versus two of 50 patients (4%), p = NS].(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Infusion of nifedipine after coronary artery bypass grafting decreases the incidence of early postoperative myocardial ischemia

We performed a randomized study on patients undergoing elective coronary bypass grafting to examine whether postoperative infusion of nifedipine (n = 25) could reduce the incidence of isolated transient myocardial ischemia, myocardial infarction, or both. The control group (n = 25) received nitroglycerin. Hemodynamic and Holter monitoring and serial assessment of enzymatic and electrocardiographic changes were performed for all patients. Both groups showed comparable preoperative and operative data. The incidence of myocardial infarction was significantly lower in the nifedipine group (n = 1) as compared with the control group (n = 4), whereas the number of patients with isolated transient myocardial ischemia was similar in both groups (nifedipine, 3; control, 4). At the time of peak activity, levels of creatine kinase (350 +/- 129 versus 511 +/- 287 IU/mL), creatine kinase-MB (8.4 +/- 5.4 versus 17.1 +/- 11.0 IU/mL), and glutamate-oxaloacetate-transaminase (30.4 +/- 4.4 versus 41.0 +/- 7.9 IU/mL) were markedly lower in the nifedipine group (p less than 0.05). We conclude that infusion of nifedipine after elective coronary artery bypass grafting effectively decreases the incidence of myocardial infarction and the extent of myocardial necrosis during the early postoperative period.

Current status of cardiac surgery: a 40 year review

Cardiac surgery has undergone dramatic advancements during the past 3 decades. The introduction of cardiopulmonary bypass and cardioplegic arrest ushered in the true era of open heart surgery. Bioprostheses and mechanical valves as well as techniques for valve reconstruction permit routine repair or replacement of stenotic and regurgitant native valves. Progress in the disciplines of mechanical and electrical engineering has led to the development of pocket watch-sized, physiologically responsive pacemakers as well as a variety of circulatory assist devices that include the intraaortic balloon pump, ventricular assist device and total artificial heart. The synthesis of cardiotonic and vasoactive drugs and advancements in anesthetic management, postoperative monitoring and nursing care greatly facilitate perioperative patient management. This summary of state of the art cardiac surgery begins with a brief historical background followed by a review of recent advances in six main categories: coronary artery disease, acquired valvular heart disease, congenital cardiac disease, cardiac transplantation, myocardial preservation and mechanical circulatory assistance. In conducting the review of recent literature, particular attention was directed to large clinical series that document the results of contemporary surgical procedures, novel therapeutic approaches to current clinical problems and unresolved controversies in the field of cardiac surgery. The abundance of surgical literature and constraints on the length of this article do not permit an exhaustive review. Apologies are extended to clinicians and laboratory investigators whose important contributions to the understanding and treatment of cardiac disease are not included herein.