How decisive is the number of distal arterial anastomoses in coronary bypass surgery?

The Canadian Women's Heart Health Alliance Atlas on the Epidemiology, Diagnosis, and Management of Cardiovascular Disease in Women - Chapter 6: Sex- and Gender-Specific Diagnosis and Treatment

This chapter summarizes the sex- and gender-specific diagnosis and treatment of acute/unstable presentations and nacute/stable presentations of cardiovascular disease in women. Guidelines, scientific statements, systematic reviews/meta-analyses, and primary research studies related to diagnosis and treatment of coronary artery disease, cerebrovascular disease (stroke), valvular heart disease, and heart failure in women were reviewed. The evidence is summarized as a narrative, and when available, sex- and gender-specific practice and research recommendations are provided. Acute coronary syndrome presentations and emergency department delays are different in women than they are in men. Coronary angiography remains the gold-standard test for diagnosis of obstructive coronary artery disease. Other diagnostic imaging modalities for ischemic heart disease detection (eg, positron emission tomography, echocardiography, single-photon emission computed tomography, cardiovascular magnetic resonance, coronary computed tomography angiography) have been shown to be useful in women, with their selection dependent upon both the goal of the individualized assessment and the testing resources available. Noncontrast computed tomography and computed tomography angiography are used to diagnose stroke in women. Although sex-specific differences appear to exist in the efficacy of standard treatments for diverse presentations of acute coronary syndrome, many cardiovascular drugs and interventions tested in clinical trials were not powered to detect sex-specific differences, and knowledge gaps remain. Similarly, although knowledge is evolving about sex-specific difference in the management of valvular heart disease, and heart failure with both reduced and preserved ejection fraction, current guidelines are lacking in sex-specific recommendations, and more research is needed.

What does complete revascularization mean in 2021? - Definitions, implications, and biases

PURPOSE OF REVIEW

Coronary revascularization is known to be an excellent treatment for coronary artery disease. However, whether incomplete myocardial revascularization compromises long-term outcomes, as compared to complete revascularization (CR), remains contentious. Herein, we review the concept of and evidence on CR/incomplete revascularization (ICR) and discuss future perspectives.

RECENT FINDINGS

When possible, achieving CR in coronary artery bypass grafting is desirable; nonetheless, ICR is also a reasonable option to balance the therapeutic benefits against the risks.

SUMMARY

Although angiography-based assessment currently remains the standard of care, fractional flow reserve guidance may reduce the number of lesions requiring revascularization, which may be helpful for an appropriate surgical revascularization strategy. In particular, utilizing this approach may refine hybrid revascularization procedures, especially among high-risk patients.

Impact of Bilateral versus Single Internal Thoracic Artery Grafting on the Long-Term Survival in Adults: A Systematic Review

Objective

To analyse the survival of patients who had undergone bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting versus those with single internal thoracic artery grafting from the available literature. Moreover, this study will review the available literature regarding which of the two techniques seems to be the safest with long-term survival and reduced mortality rates.

Methods

A literature search of the databases was conducted to retrieve studies that fall under the study design of cohort and randomized controlled clinical trials in English from January 2015 to July 2021. Finally, seven studies were selected: four cohort studies and three other from a randomized trial.

Results

The cohort studies revealed that bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting is associated with lower mortality rates and better long-term survival outcomes than single internal thoracic artery grafting, while the ART randomized controlled clinical trials showed that there is no significant difference in mortality rates between both the coronary artery bypass grafting techniques. However, all studies concluded that bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting is associated with a higher frequency of deep sternal wound infections.

Conclusion

The discrepancy in results between the cohort studies and randomized controlled clinical trial remains persistent. However, the stated advantages of bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting are not strong enough to convince surgeons to alter their practice and the wide magnitude of expectations from the ART study was reckoned as inadequate. This may well be due to the presence of limited criteria for bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting in identifying the impact on survival of extended arterial revascularization, and there is a new colossal expectation from the ongoing randomized trial based on multiple arterial grafting versus single arterial grafting.