Effects of myocardial viability and left ventricular remodeling on survival of patients with heart failure and reduced ejection fraction after coronary artery bypass grafting

Assessment of Myocardial Viability in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy With Reduced Left Ventricular Function Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

BACKGROUND

We aim to provide a comprehensive review of the current state of knowledge of myocardial viability assessment in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), with a focus on the clinical markers of viability for each imaging modality. We also compare mortality between patients with viable myocardium and those without viability who undergo CABG.

METHODS

A systematic database search with meta-analysis was conducted of comparative original articles (both observations and randomized controlled studies) of patients undergoing CABG with either viable or nonviable myocardium, in EMBASE, MEDLINE, Cochrane database, and Google Scholar, from inception to 2022. Imaging modalities included were dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE), cardiac magnetic resonance (CMR), single-photon emission computed tomography (SPECT), and positron emission tomography (PET).

RESULTS

A total of 17 studies incorporating a total of 2317 patients were included. Across all imaging modalities, the relative risk of death post-CABG was reduced in patients with versus without viability (random-effects model: odds ratio: 0.42; 95% confidence interval: 0.29-0.61; p < 0.001). Imaging for myocardial viability has significant clinical implications as it can affect the accuracy of the diagnosis, guide treatment decisions, and predict patient outcomes. Generally, based on local availability and expertise, either SPECT or DSE should be considered as the first step in evaluating viability, while PET or CMR would provide further evaluation of transmurality, perfusion metabolism, and extent of scar tissue.

CONCLUSION

The assessment of myocardial viability is an essential component of preoperative evaluation in patients with ischemic heart disease undergoing surgical revascularization. Careful patient selection and individualized assessment of viability remain paramount.

Surgical Management of Ischemic Cardiomyopathy Patients with Severe Left Ventricular Dysfunction: Is It Time to Reconsider Revascularization Surgery?

Ischemic cardiomyopathy patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction are a specific group of patients with poor surgical outcomes. There are few surgical treatment options in practice for the treatment of these patients such as heart transplantation, coronary artery bypass surgery, surgical ventricular restoration, etc. Despite multiple treatment options, there are no explicit clinical guidelines available to guide surgeons in choosing the most appropriate option and ensuring that the specific patient can benefit from the selected surgical treatment. Heart transplantation is the gold standard treatment for ischemic cardiomyopathy patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction, but it is limited to very few highly equipped centers around the world due to donor shortages, complex perioperative and surgical management, and limited technological and human resources. It is evident from some studies that heart transplant-eligible candidates can benefit from alternative surgical options such as coronary artery bypass surgery alone or combined with surgical ventricular restoration. Therefore, alternative surgical options that are used for most of the population, especially in developing and underdeveloped countries, need to be discussed to improve their outcomes. A challenge in the recent era which has yet to find a solution is to determine which heart transplant candidate can benefit from simple revascularization compared to a complex heart transplantation procedure. Myocardial viability testing was one of the most important determinants in deciding whether a patient should undergo revascularization, but its role in guiding appropriate surgical options has been challenged. This review aims to discuss the available surgical management options and their long-term outcomes for patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy, which will eventually help surgeons when choosing a surgical procedure.

Long-term survival of ischemic cardiomyopathy patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction after CABG vs heart transplantation: A single center retrospective analysis

BACKGROUND

There are no guidelines on the surgical management for ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction. The present study aims to assess the long-term survival of these patients treated with two different surgical techniques, coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and heart transplantation (HTx).

METHODS

This retrospective study included 218 ICM patients with left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% who underwent CABG (n = 106) and HTx (n = 112) from 2011 to 2021 in a single center. After propensity adjustment analysis each group consisted of 51 patients. Clinical characteristics were evaluated for all-cause follow-up mortality by the Cox proportional hazards regression model. A risk prediction model was generated from multivariable-adjusted Cox regression analysis and applied to stratify patients with different clinical risks. The long-term survival was estimated by Kaplan-Meier analysis for different surgery groups.

RESULTS

Long-term survival was comparable between CABG and HTx groups. After being stratified into different risk subgroups according to risk predictors, the HTx group exhibited superior survival outcomes compared to the CABG group among the high-risk patients (67.8% vs 44.4%, 64.1% vs 38.9%, and 64.1% vs 33.3%, p = 0.047) at 12, 36, and 60 months respectively, while the survival was comparable between HTx and CABG groups among low-risk patients (87.0% vs 97.0%, 82.4% vs 97.0%, and 70.2% vs 91.6%, p = 0.11) at 12, 36, and 60 months respectively in the PSM cohort.

CONCLUSION

Long-term survival in ICM patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction who received CABG or HTx was comparable in general. Nonetheless, a favorable outcome of HTx surgery compared to CABG was observed among high-risk patients.

Outcomes of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients With Poor Myocardial Viability: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of the Last Decade

OBJECTIVES

Our objective is to assess whether the presence of myocardial viability is a predictor of mortality among patients undergoing coronary artery bypasss grafting (CABG) through a systematic review meta-analysis.

METHODS

Comprehensive review of EMBASE and PubMed in accordance with PRISMA guidelines, including studies of patients undergoing CABG with assessment of myocardial viability and recorded long-term mortality, age and sex. Studies were restricted to the last decade, and data were stratified by imaging modality (magnetic resonance imaging [MRI] or nuclear medicine). Random-effects model for assessing pooled effect, heterogeneity assessment using Chi-square and I² statistics, publication bias assessed by funnel plots and Egger's test.

RESULTS

Meta-analysis of contemporary data (January 2010 to October 2020) yielded 3,621 manuscripts of which 92 were relevant, and 6 appropriate for inclusion with 993 patients. Pooled analysis showed that patients with non-viable myocardium undergoing CABG are at 1.34 times the risk of mortality compared to those with viable myocardium (95% CI 1.01-1.79, p=0.05). Subgroup analysis of the MRI or nuclear medicine modalities was not statistically significant and there was no confounding by age or sex in meta-regression. There was significant heterogeneity in imaging modality and diagnostic criteria, but heterogeneity between study findings was low with an I² statistic of 29%. The risk of publication bias was moderate on the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale), but not statistically significant (Egger's Test coefficient=1.3, 95%CI -0.35-2.61, p=0.10).

CONCLUSIONS

There is a multitude of methods for assessing cardiac viability for coronary revascularisation surgery, making meta-analyses fraught with limitations. Our meta-analysis demonstrates that the finding of non-viable myocardium can not be used draw conclusions for risk assessment in coronary surgery.