ABSTRACT
Abstract Objective: To evaluate whether there is any difference on the results of patients treated with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) in the setting of ischemic heart failure (HF). Methods: Databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Cochrane Controlled Trials Register [CENTRAL/CCTR], ClinicalTrials.gov, Scientific Electronic Library Online [SciELO], Literatura Latino-americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde [LILACS], and Google Scholar) were searched for studies published until February 2019. Main outcomes of interest were mortality, myocardial infarction, repeat revascularization, and stroke. Results: The search yielded 5,775 studies for inclusion. Of these, 20 articles were analyzed, and their data were extracted. The total number of patients included was 54,173, and those underwent CABG (N=29,075) or PCI (N=25098). The hazard ratios (HRs) for mortality (HR 0.763; 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.678-0.859; P<0.001), myocardial infarction (HR 0.481; 95% CI 0.365-0.633; P<0.001), and repeat revascularization (HR 0.321; 95% CI 0.241-0.428; P<0.001) were lower in the CABG group than in the PCI group. The HR for stroke showed no statistically significant difference between the groups (random effect model: HR 0.879; 95% CI 0.625-1.237; P=0.459). Conclusion: This meta-analysis found that CABG surgery remains the best option for patients with ischemic HF, without increase in the risk of stroke.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Aged , Coronary Artery Bypass/mortality , Myocardial Ischemia/surgery , Stroke/etiology , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/mortality , Heart Failure/surgery , Postoperative Complications/etiology , Postoperative Complications/mortality , Brazil/epidemiology , Review Literature as Topic , Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic , Meta-Analysis as Topic , Coronary Artery Bypass/adverse effects , Epidemiologic Methods , Multicenter Studies as Topic , Treatment Outcome , Practice Guidelines as Topic , Myocardial Ischemia/mortality , Evidence-Based Medicine , Stroke/mortality , Percutaneous Coronary Intervention/adverse effectsABSTRACT
Abstract Prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) is an issue that has been overlooked (not to say neglected). Cardiac surgeons must bear in mind that this is a real problem that we must tackle. The purpose of this paper is to be a wake-up call to the surgical community by giving a brief overview of what PPM is, its incidence and impact on the outcomes. We also discuss the increasing role played by imaging for predicting and assessing PPM after SAVR (with which surgeons must become more acquainted) and, finally, we present some options to avoid PPM after the surgical procedure.
Subject(s)
Humans , Prosthesis Failure/adverse effects , Heart Valve Prosthesis/adverse effects , Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement/adverse effects , Postoperative Complications/mortality , Postoperative Complications/diagnostic imaging , Severity of Illness Index , Risk Factors , Treatment Failure , Risk Assessment , Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement/mortalityABSTRACT
Abstract The best treatment for patients with ischemic heart failure (HF) is still on debate. There is growing evidence that coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) benefits these patients. The current recommendations for revascularization in this context are that CABG is reasonable when it comes to decreasing morbidity and mortality rates for patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction (ejection fraction <35%), and significant coronary artery disease (CAD) and should be considered in patients with operable coronary anatomy, regardless whether or not there is a viable myocardium (class IIb). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) does not have enough data to allow the panels to reach a conclusion. The Korean Acute Heart Failure registry (KorAHF) had its data released recently, showing that patients with acute HF who underwent CABG had lower death rates, more complete revascularization and less adverse outcomes compared with patients treated with PCI. Recent ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization clearly recommended CABG as the first choice of revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel disease and acceptable surgical risk to improve prognosis in this scenario of left ventricular dysfunction. However, a high peri-procedural risk must be compared with the benefit of late mortality, and pros and cons of each strategy (either PCI or CABG) must be weighed in the decision-making process. Spurred on by the publication of the above-mentioned article and the release of new guidelines, we went on to write an overview of the current practice of state-of-the-art coronary revascularization options in patients with HF.