ABSTRACT
Abstract Background: The place of drug-eluting balloons (DEB) in the treatment of in-stent restenosis (ISR) is not well-defined, particularly in a population of all-comers with acute coronary syndromes (ACS). Objective: Compare the clinical outcomes of DEB with second-generation drug-eluting stents (DES) for the treatment of ISR in a real-world population with a high proportion of ACS. Methods: A retrospective analysis of consecutive patients with ISR treated with a DEB compared to patients treated with a second-generation DES was performed. The primary endpoint was a composite of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE: all-cause death, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and target lesion revascularization). Comparisons were performed using Cox proportional hazards multivariate adjustment and Kaplan-Meier analysis with log-rank. Results: The cohort included 91 patients treated with a DEB and 89 patients treated with a DES (74% ACS). Median follow-up was 26 months. MACE occurred in 33 patients (36%) in the DEB group, compared to 17 patients (19%) in the DES group (p log-rank = 0.02). After multivariate adjustment, there was no significant difference between the groups (HR for DEB = 1.45 [95%CI: 0.75-2.83]; p = 0.27). Mortality rates at 1 year were 11% with DEB, and 3% with DES (p = 0.04; adjusted HR = 2.85 [95%CI: 0.98-8.32]; p = 0.06). Conclusion: In a population with a high proportion of ACS, a non-significant numerical signal towards increased rates of MACE with DEB compared to second-generation DES for the treatment of ISR was observed, mainly driven by a higher mortality rate. An adequately-powered randomized controlled trial is necessary to confirm these findings.
Resumo Fundamento: O papel de balões farmacológicos (BFs) no tratamento de reestenose intra-stent (RIS) não está bem definido, particularmente em na síndrome coronária aguda (SCA). Objetivo: Comparar desfechos clínicos do uso de BF com stents farmacológicos (SFs) de segunda geração no tratamento de RIS em uma população real com alta prevalência de SCA. Métodos: Foi realizada uma análise retrospectiva de pacientes consecutivos com RIS tratados com um BF comparados a pacientes tratados com SF de segunda geração. O desfecho primário incluiu eventos cardiovasculares adversos importantes (morte por todas as causas, infarto do miocárdio não fatal, e revascularização da lesão alvo). As comparações foram realizadas pelo modelo proporcional de riscos de Cox ajustado e análise de Kaplan-Meier com log-rank. Resultados: A coorte incluiu 91 pacientes tratados com BF e 89 pacientes tratados com um SF (75% com SCA). O tempo mediano de acompanhamento foi de 26 meses. Eventos cardiovasculares adversos importantes ocorreram em 33 pacientes (36%) no grupo BF, e em 17 (19%) no grupo SF (p log-rank = 0,02). Após ajuste multivariado, não houve diferença significativa entre os grupos (HR para BF = 1,45 [IC95%: 0,75-2,83]; p = 0,27). As taxas de mortalidade de 1 ano foram 11% com BF, e 3% com SF (p = 0,04; HR ajustado = 2,85 [IC95%: 0,98-8,32; p = 0,06). Conclusão: Em uma população com alta prevalência de SCA, observou-se um aumento não significativo nas taxas de eventos cardiovasculares adversos importantes com o uso de BF comparado ao uso de SF de segunda geração para o tratamento de RIS, principalmente pelo aumento na taxa de mortalidade. É necessário um ensaio clínico controlado, randomizado, com poder estatístico adequado para confirmar esses achados.
Subject(s)
Humans , Male , Female , Middle Aged , Aged , Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary/instrumentation , Paclitaxel/therapeutic use , Coronary Restenosis/therapy , Acute Coronary Syndrome/therapy , Drug-Eluting Stents/adverse effects , Prosthesis Design , Time Factors , Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary/adverse effects , Angioplasty, Balloon, Coronary/methods , Multivariate Analysis , Reproducibility of Results , Retrospective Studies , Risk Factors , Treatment Outcome , Statistics, Nonparametric , Risk Assessment , Coated Materials, Biocompatible , Coronary Restenosis/mortality , Kaplan-Meier Estimate , Acute Coronary Syndrome/mortalityABSTRACT
The evolution of techniques and knowledge of beating heart surgery has led anesthesia toward the development of new procedures and innovations to promote patient safety and ensure high standards of care. Off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) surgery has shown to have some advantages compared to on-pump cardiac surgery, particularly the reduction of postoperative complications including systemic inflammation, myocardial injury, and cerebral injury. Minimally invasive surgery for single vessel OPCAB through a limited thoracotomy incision can offer the advantage of further reduction of complications. The anesthesiologist has to deal with different issues, including hemodynamic instability and myocardial ischemia during aorto-coronary bypass grafting. The anesthesiologist and surgeon should collaborate and plan the best perioperative strategy to provide optimal care and ensure a rapid and complete recovery. The use of high thoracic epidural analgesia and fast-track anesthesia offers particular benefits in beating heart surgery. The excellent analgesia, the ability to reduce myocardial oxygen consumption, and the good hemodynamic stability make high thoracic epidural analgesia an interesting technique. New scenarios are entering in cardiac anesthesia: ultra-fast-track anesthesia with extubation in the operating room and awake surgery tend to be less invasive, but can only be performed on selected patients.
Subject(s)
Aged , Anesthesia, Epidural/methods , Cardiac Surgical Procedures/methods , Coronary Artery Bypass, Off-Pump/methods , Humans , Male , Monitoring, Intraoperative/methodsABSTRACT
Background: Volatile anesthetics provide myocardial protection during cardiac surgery. Sevoflurane and desflurane are both efficient agents that allow immediate extubation after off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCABG). This study compared the incidence of arrhythmias after OPCABG with the two agents. Materials and Methods: Forty patients undergoing OPCABG with immediate extubation and perioperative high thoracic analgesia were included in this controlled, double-blind study; anesthesia was either provided using 1 MAC of sevoflurane (SEVO-group) or desflurane (DES-group). Monitoring of perioperative arrhythmias was provided by continuous monitoring of the EKG up to 72 hours after surgery, and routine EKG monitoring once every day, until time of discharge. Patient data, perioperative arrhythmias, and myocardial protection (troponin I, CK, CK-MB-ratio, and transesophageal echocardiography examinations) were compared using t-test, Fisher's exact test or two-way analysis of variance for repeated measurements; P < 0.05. Results: Patient data and surgery-related data were similar between the two groups; all the patients were successfully extubated immediately after surgery, with similar emergence times. Supraventricular tachycardia occurred only in the DES-group (5 of 20 patients), atrial fibrillation was significantly more frequent in the DES group versus SEVO-group, at five out of 20 versus one out of 20 patients, respectively. Myocardial protection was equally achieved in both groups. Discussion: Ultra-fast track anesthesia using sevoflurane seems more advantageous than desflurane for anesthesia, for OPCABG, as it is associated with significantly less atrial fibrillation or supraventricular arrhythmias after surgery.