Oral Anticoagulation Use and Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion in LAAOS III.

BACKGROUND: LAAOS III (Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Study III) showed that left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion reduces the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing cardiac surgery. This article examines the effect of LAA occlusion on stroke reduction according to variation in the use of oral anticoagulant (OAC) therapy. METHODS: Information regarding OAC use was collected at every follow-up visit. Adjusted proportional hazards modeling, including using landmarks of hospital discharge, 1 and 2 years after randomization, evaluated the effect of LAA occlusion on the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism, according to OAC use. Adjusted proportional hazard modeling, with OAC use as a time-dependent covariate, was also performed to assess the effect of LAA occlusion, according to OAC use throughout the study. RESULTS: At hospital discharge, 3027 patients (63.5%) were receiving a vitamin K antagonist, and 879 (18.5%) were receiving a non-vitamin K antagonist oral anticoagulant (direct OAC), with no difference in OAC use between treatment arms. There were 2887 (60.5%) patients who received OACs at all follow-up visits, 1401 (29.4%) who received OAC at some visits, and 472 (9.9%) who never received OACs. The effect of LAA occlusion on the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism was consistent after discharge across all 3 groups: hazard ratios of 0.70 (95% CI, 0.51-0.96), 0.63 (95% CI, 0.43-0.94), and 0.76 (95% CI, 0.32-1.79), respectively. An adjusted proportional hazards model with OAC use as a time-dependent covariate showed that the reduction in stroke or systemic embolism with LAA occlusion was similar whether patients were receiving OACs or not. CONCLUSIONS: The benefit of LAA occlusion was consistent whether patients were receiving OACs or not. LAA occlusion provides thromboembolism reduction in patients independent of OAC use.

Cost Implications of Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion During Cardiac Surgery: A Cost Analysis of the LAAOS III Trial.

Background The LAAOS III (Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion Study) clinical trial demonstrated that concomitant left atrial appendage (LAA) occlusion leads to a lower risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism compared with no occlusion in participants with atrial fibrillation and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of ≥2 undergoing cardiac surgery for another indication. We report the cost implications of concomitant LAA occlusion during cardiac surgery. Methods and Results Using LAAOS III data, we compared the costs (in US dollars) associated with LAA occlusion to no occlusion from the perspective of the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services. We calculated the average cost per participant during the trial by applying Medicare reimbursement costs to cardiovascular events for all trial participants. We conducted sensitivity analyses, varying the cost of stroke ±25% and occlusion technique use. Cost neutrality was defined as a mean cost difference within ±5% of the cost per participant in the no-occlusion group. Total study cost per participant was $3878 in the LAA occlusion group and $4490 in the no-occlusion group, a mean difference of -$612 (95% CI, -$1276 to $45). The main drivers of cost savings were fewer stroke events during the trial (mean difference of -$1021). In sensitivity analyses, LAA occlusion was cost saving for suture and stapler techniques but more expensive with closure device. Conclusions Concomitant LAA occlusion was cost saving for participants in LAAOS III. Our findings support concomitant LAA occlusion as an economically dominant strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of ≥2 undergoing cardiac surgery.

High-Sensitivity Troponin I after Cardiac Surgery and 30-Day Mortality.

BACKGROUND: Consensus recommendations regarding the threshold levels of cardiac troponin elevations for the definition of perioperative myocardial infarction and clinically important periprocedural myocardial injury in patients undergoing cardiac surgery range widely (from >10 times to ≥70 times the upper reference limit for the assay). Limited evidence is available to support these recommendations. METHODS: We undertook an international prospective cohort study involving patients 18 years of age or older who underwent cardiac surgery. High-sensitivity cardiac troponin I measurements (upper reference limit, 26 ng per liter) were obtained 3 to 12 hours after surgery and on days 1, 2, and 3 after surgery. We performed Cox analyses using a regression spline that explored the relationship between peak troponin measurements and 30-day mortality, adjusting for scores on the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II (which estimates the risk of death after cardiac surgery on the basis of 18 variables, including age and sex). RESULTS: Of 13,862 patients included in the study, 296 (2.1%) died within 30 days after surgery. Among patients who underwent isolated coronary-artery bypass grafting or aortic-valve replacement or repair, the threshold troponin level, measured within 1 day after surgery, that was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio of more than 1.00 for death within 30 days was 5670 ng per liter (95% confidence interval [CI], 1045 to 8260), a level 218 times the upper reference limit. Among patients who underwent other cardiac surgery, the corresponding threshold troponin level was 12,981 ng per liter (95% CI, 2673 to 16,591), a level 499 times the upper reference limit. CONCLUSIONS: The levels of high-sensitivity troponin I after cardiac surgery that were associated with an increased risk of death within 30 days were substantially higher than levels currently recommended to define clinically important periprocedural myocardial injury. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; VISION Cardiac Surgery ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01842568.).

Ross for Valve replacement In AduLts (REVIVAL) pilot trial: rationale and design of a randomised controlled trial.

INTRODUCTION: In non-elderly adults, aortic valve replacement (AVR) with conventional prostheses yield poor long-term outcomes. Recent publications suggest a benefit of the Ross procedure over conventional AVR and highlight the need for high-quality randomised controlled trial (RCTs) on the optimal AVR. We have initiated a pilot trial assess two feasibility criteria and one assumption: (1) evaluate the capacity to enrol six patients per centre per year in at least five international centre, (2) validate greater than 90% compliance with allocation and (3) to validate the proportion of mechanical (≥65%) vs biological (≤35%) valves in the conventional arm. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Ross for Valve replacement In AduLts (REVIVAL) is a multinational, expertise-based RCT in adults aged 18-60 years undergoing AVR, comparing the Ross procedure versus one of the alternative approaches (mechanical vs stented or stentless bioprosthesis). The feasibility objectives will be assessed after randomising 60 patients; we will then make a decision regarding whether to expand the trial with the current protocol. We will ultimately examine the impact of the Ross procedure as compared with conventional AVR in non-elderly adults on survival free of valve-related life-threatening complications (major bleeding, systemic thromboembolism, valve thrombosis and valve reoperation) over the duration of follow-up. The objectives of the pilot trial will be analysed using descriptive statistics. In the full trial, the intention-to-treat principle will guide all primary analyses. A time-to-event analysis will be performed and Kaplan-Meier survival curves with comparison between groups using a log rank test will be presented. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: REVIVAL will answer whether non-elderly adults benefit from the Ross procedure over conventional valve replacement. The final results at major meetings, journals, regional seminars, hospital rounds and via the Reducing Global Perioperative Risk Multimedia Resource Centre. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03798782 PROTOCOL VERSION: January 29, 2019 (Final Version 1.0).

Left Atrial Appendage Occlusion during Cardiac Surgery to Prevent Stroke.

BACKGROUND: Surgical occlusion of the left atrial appendage has been hypothesized to prevent ischemic stroke in patients with atrial fibrillation, but this has not been proved. The procedure can be performed during cardiac surgery undertaken for other reasons. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized trial involving participants with atrial fibrillation and a CHA2DS2-VASc score of at least 2 (on a scale from 0 to 9, with higher scores indicating greater risk of stroke) who were scheduled to undergo cardiac surgery for another indication. The participants were randomly assigned to undergo or not undergo occlusion of the left atrial appendage during surgery; all the participants were expected to receive usual care, including oral anticoagulation, during follow-up. The primary outcome was the occurrence of ischemic stroke (including transient ischemic attack with positive neuroimaging) or systemic embolism. The participants, research personnel, and primary care physicians (other than the surgeons) were unaware of the trial-group assignments. RESULTS: The primary analysis population included 2379 participants in the occlusion group and 2391 in the no-occlusion group, with a mean age of 71 years and a mean CHA2DS2-VASc score of 4.2. The participants were followed for a mean of 3.8 years. A total of 92.1% of the participants received the assigned procedure, and at 3 years, 76.8% of the participants continued to receive oral anticoagulation. Stroke or systemic embolism occurred in 114 participants (4.8%) in the occlusion group and in 168 (7.0%) in the no-occlusion group (hazard ratio, 0.67; 95% confidence interval, 0.53 to 0.85; P = 0.001). The incidence of perioperative bleeding, heart failure, or death did not differ significantly between the trial groups. CONCLUSIONS: Among participants with atrial fibrillation who had undergone cardiac surgery, most of whom continued to receive ongoing antithrombotic therapy, the risk of ischemic stroke or systemic embolism was lower with concomitant left atrial appendage occlusion performed during the surgery than without it. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; LAAOS III ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01561651.).

SUPERIOR SVG: no touch saphenous harvesting to improve patency following coronary bypass grafting (a multi-Centre randomized control trial, NCT01047449).

BACKGROUND: Single centre studies support No Touch (NT) saphenous vein graft (SVG) harvesting technique. The primary objective of the SUPERIOR SVG study was to determine whether NT versus conventional (CON) SVG harvesting was associated with improved SVG patency 1 year after coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (CABG). METHODS: Adults undergoing isolated CABG with at least 1 SVG were eligible. CT angiography was performed 1-year post CABG. Leg adverse events were assessed with a questionnaire. A systematic review was performed for published NT graft patency studies and results aggregated including the SUPERIOR study results. RESULTS: Two hundred and-fifty patients were randomized across 12-centres (NT 127 versus CON 123 patients). The primary outcome (study SVG occlusion or cardiovascular (CV) death) was not significantly different in NT versus CON (NT: 7/127 (5.5%), CON 13/123 (10.6%), p = 0.15). Similarly, the proportion of study SVGs with significant stenosis or total occlusion was not significantly different between groups (NT: 8/102 (7.8%), CON: 16/107 (15.0%), p = 0.11). Vein harvest site infection was more common in the NT patients 1 month postoperatively (23.3% vs 9.5%, p < 0.01). Including this study's results, in a meta-analysis, NT was associated with a significant reduction in SVG occlusion, Odds Ratio 0.49, 95% Confidence Interval 0.29-0.82, p = 0.007 in 3 randomized and 1 observational study at 1 year postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: The NT technique was not associated with improved patency of SVGs at 1-year following CABG while early vein harvest infection was increased. The aggregated data is supportive of an important reduction of SVG occlusion at 1 year with NT harvesting. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01047449 .

Examination of psychological risk factors for chronic pain following cardiac surgery: protocol for a prospective observational study.

INTRODUCTION: Approximately 400 000 Americans and 36 000 Canadians undergo cardiac surgery annually, and up to 56% will develop chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP). The primary aim of this study is to explore the association of pain-related beliefs and gender-based pain expectations on the development of CPSP. Secondary goals are to: (A) explore risk factors for poor functional status and patient-level cost of illness from a societal perspective up to 12 months following cardiac surgery; and (B) determine the impact of CPSP on quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) borne by cardiac surgery, in addition to the incremental cost for one additional QALY gained, among those who develop CPSP compared with those who do not. METHODS AND ANALYSES: In this prospective cohort study, 1250 adults undergoing cardiac surgery, including coronary artery bypass grafting and open-heart procedures, will be recruited over a 3-year period. Putative risk factors for CPSP will be captured prior to surgery, at postoperative day 3 (in hospital) and day 30 (at home). Outcome data will be collected via telephone interview at 6-month and 12-month follow-up. We will employ generalised estimating equations to model the primary (CPSP) and secondary outcomes (function and cost) while adjusting for prespecified model covariates. QALYs will be estimated by converting data from the Short Form-12 (version 2) to a utility score. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This protocol has been approved by the responsible bodies at each of the hospital sites, and study enrolment began May 2015. We will disseminate our results through CardiacPain.Net, a web-based knowledge dissemination platform, presentation at international conferences and publications in scientific journals. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01842568.