Infection remediation after septic device extractions: analysis of three treatment strategies including a 1-year follow-up.

Introduction: In CIED infections, all device material needs to be removed. But, especially in pacemaker-dependent patients it is often not possible to realize a device-free interval for infection remediation. In those patients, different treatment options are available, however the ideal solution needs still to be defined. Methods: This retrospective analysis includes 190 patients undergoing CIED extractions due to infection. Three different treatment algorithms were analyzed: Group 1 included 89 patients with system removal only (System removal group). In Group 2, 28 patients received an epicardial electrode during extraction procedure (Epicardial lead group) while 78 patients in group 3 (contralateral reimplantation group) received implantation of a new system contralaterally during extraction procedure. We analyzed peri- and postoperative data as well as 1-year outcomes of the three groups. Results: Patients in the system removal and epicardial lead groups were significantly older, had more comorbidities, and suffered more frequently from systemic infections than those in contralateral reimplantation group. Lead extraction procedures had comparable success rates: 95.5%, 96.4%, and 93.2% of complete lead removal in the System removal, Epicardial Lead, Contralateral re-implantation group respectively. Device reimplantation was performed in all patients in Epicardial lead and Contralateral reimplantation group, whereas only 49.4% in System removal group received device re-implantation. At 1-year follow-up, freedom from infection and absence of pocket irritation were comparable for all groups (94.7% Contralateral reimplantation group and Epicardial lead group, 100% System removal group). No procedure-related mortality was observed, whereas 1-year mortality was 3.4% in System removal group, 4.1% in Contralateral re-implantation group and 21.4% in Epicardial lead group (p < 0.001). Conclusion: In patients with CIED infection, systems should be removed completely and reimplanted after infection remediation. In pacemaker-dependent patients, simultaneous contralateral CIED re-implantation or epicardial lead placement may be performed, depending on route, severity and location of infection.

Prognostic impact of secondary prevention after coronary artery bypass grafting-insights from the TiCAB trial.

OBJECTIVES: There are disparities in the adherence to guideline-recommended therapies after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). We therefore sought to evaluate the effect of guideline-adherent medical secondary prevention on 1-year outcome after CABG. METHODS: Data were taken from the randomized 'Ticagrelor in CABG' trial. From April 2013 until April 2017, patients who underwent CABG were included. For the present analysis, we compared patients who were treated with optimal medical secondary prevention with those where 1 or more of the recommended medications were missing. RESULTS: Follow-up data at 12 months were available in 1807 patients. About half (54%) of them were treated with optimal secondary prevention. All-cause mortality [0.5% vs 3.5%, hazard ratio (HR) 0.14 (0.05-0.37), P < 0.01], cardiovascular mortality [0.1% vs 1.7%, HR 0.06 (0.01-0.46), P = 0.007] and major adverse events [6.5% vs 11.5%, HR 0.54 (0.39-0.74), P < 0.01] were significantly lower in the group with optimal secondary prevention. The multivariable model for the primary end point based on binary concordance to guideline recommended therapy identified 3 independent factors: adherence to guideline recommended therapy [HR 0.55 (0.39-0.78), P < 0.001]; normal renal function [HR 0.99 (0.98-0.99), P = 0.040]; and off-pump surgery [HR 2.06 (1.02-4.18), P = 0.045]. CONCLUSIONS: Only every second patient receives optimal secondary prevention after CABG. Guideline adherent secondary prevention therapy is associated with lower mid-term mortality and less adverse cardiovascular events after 12 months.

Randomized trial of ticagrelor vs. aspirin in patients after coronary artery bypass grafting: the TiCAB trial.

AIMS: The antiplatelet treatment strategy providing optimal balance between thrombotic and bleeding risks in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is unclear. We prospectively compared the efficacy of ticagrelor and aspirin after CABG. METHODS AND RESULTS: We randomly assigned in double-blind fashion patients scheduled for CABG to either ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily or 100 mg aspirin (1:1) once daily. The primary outcome was the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction (MI), repeat revascularization, and stroke 12 months after CABG. The main safety endpoint was based on the Bleeding Academic Research Consortium classification, defined as BARC ≥4 for periprocedural and hospital stay-related bleedings and BARC ≥3 for post-discharge bleedings. The study was prematurely halted after recruitment of 1859 out of 3850 planned patients. Twelve months after CABG, the primary endpoint occurred in 86 out of 931 patients (9.7%) in the ticagrelor group and in 73 out of 928 patients (8.2%) in the aspirin group [hazard ratio 1.19; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.87-1.62; P = 0.28]. All-cause mortality (ticagrelor 2.5% vs. aspirin 2.6%, hazard ratio 0.96, CI 0.53-1.72; P = 0.89), cardiovascular death (ticagrelor 1.2% vs. aspirin 1.4%, hazard ratio 0.85, CI 0.38-1.89; P = 0.68), MI (ticagrelor 2.1% vs. aspirin 3.4%, hazard ratio 0.63, CI 0.36-1.12, P = 0.12), and stroke (ticagrelor 3.1% vs. 2.6%, hazard ratio 1.21, CI 0.70-2.08; P = 0.49), showed no significant difference between the ticagrelor and aspirin group. The main safety endpoint was also not significantly different (ticagrelor 3.7% vs. aspirin 3.2%, hazard ratio 1.17, CI 0.71-1.92; P = 0.53). CONCLUSION: In this prematurely terminated and thus underpowered randomized trial of ticagrelor vs. aspirin in patients after CABG no significant differences in major cardiovascular events or major bleeding could be demonstrated. CLINICALTRIALS.GOV IDENTIFIER: NCT01755520.

Combined mitral valve repair and heart transplantation.

In times of donor organ shortage, organs with extended allocation criteria, for example, valve pathologies, have to be taken into consideration for transplantation. The donor pool can be extended to hearts with mitral valve insufficiency. Mitral valve repair can rapidly be performed in the donor heart on the back table with excellent results.

A randomized, parallel group, double-blind study of ticagrelor compared with aspirin for prevention of vascular events in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft operation: Rationale and design of the Ticagrelor in CABG (TiCAB) trial: An Investigator-Initiated trial.

BACKGROUND: For patients with coronary artery disease undergoing coronary bypass surgery, acetylsalicylic acid (ASA) currently represents the gold standard of antiplatelet treatment. However, adverse cardiovascular event rates in the first year after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) still exceed 10%. Graft failure, which is predominantly mediated by platelet aggregation, has been identified as a major contributing factor in this context. Therefore, intensified platelet inhibition is likely to be beneficial. Ticagrelor, an oral, reversibly binding and direct-acting P2Y12 receptor antagonist, provides a rapid, competent, and consistent platelet inhibition and has shown beneficial results compared with clopidogrel in the subset of patients undergoing bypass surgery in a large previous trial. HYPOTHESIS: Ticagrelor is superior to ASA for the prevention of major cardiovascular events within 1 year after CABG. STUDY DESIGN: The TiCAB trial (NCT01755520) is a multicenter, phase III, double-blind, double-dummy, randomized trial comparing ticagrelor with ASA for the prevention of major cardiovascular events within 12 months after CABG. Patients undergoing CABG will be randomized in a 1:1 fashion to either ticagrelor 90 mg twice daily or ASA 100 mg once daily. The study medication will be started within 24 hours after surgery and maintained for 12 months. The primary end point is the composite of cardiovascular death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeat revascularization at 12 months after CABG. The sample size is based on an expected event rate of 13% of the primary end point within the first 12 months after randomization in the control group, a 2-sided α level of .0492 (to preserve the overall significance level of .05 after planned interim analysis), a power of 0.80%, 2-sided testing, and an expected relative risk of 0.775 in the active group compared with the control group and a dropout rate of 2%. According to power calculations based on a superiority design for ticagrelor, it is estimated that 3,850 patients should be enrolled. SUMMARY: There is clinical equipoise on the issue of optimal platelet inhibition after CABG. The TiCAB trial will provide a pivotal comparison of the efficacy and safety of ticagrelor compared with ASA after CABG.