Outcome of Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Patients With Intermediate SYNTAX II Score.

Patients with intermediate SYNTAX II score have been representing a confusion in our daily practice for interventional cardiologists whether to treat them by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) using second generation drug eluting stents or by coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We enrolled 214 consecutive patients with intermediate SYNTAX II score to undergo revascularization (109 patients underwent PCI and 105 patients underwent CABG) after Heart Team discussion. We compared both procedures with respect to the primary composite end point of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization or stroke) at 40 months post procedure. At 40 months post revascularization procedure, the primary end-point occurred in 22 patients and 15 patients in the PCI and CABG groups, respectively (hazard ratio, 1.65; 95% confidence interval, 0.87-3.14; P = 0.13). No significant differences were detected between both groups regarding the composite incidence of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, target vessel revascularization, and stroke. CABG significantly provided better quality of life than PCI for patients with intermediate SYNTAX II score. In patients with intermediate SYNTAX II score, there was no statistically significant difference between the PCI using second generation drug eluting stents and CABG with respect to the incidence of MACCE at 40 months post revascularization procedure.

Current indications for stentless aortic bioprostheses.

The best aortic prostheses have been debated for decades. The introduction of stentless aortic bioprostheses was aimed at improving hemodynamics and potentially the durability of aortic bioprostheses. Despite the good short- and long-term outcomes after implantation of stentless aortic bioprostheses, their use remains limited owing to the technically demanding implantation techniques. Nevertheless, stentless aortic bioprostheses might be of special benefit in certain indications, where they could be a valuable addition to the surgical armamentarium.

The Use of Bilateral Internal Mammary Arteries for Coronary Revascularization in Patients with COPD: Is It a Good Idea?

BACKGROUND: The use of bilateral internal mammary arteries (BIMA) is limited worldwide, especially in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD). Thus, we assessed the safety of the use of BIMA in COPD patients. METHODS: From cohorts of 8846 patients operated on at our center for primary isolated multi-vessel coronary bypass operations between 2002 and 2012, we studied two propensity-matched groups of patients with COPD who received either single internal mammary artery and saphenous vein grafts (SIMA group: 137 patients) or exclusively BIMA (BIMA group: 137 patients). Preoperative data were similar regarding age (63.59 ± 10.62 versus 65.55 ± 9.61 years; P = .10), body mass index (BMI) (28.6 ± 4.71 versus 28.42 ± 3.86 kg/m2; P = .72), diabetes mellitus (32% versus 27%; P = .08), EuroSCORE (4.34 ± 2.23 versus 4.8 ± 2.52; P = .09) and ejection fraction (58.7 ± 13.08% versus 60.29 ± 14.13%; P = .32). RESULTS: No significant differences were noticed between the two groups regarding the number of peripheral anastomoses (3.07 ± 0.77 versus 3.06 ± 0.85; P = .90), total operation time (192.17 ± 43.06 versus 200.63 ± 39.24 min; P = .08), postoperative stroke (0.7% versus 0%; P = .29), myocardial infarction (2.92% versus 3.6%; P = .81), reintubation (2.9% versus 4.4%; P = .66), reexploration (0.7% versus 2.2%; P = .32), deep sternal wound infection (2.9% versus 3.6%; P = .81) and 30-day mortality (2.2% versus 2.9%; P = .77). However, postoperative blood loss (726.1 ± 468.35  versus 907 ± 890.58 mL; P = .03) was higher in the BIMA group. CONCLUSION: COPD patients can benefit from coronary artery revascularization with BIMA; however, postoperative blood loss can be higher using this technique.

Medtronic Freestyle aortic bioprosthesis: a potential option for haemodialysis patients†.

OBJECTIVES: End-stage renal disease patients on regular haemodialysis are at higher risk of calcification. Therefore, many surgeons have concerns regarding the implantation of bioprostheses in such patients. The haemodynamic advantages of stentless aortic bioprostheses support their use; however, these have not been studied yet in end-stage renal disease patients. We studied accordingly the early and mid-term outcomes of aortic valve replacement (AVR) using Medtronic Freestyle stentless aortic bioprostheses in this subset of patients in comparison with stented aortic bioprostheses. METHODS: We retrospectively studied two groups of consecutive patients on regular haemodialysis who required AVR between 2007 and 2013. Non-Freestyle (NFS) group received stented aortic bioprostheses (36 patients) and Freestyle (FS) group received Medtronic Freestyle aortic bioprostheses (48 patients). Follow-up ranged from 2 to 76 months with a mean follow-up of 36.3 ± 25 months. RESULTS: Patients in both groups showed similar demographic characters regarding age (76.4 ± 8.1 vs 74.9 ± 7.2 years; P = 0.35), male gender (58 vs 60%; P = 0.57) and diabetes mellitus (42 vs 48%; P = 0.57). Smaller aortic bioprostheses were implanted in the NFS (23.3 ± 1.2 vs 25.4 ± 2.1; P < 0.001) with consequently higher postoperative mean gradients (14.1 ± 4.1 vs 11.9 ± 5.3 mmHg; P = 0.004). No significant differences were noted regarding postoperative neurological disorder (8 vs 12%; P = 0.73), deep sternal wound infection (3 vs 4%; P = 0.68), re-exploration (8 vs 8%; P = 0.91) and in-hospital mortality (6 vs 4%; P = 0.92). Mid-term follow-up showed higher prosthetic valve calcification and/or sclerosis in NFS group (25 vs 6%; P = 0.015), whereas no significant differences were noticed between the two groups regarding stroke (0 vs 8%; P = 0.13), endocarditis (0 vs 4%; P = 0.50), 36- and 72-month survival (51 ± 2%, 14 ± 4% vs 55 ± 2%, 19 ± 3%, respectively; P = 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: Aortic bioprostheses are a good option for haemodialysis patients requiring AVR, offering acceptable mid-term survival. The Medtronic Freestyle aortic bioprostheses could allow the implantation of larger bioprostheses inferring consequently lower mean gradients, with a potentially higher resistance to calcification and sclerosis in haemodialysis patients.