Off-pump Revascularization with Bilateral versus Single Mammary Arteries-A Propensity Score-Matched Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Coronary artery bypass grafting is the first-line therapy for severe multivessel coronary artery disease. We aimed to investigate the clinical outcome in patients undergoing isolated off-pump surgery with the single or bilateral internal mammary artery (SIMA or BIMA) approach. METHODS: We performed a propensity score-matched analysis in 1,852 consecutive patients, aged 50 to 70 years, who underwent myocardial revascularization at our institution between July 2009 and August 2016. Primary end point was the probability of survival. RESULTS: Mean follow-up was 36.3 (range: 0.1-89.6) months. The probability of survival in the SIMA and BIMA groups was 98.6 and 99.0% at year 1, 92.0 and 92.5% at year 5, and 85.6 and 81.6% at year 7, respectively, with a hazard ratio (HR) of mortality for the BIMA group versus the SIMA group of 0.98 (95% confidence interval[CI]: 0.64-1.52; p = 0.94). There was evidence for interaction between diabetes and study group on mortality risk (HR = 2.59, 95% CI: 1.07-6.23; p = 0.034). Freedom from mediastinitis/wound infection was higher in the SIMA group than in the BIMA group (99.5 and 96.9%, respectively; HR of an event = 6.39, 95% CI: 2.88-14.18; p < 0.001). The corresponding values in the subgroups of diabetic patients were 98.6 and 90.9%, respectively (HR = 6.45, 95% CI: 2.24-18.58; p = 0.001). Mediastinitis/wound infection was associated with increased mortality risk (HR = 2.96, 95% CI: 1.29-6.78; p = 0.010). CONCLUSION: Overall, our data indicate similar probability of survival up to a maximum follow-up of 7 years by off-pump surgery with the SIMA or BIMA approach. However, in diabetic patients, the clinical outcome indicates caution regarding the use of the BIMA approach.

Minimally invasive versus transapical versus transfemoral aortic valve implantation: A one-to-one-to-one propensity score-matched analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Although transcatheter aortic valve implantation was the treatment of choice in inoperable and high-risk patients, the effect of transcatheter aortic valve implantation relative to conventional aortic valve replacement via ministernotomy in patients with moderate surgical risk remains unclear. METHODS: We consecutively enrolled patients who underwent minimally invasive aortic valve replacements via ministernotomy (n = 1929), transapical (n = 607), and transfemoral (n = 1273) aortic valve implantations from a single center during the period from July 2009 to July 2017. Of those, we conducted a 1:1:1 propensity score matching according to 23 preoperative risk factors. RESULTS: We were able to find 177 triplets (n = 531). The median European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II was 3.0% versus 3.4% versus 2.9%, and Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality was 3.2% versus 3.6% versus 3.4%, respectively. According to the Valve Academic Research Consortium 2 criteria, there were no significant periprocedural differences regarding 30-day mortality (2.3% minimally invasive aortic valve replacement vs 4.5% transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs 1.7% transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation, P = .34), stroke (1.1% minimally invasive aortic valve replacement vs 0.6% transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs 1.7% transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation, P = .84), or myocardial infarction (0.6% minimally invasive aortic valve replacement vs 0.0% transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation vs 0.0% transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation, P = .83). Both intensive care and hospitalization times were significantly longer in the transapical group. Regarding midterm survival, transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation was associated with a tendency toward a less favorable outcome (hazard ratio, 1.48; 95% confidence interval, 0.95-2.31; P = .17) compared with minimally invasive aortic valve replacement. CONCLUSIONS: In this real-world propensity score-matched minimally invasive aortic valve replacement, transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation, transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve implantation cohort of intermediate-risk patients, early mortality was not significantly different, whereas the rates of periprocedural complications were different depending on the approach. During follow-up, there was a tendency in the transapical transcatheter aortic valve implantation group toward a less favorable survival outcome, although there was no significant difference among the 3 groups.