Bilateral internal thoracic artery versus single internal thoracic artery plus radial artery: A double meta-analytic approach.

OBJECTIVES: We explored the current evidence on the best second conduit in coronary surgery carrying out a double meta-analysis of propensity score matched or adjusted studies comparing bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) versus single internal thoracic artery plus radial artery. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched for propensity score matched or adjusted studies comparing BITA versus single internal thoracic artery plus radial artery. The end point was long-term mortality. Two statistical approaches were used: the generic inverse variance method and the pooled meta-analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived individual patient data. RESULTS: Twelve matched populations comparing 6450 patients with BITA versus 9428 patients with single internal thoracic artery plus radial artery were included in our meta-analysis. The generic inverse variance method showed a statistically significant survival benefit of the BITA group (hazard ratio, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.74-0.95; P = .04). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival at 1, 5, 10, and 15 years of the BITA group were 97.0%, 91.3%, 80.0%, and 68.0%, respectively. The Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival at 1, 5, 10, and 15 years of the single internal thoracic artery plus radial artery group were 97.3%, 91.5%, 79.9%, and 63.9%, respectively. The Kaplan-Meier-derived individual patient data meta-analysis applied to very long follow-up time data, showed that BITA provided a survival benefit after 10 years from surgery (hazard ratio, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.63-0.94; P = .01). No differences in terms of survival between the 2 groups were detected when the analysis was focused on the first 10 years of follow-up (hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.91-1.09; P = .93). CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis suggests that double internal thoracic artery may provide, compared with single internal thoracic artery plus radial artery, a statistically significant survival advantage after 10 years of follow-up, but not before. VIDEO ABSTRACT.

Coronary surgery provides better survival than drug-eluting stent: A pooled meta-analysis of Kaplan- Meier-derived individual patient data.

OBJECTIVES: We explored the current evidence on coronary disease treatment comparing the survival of 2 therapeutic strategies: coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) with drug-eluting stent (DES). METHODS: PubMed, Embase, and Google Scholar were searched for randomized clinical trials comparing CABG versus PCI with DES. The end point was overall mortality. Two statistical approaches were used: the generic inverse variance method, which was used to pool the incident rate ratios, and the pooled meta-analysis of Kaplan-Meier-derived individual patient data. RESULTS: Eight randomized clinical trials comparing 4975 patients undergoing CABG and 4992 patients undergoing PCI were included in our meta-analysis. Generic inverse variance method showed a statistically significant survival benefit of the CABG group (incident rate ratio, 1.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.09-1.35; P < .01). The Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival at 1, 5, and 10 years of the CABG group were 97.1%, 90.3%, and 80.3%, respectively. The Kaplan-Meier estimates of survival at 1, 5, and 10 years of the PCI group were 97.0%, 87.7%, and 76.4%, respectively. The log-rank analysis confirmed a statistically significant benefit in term of overall mortality of the CABG group (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval, 1.11-1.38; P = .0001). CONCLUSIONS: The present meta-analysis suggests that CABG provides a consistent survival benefit over PCI with DES.

Major cardiovascular events at 5 years in surgical versus percutaneous revascularization for left main stem disease: an updated meta-analysis.

The aim of the present study was to analyse the incidence of major adverse cardiovascular events in patients undergoing either coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents for left main stem disease. Five manuscripts publishing 5-year results of 4 trials (SYNTAX, PRECOMBAT, NOBLE and EXCEL) were included. Overall meta-analysis with inclusion of the 5-year results from the EXCEL trial using the protocol definition for myocardial infarction showed that CABG is associated with a significant reduction in the risk of major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) (risk ratio = 0.74; 95% confidence interval = 0.68-0.80). When the universal definition was used to define myocardial infarction in the EXCEL trial, the analysis demonstrated a larger benefit of coronary surgery in terms of reduction in the risk of MACE (risk ratio = 0.70; 95% confidence interval = 0.63-0.76). Non-significant differences were detected in terms of risk of overall mortality, cardiac mortality or stroke. In conclusion, this meta-analysis shows that CABG significantly reduces the risk of MACE in patients with left main stem disease. The inclusion of the 5-year results of the EXCEL trial using third universal definition amplifies the benefit of CABG over percutaneous coronary intervention.

Implante de prótesis moduladora de flujo en úlceras aórticas complicadas / Implant of multilayer fow modulator stent in complicated aortic ulcers

No disponible

Total arterial revascularization strategies: A meta-analysis of propensity score-matched observational studies.

BACKGROUND AND AIM OF THE STUDY: We explored the current evidence available on total arterial revascularization (TAR) carrying out a meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies comparing TAR versus non-TAR strategy. METHODS: PubMed, EMBASE, and Google Scholar were searched for propensity score-matched studies comparing TAR vs non-TAR. The generic inverse variance method was used to compute the combined hazard ratio (HR) of long-term mortality. The Der-Simonian and Laird method were used to compute the combined risk ratio (RR) of 30-day mortality, deep sternal wound infection, and reoperation for bleeding. RESULTS: Eighteen TAR vs non-TAR matched populations were included. Meta-analysis showed a significant benefit in terms of long-term survival of the TAR group over the non-TAR group (HR: 0.73; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.68-0.78). Better long-term survival over non-TAR strategy was confirmed by both subgroups: TAR with the bilateral internal mammary artery (BIMA) and TAR without BIMA. Meta-regression suggests that TAR may offer a higher protective survival effect in diabetic patients (coefficient: -0.0063; 95% CI: -0.01 to 0.0006), when carried out with BIMA (coefficient: -0.15; 95% CI: -0.27 to -0.03) or using three arterial conduits (coefficient: -0.12; 95% CI: -0.25 to 0.007). A TAR strategy carried out using BIMA, differently from TAR without BIMA, increases the risk of deep sternal infection (RR: 1.44; 95% CI: 1.17-1.77). CONCLUSIONS: TAR provides a long-term survival benefit compared with the non-TAR strategy. Also, compared with TAR without BIMA, TAR with BIMA may offer a higher protective long-term survival effect at the expense of a higher risk of sternal deep wound infection.

Bilateral internal thoracic artery versus single internal thoracic artery: a meta-analysis of propensity score-matched observational studies.

The lack of benefit in terms of mid-term survival and the increase in the risk of sternal wound complications published in a recent randomized controlled trial have raised concerns about the use of bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) in myocardial revascularization surgery. For this reason, we decided to explore the current evidence available on the subject by carrying out a meta-analysis of propensity score-matched studies comparing BITA versus single internal thoracic artery (SITA). PubMed, EMBASE and Google Scholar were searched for propensity score-matched studies comparing BITA versus SITA. The generic inverse variance method was used to compute the combined hazard ratio (HR) of long-term mortality. The DerSimonian and Laird method was used to compute the combined risk ratio of 30-day mortality, deep sternal wound infection and reoperation for bleeding. Forty-five BITA versus SITA matched populations were included. Meta-analysis showed a significant benefit in terms of long-term survival in favour of the BITA group [HR 0.78; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.71-0.86]. These results were consistent with those obtained by a pooled analysis of the matched populations comprising patients with diabetes (HR 0.65; 95% CI 0.43-0.99). When compared with the use of SITA plus radial artery, BITA did not show any significant benefit in terms of long-term survival (HR 0.86; 95% CI 0.69-1.07). No differences between BITA and SITA groups were detected in terms of 30-day mortality or in terms of reoperation for bleeding. Compared with the SITA group, patients in the BITA group had a significantly higher risk of deep sternal wound infection (risk ratio 1.66; 95% CI 1.41-1.95) even when the pooled analysis was limited to matched populations in which BITA was harvested according to the skeletonization technique (risk ratio 1.37; 95% CI 1.04-1.79). The use of BITA provided a long-term survival benefit compared with the use of SITA at the expense of a higher risk of sternal deep wound infection. The long-term survival advantage of BITA is undetectable when compared with SITA plus radial artery.