Anticoagulation and Antiplatelet Regimen in Cardiac Transplant. Clinical Characteristics, Outcomes, and Blood Product Transfusion.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to evaluate the characteristics, clinical outcomes, and blood product transfusion (BPT) rates of patients undergoing cardiac transplant (CT) while receiving uninterrupted anticoagulation and antiplatelet therapy. METHODS: A retrospective, single-center, and observational study of adult patients who underwent CT was performed. Patients were classified into four groups: (1) patients without anticoagulation or antiplatelet therapy (control), (2) patients on antiplatelet therapy (AP), (3) patients on vitamin K antagonists (AVKs), and (4) patients on dabigatran (dabigatran). The primary endpoints were reoperation due to bleeding and perioperative BPT rates (packed red blood cells (PRBC), fresh frozen plasma, platelets). Secondary outcomes assessed included morbidity and mortality-related events. RESULTS: Of the 55 patients included, 6 (11%) received no therapy (control), 8 (15%) received antiplatelet therapy, 15 (27%) were on AVKs, and 26 (47%) were on dabigatran. There were no significant differences in the need for reoperation or other secondary morbidity-associated events. During surgery patients on dabigatran showed lower transfusion rates of PRBC (control 100%, AP 100%, AVKs 73%, dabigatran 50%, p = 0.011) and platelets (control 100%, AP 100%, AVKs 100%, dabigatran 69%, p = 0.019). The total intraoperative number of BPT was also the lowest in the dabigatran group (control 5.5 units, AP 5 units, AVKs 6 units, dabigatran 3 units; p = 0.038); receiving significantly less PRBC (control 2.5 units, AP 3 units, AVKs 2 units, dabigatran 0.5 units; p = 0.011). A Poisson multivariate analysis showed that only treatment on dabigatran reduces PRBC requirements during surgery, with an expected reduction of 64.5% (95% CI: 32.4%-81.4%). CONCLUSIONS: In patients listed for CT requiring anticoagulation due to nonvalvular atrial fibrillation, the use of dabigatran and its reversal with idarucizumab significantly reduces intraoperative BPT demand.

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.

Prediction of surgical risk in patients with endocarditis: Comparison of logistic EuroSCORE, EuroSCORE II and APORTEI score.

OBJECTIVES: APORTEI score is a new risk prediction model for patients with infective endocarditis. It has been recently validated on a Spanish multicentric national cohort of patients. The aim of the present study is to compare APORTEI performances with logistic EuroSCORE and EuroSCORE II by testing calibration and discrimination on a local sample population underwent cardiac surgery because of endocarditis. METHODS: We tested three prediction scores on 111 patients underwent surgery from 2014 to 2020 at our Institution because of infective endocarditis. Area under the curves and Hosmer-Lemeshow test were used to analyze discrimination and calibration respectively of logistic EuroSCORE, EuroSCORE II and APORTEI score. RESULTS: The overall observed one-month mortality rate was 21.6%. The observed-to-expected ratio was 1.27 for logistic EuroSCORE, 3.27 for EuroSCORE II and 0.94 for APORTEI. The area under the curve (AUC) value of APORTEI (0.88±0.05) was significantly higher than that one of logistic EuroSCORE (AUC 0.77±0.05; p 0.0001) and of EuroSCORE II (AUC 0.74±0.05; p 0.0005). Hosmer-Lemeshow test showed better calibration performance of the APORTEI, (logistic EuroSCORE: p 0.19; EuroSCORE II: p 0.11; APORTEI: p 0.56). CONCLUSION: APORTEI risk score shows significantly higher performances in term of discrimination and calibration compared with both logistic EuroSCORE and EuroSCORE II.

Impact of the time interval between diagnosis and symptoms on survival of surgical patients with left-sided infective endocarditis: A propensity score analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to explore the impact of the time interval between symptoms and diagnosis on post-operative infective endocarditis (IE) survival. METHODS: From 2014 to 2019, data from 93 consecutive patients undergoing cardiac surgery due to left-sided±right-sided IE were prospectively recorded in our specific electronic database. Patients were classified into 2 groups according to time interval between first clinical symptoms and definitive endocarditis diagnosis: patients with early diagnosis (≤8 days) and patients with late diagnosis (>8 days). Follow-up was 100% complete, and follow-up mean time was 471 days. RESULTS: Among the 93 patients undergoing cardiac surgery due to definite left-sided IE, 48 (51.6%) had early-diagnosed IE whereas 45 (48.4%) presented with a late-diagnosed IE. Unadjusted and propensity score adjusted mid-term survival Kaplan-Meier analysis showed significantly worse survival of patients belonging to the early-diagnosis group (p .019 and .049 respectively). Multivariable Cox regression analysis identified only one predictor of mid-term mortality: EuroSCORE II (Hazard ratio 1.03, 95% CI 1.01-1.05, p .0008). CONCLUSION: The association in the Kaplan-Meier analysis between "early-diagnosis group" and mortality suggests that this group of patients presents clinical characteristics of severity that, on the one hand, speed up the diagnostic process and on the other, converge in the determination of a higher euroSCORE II value, which is the only independent predictor of mid-term mortality according to our analysis.

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.

Levosimendan versus placebo in cardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

The aim of this meta-analysis was to review all published randomized clinical trials comparing levosimendan versus placebo in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. PubMed, EMBASE and the Cochrane library database of clinical trials were searched for prospective randomized clinical trials investigating the perioperative use of levosimendan versus placebo in patients undergoing adult cardiac surgery from 1 May 2000 to 10 April 2017. Binary outcomes from individual studies were analysed to compute individual and pooled risk ratios (RRs) with pertinent 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Fourteen randomized clinical trials with a total of 2243 patients were included in this review. Overall meta-analysis results demonstrated that levosimendan was associated with a significant reduction in 30-day mortality (RR = 0.71, 95% CI = 0.53-0.95; P = 0.023). Subgroup analysis showed that this benefit was confined to the moderate and low ejection fraction studies (RR = 0.44, 95% CI = 0.27-0.70; P < 0.001), whereas no benefit was observed in the preserved ejection fraction studies (RR = 1.06, 95% CI = 0.72-1.56; P = 0.78). Levosimendan also reduced the risk of renal replacement therapy (RR = 0.66, 95% CI = 0.47-0.92; P = 0.015) and low cardiac output (RR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.22-0.73; P = 0.003). No significant differences were detected, between the levosimendan group and the placebo group, in terms of risk of myocardial injury (RR = 0.90, 95% CI = 0.69-1.17; P = 0.44), intensive care unit stay (weighted mean differences = -0.57, 95% CI = -1.15 to 0.01; P = 0.055) and the use of ventricular assist device (RR = 0.42, 95% CI = 0.07-2.63; P = 0.35). In conclusion, levosimendan was associated with a reduced risk of mortality, renal replacement therapy and low cardiac output syndrome in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.