Conflicts of interest in clinical practice: lessons learned from cardiovascular medicine.

Cardiovascular diseases represent a major burden worldwide, and clinical trials are critical to define treatment improvements. Since various conflicts of interest (COIs) may influence trials at multiple levels, cardiovascular research represents a paradigmatic example to analyze their effects and manage them effectively to re-establish the centrality of evidence-based medicine.Despite the manifest role of industry, COIs may differently affect both sponsored and non-sponsored studies in many ways. COIs influence may start from the research question, data collection and adjudication, up to result reporting, including the spin phenomenon. Outcomes and endpoints (especially composite) choice and definitions also represent potential sources for COIs interference. Since large randomized controlled trials significantly influence international guidelines, thus impacting also clinical practice, their critical assessment for COIs is mandatory. Despite specific protocols aimed to mitigate COI influence, even scientific societies and guideline panels may not be totally free from COIs, negatively affecting their accountability and trustworthiness.Shared rules, awareness of COI mechanisms and transparency with external data access may help promoting evidence-based research and mitigate COIs impact. Managing COIs effectively should preserve public trust in the cardiovascular profession without compromising the positive relationships between investigators and industry.

Same evidence different recommendations: a methodological assessment of transatlantic guidelines for the management of valvular heart disease.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to identify methodological variations leading to varied recommendations between the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC)/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) valvular heart disease guidelines and to suggest foundational steps towards standardizing guideline development. METHODS: An in-depth analysis was conducted to evaluate the methodologies used in developing the transatlantic guidelines for managing valvular heart disease. The evaluation was benchmarked against the standards proposed by the Institute of Medicine. RESULTS: Substantial discrepancies were noted in the methodologies utilized in development processes, including Writing Committee composition, evidence evaluation, conflict of interest management and voting processes. Furthermore, despite their mutual differences, both methodologies demonstrate notable deviations from the Institute of Medicine standards in several essential areas, including literature review and evidence grading. These dual variances likely influenced divergent treatment recommendations. For example, the ESC/EACTS recommends transcatheter edge-to-edge repair for patients with chronic severe mitral regurgitation ineligible for mitral valve surgery, while the ACC/AHA recommends transcatheter edge-to-edge repair based on anatomy, regardless of surgical risk. ESC/EACTS guidelines recommend a mechanical aortic prosthesis for patients under 60, while ACC/AHA guidelines recommend it for patients under 50. Notably, the ACC/AHA and ESC/EACTS guidelines have differing age cut-offs for surgical over transcatheter aortic valve replacement (<65 and <75 years, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Variations in methodologies for developing clinical practice guidelines have resulted in different treatment recommendations that may significantly impact global practice patterns. Standardization of essential processes is vital to increase the uniformity and credibility of clinical practice guidelines, ultimately improving healthcare quality, reducing variability and enhancing trust in modern medicine.

European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) expert consensus statement on perioperative myocardial infarction after cardiac surgery.

Cardiac surgery may lead to myocardial damage and release of cardiac biomarkers through various mechanisms such as cardiac manipulation, systemic inflammation, myocardial hypoxia, cardioplegic arrest and ischaemia caused by coronary or graft occlusion. Defining perioperative myocardial infarction (PMI) after cardiac surgery presents challenges, and the association between the current PMI definitions and postoperative outcomes remains uncertain. To address these challenges, the European Association of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) facilitated collaboration among a multidisciplinary group to evaluate the existing evidence on the mechanisms, diagnosis and prognostic implications of PMI after cardiac surgery. The review found that the postoperative troponin value thresholds associated with an increased risk of mortality are markedly higher than those proposed by all the current definitions of PMI. Additionally, it was found that large postoperative increases in cardiac biomarkers are prognostically relevant even in absence of additional supportive signs of ischaemia. A new algorithm for PMI detection after cardiac surgery was also proposed, and a consensus was reached within the group that establishing a prognostically relevant definition of PMI is critically needed in the cardiovascular field and that PMI should be included in the primary composite outcome of coronary intervention trials.

Multiarterial vs Single-Arterial Coronary Surgery: 10-Year Follow-up of 1 Million Patients.

BACKGROUND: Although many options exist for multivessel coronary revascularization, controversy persists over whether multiarterial grafting (MAG) confers a survival advantage over single-arterial grafting (SAG) with saphenous vein in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). This study sought to compare longitudinal survival between patients undergoing MAG and those undergoing SAG. METHODS: All patients undergoing isolated CABG with ≥2 bypass grafts in The Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database (2008-2019) were linked to the National Death Index. Risk adjustment was performed using inverse probability weighting and multivariable modeling. The primary end point was longitudinal survival. Subpopulation analyses were performed and volume thresholds were analyzed to determine optimal benefit. RESULTS: A total of 1,021,632 patients underwent isolated CABG at 1108 programs (100,419 MAG [9.83%]; 920,943 SAG [90.17%]). Median follow-up was 5.30 years (range, 0-12 years). After risk adjustment, all characteristics were well balanced. At 10 years, MAG was associated with improved unadjusted (hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI 0.58-0.61) and adjusted (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.85-0.88) 10-year survival. Center volume of ≥10 MAG cases/year was associated with benefit. MAG was associated with an overall survival advantage over SAG in all subgroups, including stable coronary disease, acute coronary syndrome, and acute infarction. Survival was equivalent to that with SAG for patients age ≥80 years and those with severe heart failure, renal failure, peripheral vascular disease, or obesity. Only patients with a body mass index ≥40 kg/m2 had superior survival with SAG. CONCLUSIONS: Multiarterial CABG is associated with superior long-term survival and should be the surgical multivessel revascularization strategy of choice for patients with a body mass index of less than 40 kg/m2.

The ISCHEMIA trial revisited: setting the record straight on the benefits of coronary bypass surgery and the misinterpretation of a landmark trial.

OBJECTIVES: The ISCHEMIA trial is a landmark study that has been the subject of heated debate within the cardiovascular community. In this analysis of the ISCHEMIA trial, we aim to set the record straight on the benefits of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and the misinterpretation of this landmark trial. We sought to clarify and reorient this misinterpretation. METHODS: We herein analyse the ISCHEMIA trial in detail and describe how its misinterpretation has led to an erroneous guideline recommendation downgrading for prognosis-altering surgical therapy in these at-risk patients. RESULTS: The interim ISCHEMIA trial findings align with previous evidence where CABG reduces the long-term risks of myocardial infarction and mortality in advanced coronary artery disease. The trial outcomes of a significantly lower rate of cardiovascular mortality and a higher rate of non-cardiovascular mortality with the invasive strategy are explained according to landmark evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The ISCHEMIA trial findings are aligned with previous evidence and should not be used to downgrade recommendations in recent guidelines for the indisputable benefits of CABG.

Risk of Bias in Randomized Clinical Trials Comparing Transcatheter and Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

Importance: Recent European Society of Cardiology/European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (ESC/EACTS) guidelines highlighted some concerns about the randomized clinical trials (RCTs) comparing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) and surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for aortic stenosis. Quantification of these biases has not been previously performed. Objective: To assess whether randomization protects RCTs comparing TAVI and SAVR from biases other than nonrandom allocation. Data Sources: A systematic review of the literature between January 1, 2007, and June 6, 2022, on MEDLINE, Embase, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials was performed. Specialist websites were also checked for unpublished data. Study Selection: The study included RCTs with random allocation to TAVI or SAVR with a maximum 5-year follow-up. Data Extraction and Synthesis: Data extraction was performed by 2 independent investigators following the PRISMA guidelines. A random-effects meta-analysis was used for quantifying pooled rates and differential rates between treatments of deviation from random assigned treatment (DAT), loss to follow-up, and receipt of additional treatments. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcomes were the proportion of DAT, loss to follow-up, and patients who were provided additional treatments and myocardial revascularization, together with their ratio between treatments. The measures were the pooled overall proportion of the primary outcomes and the risk ratio (RR) in the TAVI vs SAVR groups. Results: The search identified 8 eligible trials including 8849 participants randomly assigned to undergo TAVI (n = 4458) or SAVR (n = 4391). The pooled proportion of DAT among the sample was 4.2% (95% CI, 3.0%-5.6%), favoring TAVI (pooled RR vs SAVR, 0.16; 95% CI, 0.08-0.36; P < .001). The pooled proportion of loss to follow-up was 4.8% (95% CI, 2.7%-7.3%). Meta-regression showed a significant association between the proportion of participants lost to follow-up and follow-up time (slope, 0.042; 95% CI, 0.017-0.066; P < .001). There was an imbalance of loss to follow-up favoring TAVI (RR, 0.39; 95% CI, 0.28-0.55; P < .001). The pooled proportion of patients who had additional procedures was 10.4% (95% CI, 4.4%-18.5%): 4.6% (95% CI, 1.5%-9.3%) in the TAVI group and 16.5% (95% CI, 7.5%-28.1%) in the SAVR group (RR, 0.27; 95% CI, 0.15-0.50; P < .001). The imbalance between groups also favored TAVI for additional myocardial revascularization (RR, 0.40; 95% CI, 0.24-0.68; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: This study suggests that, in RCTs comparing TAVI vs SAVR, there are substantial proportions of DAT, loss to follow-up, and additional procedures together with systematic selective imbalance in the same direction characterized by significantly lower proportions of patients undergoing TAVI that might affect internal validity.

Global Makeup of Cardiothoracic Surgeons as Represented by Our Major Societies and Associations.

BACKGROUND: Prior efforts to capture the cardiothoracic surgery community rely on survey data with potentially biased or low response rates. Our goal is to better understand our community by assessing the membership directories from The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS), American Association for Thoracic Surgery (AATS), European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS), and Asian Society for Cardiovascular and Thoracic Surgery (ASCVTS). METHODS: Membership data were obtained from membership directories. Data for STS and EACTS were supplemented by the associations from their internal databases. The inclusion criterion was active membership; trainees and wholly incomplete profiles were excluded. RESULTS: A total of 12 053 membership profiles were included (STS, 6365; EACTS, 3661; AATS, 1495; ASCVTS, 532). Membership is 7% female overall (EACTS, 9%; STS, 6%; AATS, 5%; ASCVTS, 3%), with a median age of 57 years (STS, 60 years; EACTS, 52 years). All societies had a broad scope of practice including members who practiced both adult cardiac and thoracic (20% overall), but most members practiced adult cardiac (31% overall; ASCVTS, 48%; AATS, 36%; EACTS, 30%; STS, 28%) and were in the late stage of their careers. CONCLUSIONS: We present the makeup of our 4 major societies. We are global with a diversity of careers but concerning factors that require immediate attention. The future of our specialty depends on our ability to evolve, to promote the specialty, to attract trainees, and to include and promote female surgeons. It is crucial that we wake up to these issues, change the narrative, and create action on both individual and leadership levels.

Early effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on the North American cardiothoracic surgery job market.

Background: The present study aims to report the early effect of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on the cardiothoracic surgery job market in North America. Methods: The Cardiothoracic Surgery Network (CTSNet) job market database was queried, and patterns from January to May for 2019 versus January to May 2020 were compared for trends in job postings and job seekers. Results: Our study is comprised of 395 cardiothoracic surgery job postings, of which 98% were positions located in North America and 63% were academic. The negative impact of the pandemic on the cardiothoracic surgery job market was greatest in the cardiothoracic/cardiovascular combined subspecialty, followed by congenital and adult cardiac surgery, whereas general thoracic surgery experienced an increase in proportion of jobs available. Despite an increase in views per job posted in 2020 vs. 2019 (532 vs. 290), employer views of job seeker curriculum vitae declined over the same time period in 2020 (January, 380 views/month to May, 3 views/month) compared to 2019 (January, 100 views/month to May, 54 views/month). Conclusions: An analysis of job postings from CTSNet suggests a decline in job availability in the North American cardiothoracic surgical job market following declaration of the pandemic with acknowledgement that there is month to month variability and a supply-demand mismatch. The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on our field, and the ultimate consequences remain unknown.