Transatlantic analysis of patient profiles and mid-term survival after isolated coronary artery bypass grafting: a head-to-head comparison between the European DuraGraft Registry and the US STS Registry.

Introduction: Although cardiovascular surgery societies in Europe and the USA constantly strive for the exchange of knowledge and best practices in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), the available evidence on whether such efforts result in similar patient outcomes is limited. Therefore, in the present analysis, we sought to compare patient profiles and overall survival outcomes for up to 3 years between large European and US patient cohorts who underwent isolated CABG. Methods: Patients from the European DuraGraft Registry (n = 2,522) who underwent isolated CABG at 45 sites in eight different European countries between 2016 and 2019 were compared to randomly selected patients from the US STS database who were operated during the same period (n = 294,725). Free conduits (venous and arterial grafts) from the DuraGraft Registry patients were intraoperatively stored in DuraGraft, an endothelial damage inhibitor, before anastomosis, whereas grafts from the STS Registry patients in standard-of-care solutions (e.g., saline). Propensity score matching (PSM) models were used to account for differences in patient baseline and surgical characteristics, using a primary PSM with 35 variables (2,400 patients matched) and a secondary PSM with 25 variables (2,522 patients matched, sensitivity analysis). The overall survival for up to 3 years after CABG was assessed as the primary endpoint. Results: The comparison of patient profiles showed significant differences between the European and US cohorts. The European patients had more left main disease, underwent more off-pump CABG, and received more arterial grafts together with more complete arterial grafting procedures. In contrast, the US patients received more distal anastomoses with more saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) that were mainly harvested endoscopically. Such differences, however, were well balanced after PSM for the mortality comparison. Mortality comparison at 30 days, 12 months, and 24 months between the European and US patients was 2.38% vs. 1.96%, 4.32% vs. 4.79%, and 5.38% vs. 6.96%, respectively. At 36 months, the mortality was significantly lower in the European patients than that of their US counterparts (7.37% vs. 9.65%; p-value = 0.016). The estimated hazard ratio (HR) was 1.29 (95% CI 1.05-1.59). Conclusion: This large-scale transatlantic comparative analysis shows that there are some significant differences in patient profiles between large cohorts of European and US patients. These differences were adjusted by using PSM for the mortality analysis. No significant difference in mortality was detected between groups through 2 years, but survival was significantly better in the European DuraGraft Registry patients at 3 years post-CABG.

Clinical outcomes and quality of life after contemporary isolated coronary bypass grafting: a prospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVES: The objective of the European Multicenter Registry to Assess Outcomes in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) patients (DuraGraft Registry) was to determine clinical outcomes and quality of life (QoL) after contemporary CABG that included isolated CABG and combined CABG/valve procedures, using an endothelial damage inhibitor (DuraGraft) intraoperatively for conduit preservation. Here, we report outcomes in the patient cohort undergoing isolated CABG. METHODS: The primary outcome was the composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), or repeat revascularization (RR) [major adverse cardiac events (MACE)] at 1 year. Secondary outcomes included the composite of all-cause death, MI, RR, or stroke [major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE)], and QoL. QoL was assessed with the EuroQol-5 Dimension questionnaire. Independent risk factors for MACE at 1 year were determined using Cox regression analysis. RESULTS: A total of 2532 patients (mean age, 67.4±9.2 years; 82.5% male) underwent isolated CABG. The median EuroScore II was 1.4 [interquartile range (IQR), 0.9-2.3]. MACE and MACCE rates at 1 year were 6.6% and 7.8%, respectively. The rates of all-cause death, MI, RR, and stroke were 4.4, 2.0, 2.2, and 1.9%, respectively. The 30-day mortality rate was 2.3%. Age, extracardiac arteriopathy, left ventricular ejection fraction less than 50%, critical operative state, and left main disease were independent risk factors for MACE. QoL index values improved from 0.84 [IQR, 0.72-0.92] at baseline to 0.92 [IQR, 0.82-1.00] at 1 year ( P <0.0001). CONCLUSION: Contemporary European patients undergoing isolated CABG have a low 1-year clinical event rate and an improved QoL.

Clinical event rate in patients with and without left main disease undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting: results from the European DuraGraft Registry.

OBJECTIVES: Left main coronary artery disease (LMCAD) is considered an independent risk factor for clinical events after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We have conducted a subgroup analysis of the multicentre European DuraGraft Registry to investigate clinical event rates at 1 year in patients with and without LMCAD undergoing isolated CABG in contemporary practice. METHODS: Patients undergoing isolated CABG were selected. The primary end point was the incidence of a major adverse cardiac event (MACE) defined as the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI) or repeat revascularization (RR) at 1 year. The secondary end point was major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) defined as MACE plus stroke. Propensity score matching was performed to balance for differences in baseline characteristics. RESULTS: LMCAD was present in 1033 (41.2%) and absent in 1477 (58.8%) patients. At 1 year, the MACE rate was higher for LMCAD patients (8.2% vs 5.1%, P = 0.002) driven by higher rates of death (5.4% vs 3.4%, P = 0.016), MI (3.0% vs 1.3%, P = 0.002) and numerically higher rates of RR (2.8% vs 1.8%, P = 0.13). The incidence of MACCE was 8.8% vs 6.6%, P = 0.043, with a stroke rate of 1.0% and 2.4%, P = 0.011, for the LMCAD and non-LMCAD groups, respectively. After propensity score matching, the MACE rate was 8.0% vs 5.2%, P = 0.015. The incidence of death was 5.1% vs 3.7%, P = 0.10, MI 3.0% vs 1.4%, P = 0.020, and RR was 2.7% vs 1.6%, P = 0.090, for the LMCAD and non-LMCAD groups, respectively. Less strokes occurred in LMCAD patients (1.0% vs 2.4%, P = 0.017). The MACCE rate was not different, 8.5% vs 6.7%, P = 0.12. CONCLUSIONS: In this large registry, LMCAD was demonstrated to be an independent risk factor for MACE after isolated CABG. Conversely, the risk of stroke was lower in LMCAD patients. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT02922088.

Producción del neumoperitoneo en cirugía laparoscópica: técnica abierta vs. técnica cerrada / Production of pneumoperitoneum in laparoscopic surgery: open vs closed technique

Estudio retrospectivo de un período de 10 años (desde enero de 1992 hasta diciembre de 2001), para evaluar si hay diferencias en complicaciones según la técnica utilizada en la producción del neumoperitoneo en cirugía laparoscópica, determinando los índices de morbilidad y mortalidad asociados a las dos técnicas de abordaje utilizadas en este tipo de cirugía. Se revisaron las historias médicas de 537 casos de intervención con cirugía laparoscópica, en el Hospital Miguel Pérez Carreño; 400 casos de abordaje con aguja de Veress y 137 casos de abordaje por trocar de Hasson. Se observó una tasa de lesión visceral de 1 por ciento y lesión vascular de 0,5 por ciento en el abordaje cerrado; no hubo complicaciones para el abordaje abierto. La mortalidad del abordaje cerrado fue de 0,25 por ciento. No hay diferencias estadísticamente significativas entre ambos métodos. La mayoría de las complicaciones (83,3 por ciento) ocurrieron en el año 1992. Los dos métodos de abordaje laparoscópico poseen similar margen de seguridad.