Hybrid coronary revascularization versus coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease: A meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: This meta-analysis evaluated the effectiveness of hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) compared to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for the treatment of multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD). BACKGROUND: HCR involves a combination of surgical and percutaneous techniques, which in selected patients may present an alternative to conventional CABG. METHODS: Databases were searched through June 30, 2016, and studies comparing HCR with CABG for treatment of MVCAD were selected. We calculated summary odds ratios (ORs) and 95% CIs with the random-effects model. The primary outcome of interest was the occurrence of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), defined as a composite of all cause mortality, myocardial infarction, and stroke. RESULTS: The analysis included 2,245 patients from 8 studies (1 randomized controlled trial and 7 observational studies). The risk of MACCE with HCR and CABG were 3.6% and 5.4%, respectively (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.24-1.16). Compared to CABG group, patients in HCR group had similar risk of all cause mortality (OR, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.38-1.88), myocardial infarction (OR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.31-1.64), stroke (OR, 0.53; 95% CI, 0.23-1.20), and repeat revascularization (OR, 1.28; 95% CI, 0.58-2.83). The need for postoperative blood transfusions (OR, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.14-0.59) and hospital stay (weighted mean difference -1.20 days; 95% CI -1.52 to -0.88 days) was significantly lower in the HCR group. CONCLUSION: HCR appears to be safe, and has similar outcomes when compared with conventional CABG. HCR can be a suitable alternative to conventional CABG in select patients with MVCAD. © 2017 Wiley Periodicals, Inc.

Measuring and Managing Blood Pressure in a Primary Care Setting: A Pragmatic Implementation Study.

BACKGROUND: Accurate blood pressure (BP) measurement is essential to hypertension diagnosis and management. Automated office blood pressure (AOBP) and home blood pressure measurement (HBPM) may improve assessment, but barriers exist in primary care settings. METHODS: We implemented an AOBP/HBPM program in a primary care clinic in 2015 to 2016. Patients with elevated BP determined by guideline-quality observed BP measurement and/or AOBP entered the HBPM program. Patients with average home BP ≥ 135/85 mm Hg provided HBPM results for medication adjustment. Clinic staff and patients completed satisfaction questionnaires. RESULTS: Initial HBPM results in 183 patients with elevated office BP revealed white-coat BP elevation in 35% of untreated patients and in 37% of treated patients. The prevalence of white-coat BP elevation was similar whether enrollment BP was by observed BP or AOBP. Subsequent HBPM facilitated BP control in 49% of patients with elevated home BP. Most providers, staff, and patients endorsed the utility of the program. Barriers to implementation included a temporary period of incorrect AOBP technique, patients failing to provide HBPM results, and incorrect HBPM technique. DISCUSSION: Our clinic-based AOBP/HBPM program detected white-coat BP elevation in one third of enrolled patients, facilitated control of home BP, and was acceptable to staff and patients. We identified barriers to be addressed to ensure sustainability.

Noninvasive Bioelectrical Impedance for Predicting Clinical Outcomes in Outpatients With Heart Failure.

BACKGROUND: Noninvasive bioelectrical impedance analysis (BIA) has shown promise in acute heart failure (HF) management. To our knowledge, its use in predicting outcomes in outpatients with chronic HF patients has not been well described. METHODS AND RESULTS: BIA assessment of edema index was performed in 359 outpatients with HF using the InBody 520 scale. Edema index was calculated by dividing extracellular by total body water. Patients were stratified into those with low (≤0.39) and high (>0.39) edema indices. The outcome of interest was death, urgent transplant, or ventricular assist device over 2-year follow up. Patients with a high edema index were older, had higher B-type natriuretic peptide values and New York Heart Association Class. Patients with a high edema index had poorer outcomes (unadjusted hazard ratio 1.90, 95% confidence intervals 1.05-3.56). However, in multivariate analyses, a high edema index was not an independent predictor of outcomes (adjusted hazard ratio 1.21, 95% confidence interval 0.51-2.90). CONCLUSIONS: A high edema index using a bioimpedance scale in a HF clinic correlated with patient outcomes in unadjusted analyses, but was not a predictor of outcomes once other measures of HF severity are accounted for. As a noninvasive measure of volume status, use of BIA in a HF clinic may be beneficial in determining patient prognosis and treatment when other outcome predictors are not immediately available.