Transapical off-pump mitral valve repair following prior mitral valve surgery: A case report.

RATIONALE: Redo surgeries after mitral valve repair are technically demanding. Procedures applying the NeoChord device (NeoChord Inc, St. Louis Park, MN) have proven to be safe and feasible in selected patients requiring mitral valve repair due to a leaflet prolapse or flail. However, its use for redo procedures after conventional surgical repair has not been well established yet. PATIENT CONCERNS: We report the case of a 57-year-old man who presented with dyspnea upon exertion. The patient had undergone a minimally invasive surgical mitral valve repair because of a flail leaflet of the segments segment 2 of the posterior mitral valve leaflet (P2)/segment 3 of the posterior mitral valve leaflet (P3) 4 years before. DIAGNOSES: Transesophageal echocardiography identified a relapse of severe mitral valve regurgitation. The recurring regurgitant jet was caused by a flail leaflet due to newly ruptured native chords. INTERVENTIONS: After discussion in an interdisciplinary heart team, we performed a minimally invasive off-pump redo procedure applying the NeoChord device under three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiographic guidance. OUTCOMES: The echocardiographic result with only trivial residual mitral regurgitation as well as the further clinical course of the patient were favorable. LESSONS: As redo surgery after minimally invasive mitral valve repair is challenging, the NeoChord device represents a novel treatment option that does not require cardiopulmonary bypass.

Perioperative beta-blockers for preventing surgery-related mortality and morbidity in adults undergoing cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yielded conflicting results regarding the ability of beta-blockers to influence perioperative cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Thus routine prescription of these drugs in unselected patients remains a controversial issue. A previous version of this review assessing the effectiveness of perioperative beta-blockers in cardiac and non-cardiac surgery was last published in 2018. The previous review has now been split into two reviews according to type of surgery. This is an update and assesses the evidence in cardiac surgery only. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of perioperatively administered beta-blockers for the prevention of surgery-related mortality and morbidity in adults undergoing cardiac surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Biosis Previews and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science on 28 June 2019. We searched clinical trials registers and grey literature, and conducted backward- and forward-citation searching of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and quasi-randomized studies comparing beta-blockers with a control (placebo or standard care) administered during the perioperative period to adults undergoing cardiac surgery. We excluded studies in which all participants in the standard care control group were given a pharmacological agent that was not given to participants in the intervention group, studies in which all participants in the control group were given a beta-blocker, and studies in which beta-blockers were given with an additional agent (e.g. magnesium). We excluded studies that did not measure or report review outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 63 studies with 7768 participants; six studies were quasi-randomized and the remaining were RCTs. All participants were undergoing cardiac surgery, and in most studies, at least some of the participants were previously taking beta-blockers. Types of beta-blockers were: propranolol, metoprolol, sotalol, esmolol, landiolol, acebutolol, timolol, carvedilol, nadolol, and atenolol. In twelve studies, beta-blockers were titrated according to heart rate or blood pressure. Duration of administration varied between studies, as did the time at which drugs were administered; in nine studies this was before surgery, in 20 studies during surgery, and in the remaining studies beta-blockers were started postoperatively. Overall, we found that most studies did not report sufficient details for us to adequately assess risk of bias. In particular, few studies reported methods used to randomize participants to groups. In some studies, participants in the control group were given beta-blockers as rescue therapy during the study period, and all studies in which the control was standard care were at high risk of performance bias because of the open-label study design. No studies were prospectively registered with clinical trials registers, which limited the assessment of reporting bias. We judged 68% studies to be at high risk of bias in at least one domain.Study authors reported few deaths (7 per 1000 in both the intervention and control groups), and we found low-certainty evidence that beta-blockers may make little or no difference to all-cause mortality at 30 days (risk ratio (RR) 0.95, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.47 to 1.90; 29 studies, 4099 participants). For myocardial infarctions, we found no evidence of a difference in events (RR 1.05, 95% CI 0.72 to 1.52; 25 studies, 3946 participants; low-certainty evidence). Few study authors reported cerebrovascular events, and the evidence was uncertain (RR 1.37, 95% CI 0.51 to 3.67; 5 studies, 1471 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Based on a control risk of 54 per 1000, we found low-certainty evidence that beta-blockers may reduce episodes of ventricular arrhythmias by 32 episodes per 1000 (RR 0.40, 95% CI 0.25 to 0.63; 12 studies, 2296 participants). For atrial fibrillation or flutter, there may be 163 fewer incidences with beta-blockers, based on a control risk of 327 incidences per 1000 (RR 0.50, 95% CI 0.42 to 0.59; 40 studies, 5650 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, the evidence for bradycardia and hypotension was less certain. We found that beta-blockers may make little or no difference to bradycardia (RR 1.63, 95% CI 0.92 to 2.91; 12 studies, 1640 participants; low-certainty evidence), or hypotension (RR 1.84, 95% CI 0.89 to 3.80; 10 studies, 1538 participants; low-certainty evidence).We used GRADE to downgrade the certainty of evidence. Owing to studies at high risk of bias in at least one domain, we downgraded each outcome for study limitations. Based on effect size calculations in the previous review, we found an insufficient number of participants in all outcomes (except atrial fibrillation) and, for some outcomes, we noted a wide confidence interval; therefore, we also downgraded outcomes owing to imprecision. The evidence for atrial fibrillation and length of hospital stay had a moderate level of statistical heterogeneity which we could not explain, and we, therefore, downgraded these outcomes for inconsistency. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: We found no evidence of a difference in early all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular events, hypotension and bradycardia. However, there may be a reduction in atrial fibrillation and ventricular arrhythmias when beta-blockers are used. A larger sample size is likely to increase the certainty of this evidence. Four studies awaiting classification may alter the conclusions of this review.

Perioperative beta-blockers for preventing surgery-related mortality and morbidity in adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have yielded conflicting results regarding the ability of beta-blockers to influence perioperative cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Thus routine prescription of these drugs in an unselected population remains a controversial issue. A previous version of this review assessing the effectiveness of perioperative beta-blockers in cardiac and non-cardiac surgery was last published in 2018. The previous review has now been split into two reviews according to type of surgery. This is an update, and assesses the evidence in non-cardiac surgery only. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of perioperatively administered beta-blockers for the prevention of surgery-related mortality and morbidity in adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery. SEARCH METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, Biosis Previews and Conference Proceedings Citation Index-Science on 28 June 2019. We searched clinical trials registers and grey literature, and conducted backward- and forward-citation searching of relevant articles. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included RCTs and quasi-randomized studies comparing beta-blockers with a control (placebo or standard care) administered during the perioperative period to adults undergoing non-cardiac surgery. If studies included surgery with different types of anaesthesia, we included them if 70% participants, or at least 100 participants, received general anaesthesia. We excluded studies in which all participants in the standard care control group were given a pharmacological agent that was not given to participants in the intervention group, studies in which all participants in the control group were given a beta-blocker, and studies in which beta-blockers were given with an additional agent (e.g. magnesium). We excluded studies that did not measure or report review outcomes. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed studies for inclusion, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We assessed the certainty of evidence with GRADE. MAIN RESULTS: We included 83 RCTs with 14,967 participants; we found no quasi-randomized studies. All participants were undergoing non-cardiac surgery, and types of surgery ranged from low to high risk. Types of beta-blockers were: propranolol, metoprolol, esmolol, landiolol, nadolol, atenolol, labetalol, oxprenolol, and pindolol. In nine studies, beta-blockers were titrated according to heart rate or blood pressure. Duration of administration varied between studies, as did the time at which drugs were administered; in most studies, it was intraoperatively, but in 18 studies it was before surgery, in six postoperatively, one multi-arm study included groups of different timings, and one study did not report timing of drug administration. Overall, we found that more than half of the studies did not sufficiently report methods used for randomization. All studies in which the control was standard care were at high risk of performance bias because of the open-label study design. Only two studies were prospectively registered with clinical trials registers, which limited the assessment of reporting bias. In six studies, participants in the control group were given beta-blockers as rescue therapy during the study period.The evidence for all-cause mortality at 30 days was uncertain; based on the risk of death in the control group of 25 per 1000, the effect with beta-blockers was between two fewer and 13 more per 1000 (risk ratio (RR) 1.17, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89 to 1.54; 16 studies, 11,446 participants; low-certainty evidence). Beta-blockers may reduce the incidence of myocardial infarction by 13 fewer incidences per 1000 (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.60 to 0.87; 12 studies, 10,520 participants; low-certainty evidence). We found no evidence of a difference in cerebrovascular events (RR 1.65, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.81; 6 studies, 9460 participants; low-certainty evidence), or in ventricular arrhythmias (RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.47; 5 studies, 476 participants; very low-certainty evidence). Beta-blockers may reduce atrial fibrillation or flutter by 26 fewer incidences per 1000 (RR 0.41, 95% CI 0.21 to 0.79; 9 studies, 9080 participants; low-certainty evidence). However, beta-blockers may increase bradycardia by 55 more incidences per 1000 (RR 2.49, 95% CI 1.74 to 3.56; 49 studies, 12,239 participants; low-certainty evidence), and hypotension by 44 more per 1000 (RR 1.40, 95% CI 1.29 to 1.51; 49 studies, 12,304 participants; moderate-certainty evidence).We downgraded the certainty of the evidence owing to study limitations; some studies had high risks of bias, and the effects were sometimes altered when we excluded studies with a standard care control group (including only placebo-controlled trials showed an increase in early mortality and cerebrovascular events with beta-blockers). We also downgraded for inconsistency; one large, well-conducted, international study found a reduction in myocardial infarction, and an increase in cerebrovascular events and all-cause mortality, when beta-blockers were used, but other studies showed no evidence of a difference. We could not explain the reason for the inconsistency in the evidence for ventricular arrhythmias, and we also downgraded this outcome for imprecision because we found few studies with few participants. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: The evidence for early all-cause mortality with perioperative beta-blockers was uncertain. We found no evidence of a difference in cerebrovascular events or ventricular arrhythmias, and the certainty of the evidence for these outcomes was low and very low. We found low-certainty evidence that beta-blockers may reduce atrial fibrillation and myocardial infarctions. However, beta-blockers may increase bradycardia (low-certainty evidence) and probably increase hypotension (moderate-certainty evidence). Further evidence from large placebo-controlled trials is likely to increase the certainty of these findings, and we recommend the assessment of impact on quality of life. We found 18 studies awaiting classification; inclusion of these studies in future updates may also increase the certainty of the evidence.

First in Man: Off-Pump Transapical Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation and Mitral Valve Repair.

We report the case of an 89-year-old man with severe aortic valve stenosis and concomitant severe mitral valve regurgitation. Due to his age and comorbidities, the patient was not accepted for open heart surgery. After interdisciplinary discussion with the heart team, the patient underwent a minimally invasive off-pump procedure combining aortic valve replacement with mitral valve repair. Cardiac surgeons performed a transapical aortic valve replacement, followed by mitral valve repair applying the NeoChord device (NeoChord Inc, St. Louis Park, MN) under three-dimensional transesophageal echocardiographic guidance by an interventional cardiologist. The patient's further clinical course was uneventful, and he did well on follow-up examinations.

Reversible impairment of coronary flow reserve in acute myocarditis.

OBJECTIVE: Acute myocarditis is accompanied by an impaired coronary microcirculation. These microcirculatory disturbances are not well defined, and data are derived from complex invasive measurements. Therefore, this study aimed to evaluate the inflammation-induced microcirculatory dysfunction including its reversibility and association with markers of inflammation severity (extent of LGE on CMR imaging and laboratory markers of myocardial necrosis) using the noninvasive technique of echocardiographic CFR measurement. METHODS: Patients (n = 14) with clinically suspected acute myocarditis in the absence of coronary artery disease were prospectively enrolled, and echocardiographic CFR was determined by measuring peak diastolic coronary blood flow velocity at rest (PDV1) and under adenosine-induced hyperemia (PDV2) at baseline and 3-month follow-up. RESULTS: Eight of 14 (57.1%) patients showed an impaired baseline CFR (PDV2/PDV1 < 2). These patients were characterized by higher levels of cardiac troponin T (0.55 ± 0.39 vs 0.18 ± 0.08; P = 0.008) and larger areas of LGE on CMR. At 3-month follow-up, CFR was normal in all patients. CONCLUSION: A reversibly impaired coronary microcirculation is a frequent finding in acute myocarditis and is associated with markers of inflammation severity. Echocardiographic CFR measurement represents a feasible and safe method for its assessment.

Perioperative beta-blockers for preventing surgery-related mortality and morbidity.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials have yielded conflicting results regarding the ability of beta-blockers to influence perioperative cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Thus routine prescription of these drugs in unselected patients remains a controversial issue. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to systematically analyse the effects of perioperatively administered beta-blockers for prevention of surgery-related mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing any type of surgery while under general anaesthesia. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials by searching the following databases from the date of their inception until June 2013: MEDLINE, Embase , the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Biosis Previews, CAB Abstracts, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Derwent Drug File, Science Citation Index Expanded, Life Sciences Collection, Global Health and PASCAL. In addition, we searched online resources to identify grey literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials if participants were randomly assigned to a beta-blocker group or a control group (standard care or placebo). Surgery (any type) had to be performed with all or at least a significant proportion of participants under general anaesthesia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from all studies. In cases of disagreement, we reassessed the respective studies to reach consensus. We computed summary estimates in the absence of significant clinical heterogeneity. Risk ratios (RRs) were used for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) were used for continuous outcomes. We performed subgroup analyses for various potential effect modifiers. MAIN RESULTS: We included 88 randomized controlled trials with 19,161 participants. Six studies (7%) met the highest methodological quality criteria (studies with overall low risk of bias: adequate sequence generation, adequate allocation concealment, double/triple-blinded design with a placebo group, intention-to-treat analysis), whereas in the remaining trials, some form of bias was present or could not be definitively excluded (studies with overall unclear or high risk of bias). Outcomes were evaluated separately for cardiac and non-cardiac surgery.CARDIAC SURGERY (53 trials)We found no clear evidence of an effect of beta-blockers on the following outcomes.• All-cause mortality: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.52, 3783 participants, moderate quality evidence.• Acute myocardial infarction (AMI): RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.51, 3553 participants, moderate quality evidence.• Myocardial ischaemia: RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.05, 166 participants, low quality evidence.• Cerebrovascular events: RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.58 to 4.02, 1400 participants, low quality evidence.• Hypotension: RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.67 to 3.51, 558 participants, low quality evidence.• Bradycardia: RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.66, 660 participants, low quality evidence.• Congestive heart failure: RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.34, 311 participants, low quality evidence.Beta-blockers significantly reduced the occurrence of the following endpoints.• Ventricular arrhythmias: RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.58, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 29, 2292 participants, moderate quality evidence.• Supraventricular arrhythmias: RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.53, NNTB five, 6420 participants, high quality evidence.• On average, beta-blockers reduced length of hospital stay by 0.54 days (95% CI -0.90 to -0.19, 2450 participants, low quality evidence).NON-CARDIAC SURGERY (35 trials)Beta-blockers significantly increased the occurrence of the following adverse events.• All-cause mortality: RR 1.25, 95% CI 1.00 to 1.57, 11,413 participants, low quality of evidence, number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 167.• Hypotension: RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.38 to 1.64, NNTH 16, 10,947 participants, high quality evidence.• Bradycardia: RR 2.23, 95% CI 1.48 to 3.36, NNTH 21, 11,033 participants, moderate quality evidence.We found a potential increase in the occurrence of the following outcomes with the use of beta-blockers.• Cerebrovascular events: RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.71, 9150 participants, low quality evidence.Whereas no clear evidence of an effect was found when all studies were analysed, restricting the meta-analysis to low risk of bias studies revealed a significant increase in cerebrovascular events with the use of beta-blockers: RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.82, NNTH 265, 8648 participants.Beta-blockers significantly reduced the occurrence of the following endpoints.• AMI: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.87, NNTB 76, 10,958 participants, high quality evidence.• Myocardial ischaemia: RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.34 to 0.77, NNTB nine, 978 participants, moderate quality evidence.• Supraventricular arrhythmias: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.57 to 0.94, NNTB 112, 8744 participants, high quality evidence.We found no clear evidence of an effect of beta-blockers on the following outcomes.• Ventricular arrhythmias: RR 0.68, 95% CI 0.31 to 1.49, 476 participants, moderate quality evidence.• Congestive heart failure: RR 1.18, 95% CI 0.94 to 1.48, 9173 participants, moderate quality evidence.• Length of hospital stay: mean difference -0.45 days, 95% CI -1.75 to 0.84, 551 participants, low quality evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: According to our findings, perioperative application of beta-blockers still plays a pivotal role in cardiac surgery, as they can substantially reduce the high burden of supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias in the aftermath of surgery. Their influence on mortality, AMI, stroke, congestive heart failure, hypotension and bradycardia in this setting remains unclear.In non-cardiac surgery, evidence shows an association of beta-blockers with increased all-cause mortality. Data from low risk of bias trials further suggests an increase in stroke rate with the use of beta-blockers. As the quality of evidence is still low to moderate, more evidence is needed before a definitive conclusion can be drawn. The substantial reduction in supraventricular arrhythmias and AMI in this setting seems to be offset by the potential increase in mortality and stroke.

Perioperative use of ß-blockers in cardiac and noncardiac surgery.

CLINICAL QUESTION: Are ß-blockers associated with lower rates of mortality and morbidity after cardiac or noncardiac surgery? BOTTOM LINE: In cardiac surgery, ß-blockers are associated with a lower incidence of supraventricular tachycardias (SVTs) and ventricular arrhythmias. In noncardiac surgery, ß-blockers are associated with a possible increase in mortality and strokes, a lower incidence of acute myocardial infarctions (AMIs) and SVTs, and an increase in bradycardia and hypotension. If tolerated, long-term ß-blocker treatment should be continued perioperatively, whereas the decision to start a ß-blocker should be individualized, weighing risks and benefits.

Perioperative beta-blockers for preventing surgery-related mortality and morbidity.

BACKGROUND: Randomized controlled trials have yielded conflicting results regarding the ability of beta-blockers to influence perioperative cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Thus routine prescription of these drugs in unselected patients remains a controversial issue. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to systematically analyse the effects of perioperatively administered beta-blockers for prevention of surgery-related mortality and morbidity in patients undergoing any type of surgery while under general anaesthesia. SEARCH METHODS: We identified trials by searching the following databases from the date of their inception until June 2013: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), Biosis Previews, CAB Abstracts, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL), Derwent Drug File, Science Citation Index Expanded, Life Sciences Collection, Global Health and PASCAL. In addition, we searched online resources to identify grey literature. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials if participants were randomly assigned to a beta-blocker group or a control group (standard care or placebo). Surgery (any type) had to be performed with all or at least a significant proportion of participants under general anaesthesia. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently extracted data from all studies. In cases of disagreement, we reassessed the respective studies to reach consensus. We computed summary estimates in the absence of significant clinical heterogeneity. Risk ratios (RRs) were used for dichotomous outcomes, and mean differences (MDs) were used for continuous outcomes. We performed subgroup analyses for various potential effect modifiers. MAIN RESULTS: We included 89 randomized controlled trials with 19,211 participants. Six studies (7%) met the highest methodological quality criteria (studies with overall low risk of bias: adequate sequence generation, adequate allocation concealment, double/triple-blinded design with a placebo group, intention-to-treat analysis), whereas in the remaining trials, some form of bias was present or could not be definitively excluded (studies with overall unclear or high risk of bias). Outcomes were evaluated separately for cardiac and non-cardiac surgery. CARDIAC SURGERY (53 trials)We found no clear evidence of an effect of beta-blockers on the following outcomes.• All-cause mortality: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.35 to 1.52, 3783 participants, moderate quality of evidence.• Acute myocardial infarction (AMI): RR 1.04, 95% CI 0.71 to 1.51, 3553 participants, moderate quality of evidence.• Myocardial ischaemia: RR 0.51, 95% CI 0.25 to 1.05, 166 participants, low quality of evidence.• Cerebrovascular events: RR 1.52, 95% CI 0.58 to 4.02, 1400 participants, low quality of evidence.• Hypotension: RR 1.54, 95% CI 0.67 to 3.51, 558 participants, low quality of evidence.• Bradycardia: RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.97 to 2.66, 660 participants, low quality of evidence.• Congestive heart failure: RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.04 to 1.34, 311 participants, low quality of evidence.Beta-blockers significantly reduced the occurrence of the following endpoints.• Ventricular arrhythmias: RR 0.37, 95% CI 0.24 to 0.58, number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) 29, 2292 participants, moderate quality of evidence.• Supraventricular arrhythmias: RR 0.44, 95% CI 0.36 to 0.53, NNTB six, 6420 participants, high quality of evidence.• On average, beta-blockers reduced length of hospital stay by 0.54 days (95% CI -0.90 to -0.19, 2450 participants, low quality of evidence). NON-CARDIAC SURGERY (36 trials)We found a potential increase in the occurrence of the following outcomes with the use of beta-blockers.• All-cause mortality: RR 1.24, 95% CI 0.99 to 1.54, 11,463 participants, low quality of evidence.Whereas no clear evidence of an effect was noted when all studies were analysed, restricting the meta-analysis to low risk of bias studies revealed a significant increase in all-cause mortality with the use of beta-blockers: RR 1.27, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.59, number needed to treat for an additional harmful outcome (NNTH) 189, 10,845 participants.• Cerebrovascular events: RR 1.59, 95% CI 0.93 to 2.71, 9150 participants, low quality of evidence.Whereas no clear evidence of an effect was found when all studies were analysed, restricting the meta-analysis to low risk of bias studies revealed a significant increase in cerebrovascular events with the use of beta-blockers: RR 2.09, 95% CI 1.14 to 3.82, NNTH 255, 8648 participants.Beta-blockers significantly reduced the occurrence of the following endpoints.• AMI: RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.61 to 0.87, NNTB 72, 10,958 participants, high quality of evidence.• Myocardial ischaemia: RR 0.43, 95% CI 0.27 to 0.70, NNTB seven, 1028 participants, moderate quality of evidence.• Supraventricular arrhythmias: RR 0.72, 95% CI 0.56 to 0.92, NNTB 111, 8794 participants, high quality of evidence.Beta-blockers significantly increased the occurrence of the following adverse events.• Hypotension: RR 1.50, 95% CI 1.38 to 1.64, NNTH 15, 10,947 participants, high quality of evidence.• Bradycardia: RR 2.24, 95% CI 1.49 to 3.35, NNTH 18, 11,083 participants, moderate quality of evidence.We found no clear evidence of an effect of beta-blockers on the following outcomes.• Ventricular arrhythmias: RR 0.64, 95% CI 0.30 to 1.33, 526 participants, moderate quality of evidence.• Congestive heart failure: RR 1.17, 95% CI 0.93 to 1.47, 9223 participants, moderate quality of evidence.• Length of hospital stay: mean difference -0.27 days, 95% CI -1.29 to 0.75, 601 participants, low quality of evidence. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: According to our findings, perioperative application of beta-blockers still plays a pivotal role in cardiac surgery , as they can substantially reduce the high burden of supraventricular and ventricular arrhythmias in the aftermath of surgery. Their influence on mortality, AMI, stroke, congestive heart failure, hypotension and bradycardia in this setting remains unclear.In non-cardiac surgery, evidence from low risk of bias trials shows an increase in all-cause mortality and stroke with the use of beta-blockers. As the quality of evidence is still low to moderate, more evidence is needed before a definitive conclusion can be drawn. The substantial reduction in supraventricular arrhythmias and AMI in this setting seems to be offset by the potential increase in mortality and stroke.

TIMI 3 flow after primary angioplasty is an important predictor for outcome in patients with acute myocardial infarction.

BACKGROUND: Growing evidence suggests that poor coronary blood flow after primary percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is associated with unfavorable clinical out-come. We retrospectively evaluated data from our single center "real world patients" database of patients undergoing primary PCI to determine differences in clinical and angiographic patterns in patients with or without restoring thrombolysis in myocardial infarction (TIMI) flow 3. METHODS AND RESULTS: Between 2001 and 2006, 500 patients underwent primary PCI for STEMI. In 430 patients, post-interventional TIMI flow 3 could be established. In this group, in-hospital mortality was significant lower (6.4% Vs. 32.9%; P < 0.0001), left ventricular ejection fraction was better (51.3 Vs. 44.2%; P < 0.0001), and prehospital fibrinolytic therapy (6.3% Vs. 14.3%; P = 0.015), cardiogenic shock (10.9% Vs. 24.3%; P = 0.002) and use of intra-aortic balloon pump were all more unlikely (5.8% Vs. 11.4%; P = 0.045) compared to patients with TIMI flow < or = 2. In patients with post-interventional TIMI flow < or = 2 the left anterior descending coronary artery (LAD) was significantly more often seen as the target vessel (54.3% Vs. 44.6%; P = 0.039). A regressions analysis showed that predictors leading to such flow patterns are diabetes (P = 0.013), pre-hospital fibrinolytic therapy (P = 0.017), cardiogenic shock (P = 0.002) and a 3-vessel disease (P = 0.003). After 6 months, patients without restored normal TIMI flow had worse New York Heart Association functional class (NYHA), and had to undergo repeat coronary angiography more often. CONCLUSION: Post-interventional TIMI flow < or = 2 is strongly associated with adverse out-come during hospitalization and after 6 months following hospitalization.

In-stent restenosis in bare metal stents versus sirolimus-eluting stents after primary coronary intervention for acute myocardial infarction and subsequent transcoronary transplantation of autologous stem cells.

BACKGROUND: Following stenting for acute myocardial infarction, transcoronary transplantation of granulocyte-colony stimulating factor (G-CSF) mobilized autologous stem cells (ASC) has been shown to result in an increased in-stent restenosis rate of bare metal stents (BMS). HYPOTHESIS: This study sought to compare the extent of neointimal growth in BMS and sirolimus-eluting stents (SES) after primary implantation, and subsequent transcoronary transplantation of G-CSF mobilized stem cells. METHODS: Patients with stenting of the left anterior descending coronary artery for acute anterior myocardial infarction were randomly assigned to receive a BMS or SES. Intracoronary stem cell injection was performed after G-CSF application for at least 4 d and cell apheresis. The angiograms obtained after cell transplantation and after 6 mo were analyzed by quantitative coronary angiography. RESULTS: We performed primary stenting and stem cell transplantion in 16 patients who received a BMS (n = 8) or an SES (n = 8). In 2 patients with a BMS, late stent thrombosis occurred after 58 d and 177 d, respectively. In the remaining patients, control angiography after 6 mo revealed in-stent restenosis of >50% in no patients with SES but in 4 patients with BMS (67%). Late lumen loss and in-stent plaque volume were significantly higher in patients with BMS compared with patients with SES. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with BMS, SES impair in-stent intima hyperplasia after stenting for acute myocardial infarction and transcoronary transplantation of G-CSF mobilized ASC.