Prophylactic intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation before surgical myocardial revascularization in patients with acute myocardial infarction.

INTRODUCTION: Prophylactic intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation (pIABC) is recommended for high-risk patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. Criteria for high-risk patients benefiting from pIABC are unclear. This study aimed to specifically describe the effect of pIABC on outcomes of patients with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) undergoing CABG. METHODS: In 178 of 484 AMI patients (non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [NSTEMI] or ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction [STEMI] ≤5 days before surgery) without cardiogenic shock who underwent CABG between 2008 and 2013, pIABC was initiated preoperatively. After propensity score matching, the outcomes of 400 patients were analyzed (pIABC: 150; Control: 250). RESULTS: After propensity score matching, baseline and operative characteristics were balanced between the groups except for a higher rate of patients with a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF)≤30% in the pIABC group (26% vs. Control: 13%; p=0.032). Seven point two percent (7.2%) of the control patients received an IABP intraoperatively or postoperatively. Postoperative extracorporeal life support (ECLS) was only needed in the control group (1.2% vs. 0%; p=0.01). Postoperative plasma curves of troponin I, creatine kinase (CK) and creatine kinase isoform MB (CK-MB) levels were reduced in the pIABC group compared with the control group. In-hospital mortality was reduced in the pIABC group (3.3% vs. control: 6.4%; p=0.18). After multivariate adjustment for other preoperative risk factors, pIABC was significantly protective concerning in-hospital mortality (HR 0.56; 95%-CI 0.023-0.74; p=0.021). Mortality (pIABC vs. control) was more affected in patients with preoperative LVEF≤30% (2/36 (5.6%) vs. 6/31 (19%); heart rate (HR) 0.25; 95%-CI 0.046-1.3; p=0.13) compared with LVEF>30% (3/114 (2.6%) vs. 10/219 (4.6%); HR 0.56; 95%-CI 0.15-2.1; p=0.55). Long-term survival did not differ between the groups. CONCLUSIONS: pIABC in CABG for AMI is associated with reduced perioperative cardiac injury and in-hospital mortality. Long-term survival is not affected.

Total arterial revascularization in patients with acute myocardial infarction - feasibility and outcomes.

BACKGROUND: In acute situations such as acute myocardial infarction (AMI) with indication for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), total arterial revascularization (TAR) is often rejected in favour of saphenous vein (SV) grafting, which is assumed to allow for quicker vessel harvesting, a simpler anastomosis technique, and thus quicker revascularization and fewer bleeding complications. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether reluctance to apply TAR in AMI is still justified from a technical point of view in the current era and whether superiority of TAR results is also evident in emergency patients with AMI undergoing CABG. METHODS: In this retrospective analysis of 434 consecutive patients undergoing CABG for AMI with either TAR or with a combination of one internal mammary artery and SV grafts between 2008 and 2014, procedural data, short-term and mid-term outcome were compared. Propensity score matching of the groups was performed. RESULTS: After propensity score matching, 250 patients were included in the analysis (TAR group: n = 98; SV group n = 152). The procedural time (TAR group: 211 min vs. SV group: 200 min, p = 0.46) did not differ between the groups. Erythrocyte transfusion rates were higher in the SV group (76% vs. 57%; p < 0.001). Rates of re-exploration for bleeding did not differ. Thirty-day mortality rates were comparable (TAR group: 3.4% vs. SV group: 4.5%, p = 0.68). Kaplan-Meier analysis until 7 years postoperatively revealed a tendency for improved survival after TAR (75% vs. 62%; log-rank p = 0.12). CONCLUSION: TAR neither impairs rapid revascularization nor reduces its safety in patients with AMI. It may result in improved long-term outcome and should be preferred in the clinical setting of AMI.

Temporary epicardial pacemaker wires: significance of position and electrode type.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the pacing and sensing properties of different temporary epicardial pacemaker electrodes after cardiac surgery depending on position at the heart and time after surgery. METHODS: From September 2009 to October 2010, 60 patients undergoing cardiac surgery were prospectively randomized into two groups: group O: Osypka-electrodes (n = 30), group M: Medtronic-electrodes (n = 30). In position 1, the bipolar electrodes were inserted onto the anterior wall of the right ventricle and at the right atrial auricle, in position 2, onto the diaphragmal wall of the right ventricle and at the aortic aspect of the superior vena cava medial close to the atrium. Sensing values and pacing thresholds were measured for all electrodes during surgery, on day 1 and every second day up to day 10 after surgery. RESULTS: In both groups, pacing thresholds (both positions) were higher during surgery (ventricle 3.1 ± 0.6 V, atrium 3.1 ± 0.3 V) than at day 1 (ventricle 2.4 ± 0.7 V, atrium 2.4 ± 0.3 V) and increased during the perioperative course until day 10 (ventricle 4.7 ± 1.0 V, atrium 4.9 ± 1.1 V, p = 0.04, p = 0.02). P and R wave amplitudes did not change over time (atrium 5.1 ± 0.1 mV initially, 4.2 ± 0.1 mV at removal (p = ns); ventricle 10.4 ± 0.2 mV vs. 10.1 ± 0.25 mV). Group M had better median pacing thresholds compared with group O (atrium: 2.9 ± 0.6 V vs. 3.9 ± 0.7 V, p = 0.04 and ventricle: 2.6 ± 0.6 V vs. 3.9 ± 0.6 V, p = 0.045). Atrial position 1 was superior to position 2 concerning pacing thresholds of Medtronic electrodes (2.1 ± 0.3 mV vs. 3.4 ± 0.4 mV, p = 0.02). Osypka-electrodes were easier to handle due to their more pliable texture. CONCLUSIONS: 1. Up to postoperative day 10, adequate pacing and sensing performance was achieved by both electrode types in each position. 2. Medtronic electrodes had better pacing thresholds in atrium and ventricle after day 5. 3. Positioning of pacemaker electrodes does not alter functionality. 4. Handling of Osypka electrodes was easier than that of Medtronic electrodes.