The Current State of Coronary Revascularization: Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Versus Percutaneous Coronary Interventions.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The optimal revascularization strategy for coronary artery disease depends on various factors, such as disease complexity, patient characteristics, and preferences. Including a heart team in complex cases is crucial to ensure optimal outcomes. Decision-making between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting must consider each patient's clinical profile and coronary anatomy. While current practice guidelines offer some insight into the optimal revascularization approach for the various phenotypes of coronary artery disease, the evidence to support either strategy continues to evolve and grow. Given the large amount of contemporary data on revascularization, this review aims to comprehensively summarize the literature on coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention in patients across the spectrum of coronary artery disease phenotypes. RECENT FINDINGS: Contemporary evidence suggests that for patients with triple vessel disease, coronary artery bypass grafting is preferred over percutaneous coronary intervention due to better long-term outcomes, including lower rates of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. Similarly, for patients with left main coronary artery disease, both percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting can be considered, as they have shown similar efficacy in terms of major adverse cardiac events, but there may be a slightly higher risk of death with percutaneous coronary intervention. For proximal left anterior descending artery disease, both percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting are viable options, but coronary artery bypass grafting has shown lower rates of repeat revascularization and better relief from angina. The Synergy Between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery score can help in decision-making by predicting the risk of adverse events and guiding the choice between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting. European and American guidelines both agree with including a heart team that can develop and lay out individualized, optimal treatment options with respect for patient preferences. The debate between coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention in multiple different scenarios will continue to develop as technology and techniques improve for both procedures. Risk factors, pre, peri, and post-procedural complications involved in both revascularization strategies will continue to be mitigated to optimize outcomes for those patients for which coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention provide ultimate benefit. Methods to avoid unnecessary revascularization continue to develop as well as percutaneous technology that may allow patients to avoid surgical intervention when possible. With such changes, revascularization guidelines for specific patient populations may change in the coming years, which can serve as a limitation of this time-dated review.

Considerations on the Management of Acute Postoperative Ischemia After Cardiac Surgery: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Acute postoperative myocardial ischemia (PMI) after cardiac surgery is an infrequent event that can evolve rapidly and become a potentially life-threatening complication. Multiple factors are associated with acute PMI after cardiac surgery and may vary by the type of surgical procedure performed. Although the criteria defining nonprocedural myocardial ischemia are well established, there are no universally accepted criteria for the diagnosis of acute PMI. In addition, current evidence on the management of acute PMI after cardiac surgery is sparse and generally of low methodological quality. Once acute PMI is suspected, prompt diagnosis and treatment are imperative, and options range from conservative strategies to percutaneous coronary intervention and redo coronary artery bypass grafting. In this document, a multidisciplinary group including experts in cardiac surgery, cardiology, anesthesiology, and postoperative care summarizes the existing evidence on diagnosis and treatment of acute PMI and provides clinical guidance.

Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery After Transradial Catheterization: Implementing 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Revascularization Guidelines Into Clinical Practice.

The 2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI coronary artery disease revascularization guideline recommends radial artery (RA) access for coronary angiography and RA grafting over saphenous vein grafting in patients referred for coronary artery bypass grafting. We present a case of a patient who underwent coronary angiography via both RAs and therefore could not receive RA bypass grafts. (Level of Difficulty: Advanced.).

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. Structure: Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. STRUCTURE: Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

2021 ACC/AHA/SCAI Guideline for Coronary Artery Revascularization: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Joint Committee on Clinical Practice Guidelines.

AIM: The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered. STRUCTURE: Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline.

Gender Differences in the Pursuit of Cardiac Electrophysiology Training in North America.

BACKGROUND: Despite the increase in the number of female physicians across most specialties within cardiology, <10% of clinical cardiac electrophysiology (EP) fellows are women. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to determine the factors that influence fellows-in-training (FITs) to pursue EP as a career choice and whether this differs by gender. METHODS: The authors conducted an online multiple-choice survey through the American College of Cardiology to assess the decision factors that influence FITs in the United States and Canada to pursue cardiovascular subspecialties. RESULTS: A total of 933 (30.5%) FITs completed the survey; 129 anticipated specializing in EP, 259 in interventional cardiology (IC), and 545 in a different field or were unsure. A total of 1 in 7 (14%) FITs indicated an interest in EP. Of this group, more men chose EP than women (84% vs 16%; P < 0.001). The most important factor that influenced FITs to pursue EP was a strong interest in the field. Women were more likely to be influenced by having a female role model (P = 0.001) compared with men. After excluding FITs interested in IC, women who deselected EP were more likely than men to be influenced by greater interest in another field (P = 0.004), radiation concerns (P = 0.001), lack of female role models (P = 0.001), a perceived "old boys' club" culture (P = 0.001) and discrimination/harassment concerns (P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Women are more likely than men to be negatively influenced by many factors when it comes to pursuing EP as a career choice. Addressing those factors will help decrease the gender disparity in the field.

Cardiovascular procedural deferral and outcomes over COVID-19 pandemic phases: A multi-center study.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has disrupted routine cardiovascular care, with unclear impact on procedural deferrals and associated outcomes across diverse patient populations. METHODS: Cardiovascular procedures performed at 30 hospitals across 6 Western states in 2 large, non-profit healthcare systems (Providence St. Joseph Health and Stanford Healthcare) from December 2018-June 2020 were analyzed for changes over time. Risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality was compared across pandemic phases with multivariate logistic regression. RESULTS: Among 36,125 procedures (69% percutaneous coronary intervention, 13% coronary artery bypass graft surgery, 10% transcatheter aortic valve replacement, and 8% surgical aortic valve replacement), weekly volumes changed in 2 distinct phases after the initial inflection point on February 23, 2020: an initial period of significant deferral (COVID I: March 15-April 11) followed by recovery (COVID II: April 12 onwards). Compared to pre-COVID, COVID I patients were less likely to be female (P = .0003), older (P < .0001), Asian or Black (P = .02), or Medicare insured (P < .0001), and COVID I procedures were higher acuity (P < .0001), but not higher complexity. In COVID II, there was a trend toward more procedural deferral in regions with a higher COVID-19 burden (P = .05). Compared to pre-COVID, there were no differences in risk-adjusted in-hospital mortality during both COVID phases. CONCLUSIONS: Significant decreases in cardiovascular procedural volumes occurred early in the COVID-19 pandemic, with disproportionate impacts by race, gender, and age. These findings should inform our approach to future healthcare disruptions.

Heterogeneity of Treatment and Outcomes Among Asians With Coronary Artery Disease in the United States.

Background Prior data demonstrate significant heterogeneity regarding coronary artery disease risk factors and outcomes among Asians in the United States, but no studies have yet examined coronary artery disease treatment patterns or outcomes among disaggregated Asian American subgroups. Methods and Results From a total of 772 882 patients with known race/ethnicity and sex who received care from a mixed-payer healthcare organization in Northern California between 2006 and 2015, a retrospective analysis was conducted on 6667 adults with coronary artery disease. Logistic regression was used to examine medical and procedural therapies and outcomes by race/ethnicity, with adjustment for age, sex, income, and baseline comorbidities. Compared with non-Hispanic whites, Chinese were more likely to undergo stenting (50.9% versus 60.8%, odds ratio [OR] 1.39 [95% CI, 1.04-1.87], p=0.005), whereas Filipinos were more likely to receive bypass surgery (6.9% versus 20.5%, OR 2.65 [95% CI, 1.75-4.01], P<0.0001). After stenting, Chinese, Filipinos, and Japanese were more likely than non-Hispanic whites to be prescribed clopidogrel (86.2%, 83.0%, and 91.4% versus 74.5%, ORs 1.86 [95% CI, 1.13-3.04], 1.86 [95% CI, 1.01-3.44], and 4.37 [95% CI, 1.02-18.67], respectively, P<0.0001). Lastly, Chinese and Asian Indians were more likely than non-Hispanic whites to be diagnosed with a myocardial infarction within 1 year postangiography (15.6% and 17.4% versus 11.2%, ORs 1.49 [95% CI, 1.02-2.19] and 1.68 [95% CI, 1.21-2.34], respectively, P<0.0001). Conclusions Disaggregation of Asian Americans with coronary artery disease into individual racial/ethnic subgroups reveals significant variability in treatment patterns and outcomes. Further investigation into these differences may expose important opportunities to mitigate disparities and improve quality of care in this diverse population.

Racial Differences in Quality of Care and Outcomes After Acute Coronary Syndrome.

Guideline adherence and variation in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) outcomes by race in the modern era of drug-eluting stents (DES) are not well understood. Previous studies also fail to capture rapidly growing minority populations, such as Asians. A retrospective analysis of 689,238 hospitalizations for ACS across all insurance types from 2008 to 2011 from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project database was performed to determine whether quality of ACS care and mortality differ by race (white, black, Asian, Hispanic, or Native American), with adjustment for patient clinical and demographic characteristics and clustering by hospital. We found that black patients had the lowest in-hospital mortality rates (5% vs 6% to 7% for other races, p <0.0001, odds ratio [OR] 1.02, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.97 to 1.07), despite low rates of timely angiography in ST-elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, and lower use of DES (30% vs 38% to 40% for other races, p <0.0001). In contrast, Asian patients had the highest in-hospital mortality rates (7% vs 5% to 7% for other races, p <0.0001, odds ratio 1.13, 95% CI 1.08 to 1.20, relative to white patients), despite higher rates of timely angiography in ST-elevation myocardial infarction and non-ST-elevation myocardial infarction, and the highest use of DES (74% vs 63% to 68% for other races, p <0.0001). Asian patients had the worst in-hospital mortality outcomes after ACS, despite high use of early invasive treatments. Black patients had better in-hospital outcomes despite receiving less guideline-driven care.

Cangrelor reduces the risk of ischemic complications in patients with single-vessel and multi-vessel disease undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: Insights from the CHAMPION PHOENIX trial.

OBJECTIVE: To examine the safety and efficacy of cangrelor in patients with single-vessel disease (SVD) and multi-vessel disease (MVD). BACKGROUND: Cangrelor, an intravenous, rapidly acting P2Y12 inhibitor, is superior to clopidogrel in reducing ischemic events among patients receiving percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI). METHODS: We studied a modified intention to treat population of patients with SVD and MVD from the CHAMPION PHOENIX trial. The primary efficacy outcome was the composite of death, myocardial infarction (MI), ischemia-driven revascularization (IDR), and stent thrombosis (ST) at 48hours. The key safety outcome was non-coronary artery bypass grafting GUSTO severe bleeding at 48hours. RESULTS: Among 10,921 patients, 5,220 (48%) had SVD and 5,701 (52%) had MVD. MVD patients were older and more often had diabetes, hyperlipidemia, hypertension, prior stroke, and prior MI. After adjustment, MVD patients had similar rates of 48-hour death/MI/IDR/ST (6.3% vs 4.2%, adjusted odds ratio [OR] 1.6 [95% CI 0.42-6.06]) and GUSTO severe bleeding (0.1% vs 0.2%, P=.67) compared with SVD patients. Consistent with overall trial findings, cangrelor use reduced ischemic complications in patients with both SVD (3.9% vs 4.5%; OR 0.86, 95% CI 0.65-1.12) and MVD (5.5% vs 7.2%; OR 0.74, 95% CI 0.6-0.92, P-interaction=.43). GUSTO severe bleeding outcomes were not significantly increased with cangrelor or clopidogrel in either SVD or MVD patients. CONCLUSION: In the CHAMPION PHOENIX trial, MVD and SVD patients had similar ischemic outcomes at 48hours and 30days. Cangrelor consistently reduced ischemic complications in both SVD and MVD patients without a significant increase in GUSTO severe bleeding. CLINICAL PERSPECTIVES.

Socioeconomic inequalities in quality of care and outcomes among patients with acute coronary syndrome in the modern era of drug eluting stents.

BACKGROUND: The rapidly changing landscape of percutaneous coronary intervention provides a unique model for examining disparities over time. Previous studies have not examined socioeconomic inequalities in the current era of drug eluting stents (DES). METHODS AND RESULTS: We analyzed 835 070 hospitalizations for acute coronary syndrome (ACS) from the Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project across all insurance types from 2008 to 2011, examining whether quality of care and outcomes for patients with ACS differed by income (based on zip code of residence) with adjustment for patient characteristics and clustering by hospital. We found that lower-income patients were less likely to receive an angiogram within 24 hours of a ST elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI) (69.5% for IQ1 versus 73.7% for IQ4, P<0.0001, OR 0.79 [0.68 to 0.91]) or within 48 hours of a Non-STEMI (47.6% for IQ1 versus 51.8% for IQ4, P<0.0001, OR 0.86 [0.75 to 0.99]). Lower income was associated with less use of a DES (64.7% for IQ1 versus 71.2% for IQ4, P<0.0001, OR 0.83 [0.74 to 0.93]). However, no differences were found for coronary artery bypass surgery. Among STEMI patients, lower-income patients also had slightly increased adjusted mortality rates (10.8% for IQ1 versus 9.4% for IQ4, P<0.0001, OR 1.17 [1.11 to 1.25]). After further adjusting for time to reperfusion among STEMI patients, mortality differences across income groups decreased. CONCLUSIONS: For the most well accepted procedural treatments for ACS, income inequalities have faded. However, such inequalities have persisted for DES use, a relatively expensive and until recently, controversial revascularization procedure. Differences in mortality are significantly associated with differences in time to primary PCI, suggesting an important target for understanding why these inequalities persist.

Multivessel coronary artery disease predicts mortality, length of stay, and pressor requirements after liver transplantation.

The optimal preoperative cardiac evaluation strategy for patients with end-stage liver disease (ESLD) undergoing liver transplantation remains unknown. Patients are frequently referred for cardiac catheterization, but the effects of coronary artery disease (CAD) on posttransplant mortality are also unknown. We sought to determine the contribution of CAD and multivessel CAD in particular to posttransplant mortality. We performed a retrospective study of ESLD patients undergoing cardiac catheterization before liver transplant surgery between August 1, 2004 and August 1, 2007 to determine the effects of CAD on outcomes after transplantation. Among 83 patients who underwent left heart catheterization, 47 underwent liver transplantation during the follow-up period. Twenty-one of all ESLD patients who underwent liver transplantation (45%) had CAD. Fifteen of the transplant patients with CAD (71%) had multivessel disease. Among transplant patients, the presence of multivessel CAD (versus no CAD) was predictive of mortality (27% versus 4%, P = 0.046), increased length of stay (22 versus 15 days, P = 0.050), and postoperative pressor requirements (27% versus 4%, P = 0.029). Interestingly, neither the presence of any CAD nor the severity of stenosis in any single coronary artery predicted mortality. Furthermore, none of the traditional clinical predictors (age, gender, diabetes, creatinine, ejection fraction, and Model for End-Stage Liver Disease score) were predictive of mortality among transplant recipients. In conclusion, multivessel CAD is associated with higher mortality after liver transplantation when it is documented angiographically before transplantation, even in the absence of severe coronary artery stenosis. This study provides preliminary evidence showing that there may be significant prognostic value in coronary angiography as a part of the pretransplant workup.

Severe H1N1-Associated acute respiratory distress syndrome: A case series.

BACKGROUND: Acute respiratory distress syndrome resulting from novel influenza A virus (H1N1) infection remains uncommon. METHODS: We describe the clinical profiles of adult patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome due to microbiologically confirmed H1N1 admitted to a medical intensive care unit in San Francisco, California over a 2-month period. RESULTS: Between June 1 and July 31, 2009, 7 patients (age range: 25-66 years; 4 patients under the age of 40 years; 6 male; 1 pregnant) were diagnosed with H1N1, with 5 of 6 (83%) having initial false-negative rapid testing. All developed respiratory failure complicated by acute respiratory distress syndrome, with 4 additionally developing multiorgan dysfunction. All were managed with a lung protective ventilator strategy (average number of days on the ventilator: 16), and 4 patients also required additional rescue therapies for refractory hypoxemia, including very high positive end-expiratory pressure, inhaled epoprostenol, recruitment maneuvers, and prone positioning. Despite these measures, 3 patients (43%) ultimately died. CONCLUSIONS: Clinicians should be vigilant for the potential of H1N1 infection to progress to severe acute respiratory distress syndrome in a variety of patient demographics, including younger patients without baseline cardiopulmonary disease. A high degree of suspicion is critical, especially with the relative insensitivity of rapid testing, and should prompt empiric antiviral therapy.

Factor Xa inhibitors in acute coronary syndromes and venous thromboembolism.

As an alternative to the inconvenient and labor intensive traditional anticoagulants, Factor Xa inhibitors may offer new options for the prevention and treatment of acute coronary syndromes (ACS) and venous thromboembolism (VTE). Fondaparinux, an indirect FXa inhibitor, has equivalent efficacy but decreased bleeding risk. It has been recommended by the American College of Cardiology (ACC)/American Heart Association (AHA) as the preferred anticoagulant in ACS patients with higher bleeding risk managed with a noninvasive strategy. Based on the composite results of several clinical trials, fondaparinux is also recommended for VTE prevention in the setting of major orthopedic surgery. Rivaroxaban, a direct FXa inhibitor, appears to have at least equal efficacy and safety to established anticoagulants in the prevention of VTE. With advantages such as oral administration and a wide therapeutic window, it may provide a useful alternative to current anticoagulants. Ongoing studies are exploring its use in treatment of VTE and ACS, as well as prevention of stroke among patients with atrial fibrillation. In this review, we examine the key recent studies on efficacy and safety of FXa inhibitors in ACS and VTE management.

Standardized assessment of breast cancer surgical scars integrating the Vancouver Scar Scale, Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire, and patients' perspectives.

BACKGROUND: Currently, there is no standardized, comprehensive method to assess surgical scars after breast cancer surgery. This article evaluates the application of the Vancouver Scar Scale, in conjunction with patients' scar self-rating and scar-related pain, in a cohort of breast cancer patients. METHODS: Data were prospectively collected in 59 women with breast cancer. Scar assessment comprised: 1. objective rating by pairs of independent observers using the Vancouver Scar Scale; 2. patient's ratings of the scar's physical parameters and overall satisfaction; and 3. pain assessment using the Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire. A total of 212 scar scores (59 pairs of breast/chest wall and 47 pairs of axillary scar scores) were generated by 13 observers: three physicians, five radiation therapists, and five nurses. Internal consistency was tested using Cronbach's alpha statistics. Interobserver reliability was evaluated with Spearman's rho and intraclass correlation coefficient computations. Convergent validity of the observer and patient ratings was examined with Spearman's correlation statistics. Linear regression analysis was performed to identify significant factors associated with Vancouver Scar Scale scores and patient satisfaction. RESULTS: The Vancouver Scar Scale, patient self-rating scale, and Short-Form McGill Pain Questionnaire had acceptable internal consistency (Cronbach's alpha 0.79, 0.64, and 0.72 respectively). Interobserver reliability using the Vancouver Scar Scale was significant with Spearman's correlation coefficients of 0.53 for pliability, 0.47 for scar height, 0.49 for vascularity, 0.54 for pigmentation, and 0.66 for overall score (all p values < 0.001). Significant agreement between observer and patient ratings of scar pliability (p = 0.01) and color (p = 0.001) was demonstrated. Mild to moderate pain was reported by more than 40 percent of patients. Patient satisfaction was significantly associated with self-rating of scar pliability and pain, but not Vancouver Scar Scale scores. CONCLUSIONS: The Vancouver Scar Scale is a reliable and valid tool to objectively evaluate scars after breast cancer surgery. Evaluation of scar-related pain and patients' scar rating and satisfaction provide additional information relevant to scar assessment. This integrated approach is feasible in a busy clinical setting to advance care and research in scar management for breast cancer patients.