Ticagrelor use and practice patterns among Canadian cardiac surgeons.

BACKGROUND AND AIM: The P2Y12 platelet receptor inhibitor ticagrelor is widely used in patients following acute coronary syndromes or in those who have received coronary stents. Bentracimab is a monoclonal antibody-based reversal agent that is being formally evaluated in a Phase 3 clinical trial. Here, we probe the knowledge, attitudes, and practice patterns of cardiac surgeons regarding their perioperative management of ticagrelor and potential application of a ticagrelor reversal agent. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed by a working group of cardiac surgeons to inquire into participants' practices and beliefs regarding ticagrelor and disseminated to practicing, Canadian-trained cardiac surgeons. RESULTS: A total of 70 Canadian-trained cardiac surgeons participated. Bleeding risk was identified as the most significant consideration when surgically revascularizing ticagrelor-treated patients (90%). There is variability in the duration of withholding ticagrelor before coronary artery bypass graft procedure in a stable patient; 44.3% wait 3 days and 32.9% wait 4 days or longer. Currently, 15.7% of cardiac surgeons prophylactically give platelet transfusions and fresh frozen plasma intraoperatively following protamine infusion in patients who have recently received ticagrelor. Interestingly, 47.1% of surveyed surgeons were aware of a reversal agent for ticagrelor, 91.4% of cardiac surgeons would consider utilizing a ticagrelor reversal agent if available, and 51.4% acknowledged that the introduction of such an agent would be a major advance in clinical practice. CONCLUSIONS: The present survey identified ticagrelor-related bleeding as a major concern for cardiac surgeons. Surgeons recognized the significant unmet need that a ticagrelor reversal agent would address.

Transcatheter valve-in-valve versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement for the treatment of degenerated bioprosthetic aortic valve: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the safety and efficacy of valve-in-valve transcatheter aortic valve replacement (ViV) versus redo surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for the treatment of previously failed aortic bioprostheses. BACKGROUND: Valve-in-valve has emerged as a treatment option for patients with a failed aortic bioprosthesis. Evidence for safety and efficacy remains limited to small studies. METHODS: Medline and Embase were searched to 2017 for studies that directly compared ViV to redo SAVR. A random effects meta-analysis was performed. RESULTS: Four unadjusted (n = 298) and two propensity-matched (n = 200) observational studies were included. Valve-in-valve patients were 2.85-years older (P = 0.03) and were 23% higher in predicted mortality risk (ratio of means: 1.23, 95% confidence interval (95%CI): 1.02-1.48). There was no difference in peri-operative mortality (4.4% vs. 5.7%, P = 0.83;I2 = 0%) or late mortality, reported at median one year follow-up (incident rate ratio (IRR) 0.93, 95%CI: 0.74-1.16, P = 0.51, I2 = 0%) between ViV and redo SAVR. The incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation (8.3% vs 14.6%; P = 0.05;I2 = 0%) and dialysis (3.2% vs. 10.3%; P = 0.03; I2 = 0%) were lower in ViV. There was a reduction in the incidence of severe patient-prosthesis mismatch (3.3% vs 13.5%; P = 0.03; I2 = 0%) and mild or greater paravalvular leak (5.5% vs 21.1%; P = 0.03; I2 = 37%) in the redo SAVR group compared to ViV. CONCLUSIONS: Despite higher predicted surgical risk of ViV patients, there was no difference in mortality but less permanent pacemaker implantation and dialysis compared to redo SAVR. Choice of treatment must be individualized for both anatomical and patient risk factors; in high risk patients with favorable previous prosthesis size, valve-in-valve may be preferred.

Computed Tomography Imaging Measurements as a Surrogate for Clinical Outcomes After Surgical Management of Acute Type A Aortic Dissection: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative computed tomography imaging surveillance is an essential component of care after acute type A aortic dissection (ATAAD) repair. Prognostic imaging factors after ATAAD repair have not been systematically reviewed. METHODS AND RESULTS: We performed a systematic review to summarize postoperative computed tomography measurements including aortic diameter, cross-sectional area, volume, growth rate, and false lumen thrombosis in addition mid- to long-term clinical outcomes after ATAAD repair. Searches were conducted in Medline, Embase, and CENTRAL in October 2022. Studies were included if they reported clinical outcomes such as mortality or aortic reintervention after 1 year and included aforementioned computed tomography findings. Studies of chronic aortic dissection and studies of exclusive patient populations such as those with connective tissue diseases were excluded. Risk of bias was assessed with the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale. Searches retrieved 6999 articles. Sixty-eight studies met inclusion criteria (7885 patients). Extended repairs were associated with improved false lumen thrombosis, decreased aortic growth rate, and decreased rates of reintervention but not improved survival. Growth rates of the aorta post-ATAAD repair were highest in the descending thoracic aorta. The most frequent prognostic imaging factors reported were a patent/partially thrombosed false lumen and postoperative aortic diameter >40 to 45 mm. CONCLUSIONS: Established measurements of positive aortic remodeling, including complete false lumen thrombosis and stabilization of postoperative aortic diameter and growth are the most studied prognostic indicators for improved clinical outcomes after ATAAD repair. Growth rate of the aorta remains significant after ATAAD repair. Future studies should prospectively evaluate and compare prognostic factors for improved surveillance and management.

Long-term survival, cardiovascular, and functional outcomes after minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting in 566 patients.

OBJECTIVE: Sternotomy has been the gold standard incision for surgical revascularization but may be associated with chronic pain and sternal malunion. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting allows for complete surgical revascularization through a small thoracotomy in selected patients. There is a paucity of long-term data, particularly functional outcomes, for patients who underwent minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting. METHODS: Patients (N = 566) who underwent minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting at a single institution over a 17-year period were prospectively followed. The primary outcome was survival. At late follow-up, patients were contacted for a questionnaire on functional outcomes. Multivariable Cox proportional hazard model identified correlates of the primary outcome. RESULTS: Clinical follow-up was complete for 100% of patients (mean 7.0 ± 4.4 years); a follow-up questionnaire was also completed for 83.9% (N = 427) of live patients. Fifty percent of patients (N = 283) had undergone multivessel grafting. At 12 years, survival for the entire cohort was 82.2% ± 2.6%. On late follow-up questionnaire, 12 patients (2.8%) had greater than Canadian Cardiovascular Score Class II angina and 19 patients (4.5%) had greater than New York Heart Association Class II symptoms. More than 98% of patients did not have pain related to the incision site. Cox proportional hazards analysis identified older age, peripheral vascular disease, prior myocardial infarction, left ventricular dysfunction, cancer in the past 5 years, intraoperative transfusion, and hybrid revascularization as correlates of mortality during follow-up. CONCLUSIONS: Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting is a safe and durable alternative to sternotomy coronary artery bypass grafting in selected patients, with excellent short- and long-term outcomes, including for multivessel coronary disease. At long-term follow-up, the proportion of patients with significant symptoms and incisional pain was low.

Infective Endocarditis Secondary to Injection Drug Use: A Survey of Canadian Cardiac Surgeons.

BACKGROUND: Injection drug use-associated infective endocarditis (IDU-IE) is a growing epidemic. The objective of this survey was to identify the beliefs and practice patterns of Canadian cardiac surgeons regarding surgical management of IDU-IE. METHODS: A 30-question survey was developed by a working group and distributed to all practicing adult cardiac surgeons in Canada. Data were analyzed using descriptive statistics. RESULTS: Of 146 surgeons, 94 completed the survey (64%). Half of surgeons (49%) would be less likely to operate on patients with IE if associated with IDU. In the case of prosthetic valve IE owing to continued IDU, 36% were willing to reoperate once and 14% were willing to reoperate twice or more. Most surgeons required commitments from patients before surgery (73%), and most referred patients to addiction services (81%). Some surgeons would offer a Ross procedure (10%) or homograft (8%) for aortic valve IE, and 47% would consider temporary mechanical circulatory support. Whereas only 17% of surgeons worked at an institution with an endocarditis team, 71% agreed that there was a need for one at each institution. Most surgeons supported the development of IDU-IE-specific guidelines (80%). CONCLUSIONS: Practice patterns and surgical management of IDU-IE vary considerably across Canada. Areas of clinical unmet needs include the development of a formal addiction services referral protocol for patients, the development of an interdisciplinary endocarditis team, as well as the creation of IDU-IE clinical practice guidelines.