Impact of preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump on outcomes in coronary artery bypass grafting for unprotected left-main coronary artery disease.

Background: Preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) before coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) could improve operative outcomes by augmenting the diastolic coronary blood flow. Data on preoperative IABP use in patients with left-main coronary artery (LMCA) disease are limited. This study aimed to characterize patients who received preoperative IABP before CABG for LMCA and evaluate its effect on postoperative outcomes. Methods: This multicenter retrospective cohort study that included consecutive 914 patients who underwent CABG for unprotected LMCA disease from January 2015 to December 2019 in 14 tertiary referral centers. Patients were grouped according to the preoperative IABP insertion into patients with IABP (n=101) and without IABP (n=813). Propensity score matching adjusting for preoperative variables, with 1:1 match and a caliber of 0.03 identified 80 matched pairs. The primary outcomes used in propensity score matching were cardiac mortality and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Results: IABP was commonly inserted in patients with previous myocardial infarction (MI), chronic kidney disease, peripheral arterial disease, and congestive heart failure. IABP patients had higher EuroSCORE [ES >8%: 95 (11.86%) vs. 40 (39.60%), P<0.001] and SYNTAX {29 [interquartile range (IQR) 25-35] vs. 33 (IQR 26-36); P=0.02} scores. Preoperative cardiogenic shock and arrhythmia were more prevalent in patients with IABP, while acute coronary syndrome was more prevalent in patients without IABP. After matching, there was no difference in vasoactive inotropic score between groups [3.5 (IQR 1-7.5) vs. 6 (IQR 1-13.5), P=0.06], and lactate levels were nonsignificantly higher in patients with IABP [2.4 (IQR 1.4-4.5) vs. 3.1 (IQR 1.05-7.75), P=0.05]. There were no differences between groups in acute kidney injury [20 (25%) vs. 26 (32.5%), P=0.34], cerebrovascular accidents [3 (3.75%) vs. 4 (5%), P>0.99], heart failure [5 (6.25%) vs. 7 (8.75%), P=0.75], MI [7 (8.75%) vs. 8 (10%), P>0.99], major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events [10 (12.5%) vs. 17 (21.25%), P=0.21], and cardiac mortality [6 (7.50%) vs. 14 (17.50%), P=0.09]. Patients who received IABP had longer ventilation times [8.5 (IQR 6-23) vs. 15.5 (IQR 5-50.5) h, P=0.03] and intensive care unit (ICU) stays [3 (IQR 2-5) vs. 4 (IQR 2-7.5) days, P=0.01]. Conclusions: Preoperative IABP in patients with LMCA might not be associated with reduced cardiac mortality or hospital complications. IABP could increase the duration of mechanical ventilation and ICU stay, and its use should be individualized for each patient.

Photobiomodulation in Orthodontics: Mechanisms and Clinical Efficacy for Faster Tooth Movement.

Accelerated orthodontics has revolutionized traditional dental practices by employing innovative techniques to expedite tooth movement and enhance treatment outcomes. Among these advancements, low-level laser therapy (LLLT) has emerged as a promising adjunctive method that offers a non-invasive and efficient approach to accelerate orthodontic tooth movement. By harnessing the power of low-level lasers, LLLT aims to stimulate cellular activity, promote bone remodeling, and reduce treatment duration, thereby revolutionizing the landscape of orthodontic care. In this review, we discuss the mechanism of action, methods, efficacy, advantages, limitations, and future scope of LLLT, uncovering its transformative impact on the field of accelerated orthodontics.

Does Gender Affect the Outcomes of Myocardial Revascularization for Left-Main Coronary Artery Disease?

Currently, gender is not considered in the choice of the revascularization strategy for patients with unprotected left main coronary artery (ULMCA) disease. This study analyzed the effect of gender on the outcomes of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) vs coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with ULMCA disease. Females who had PCI (n = 328) were compared with females who had CABG (n = 132) and PCI in males (n = 894) was compared with CABG (n = 784). Females with CABG had higher overall hospital mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) than females with PCI. Male patients with CABG had higher MACE; however, mortality did not differ between males with CABG vs PCI. In female patients, follow-up mortality was significantly higher in CABG patients, and target lesion revascularization was higher in patients with PCI. Male patients had no difference in mortality and MACE between groups; however, MI was higher with CABG, and congestive heart failure was higher with PCI. In conclusion, women with ULMCA disease treated with PCI could have better survival with lower MACE compared with CABG. These differences were not evident in males treated with either CABG or PCI. PCI could be the preferred revascularization strategy in women with ULMCA disease.

Single Versus Dual Antiplatelet Therapy After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting for Unprotected Left-Main Coronary Disease.

BACKGROUND: The use of dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) after coronary revascularization for left-main disease is still debated. The study aimed to characterize patients who received dual versus single antiplatelet therapy (SAPT) after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for unprotected left-main disease and compare the outcomes of those patients. RESULTS: This multicenter retrospective cohort study included 551 patients who were grouped into 2 groups: patients who received SAPT (n = 150) and those who received DAPT (n = 401). There were no differences in age ( P = 0.451), gender ( P = 0.063), smoking ( P = 0.941), diabetes mellitus ( P = 0.773), history of myocardial infarction ( P = 0.709), chronic kidney disease ( P = 0.615), atrial fibrillation ( P = 0.306), or cerebrovascular accident ( P = 0.550) between patients who received SAPT versus DAPT. DAPTs were more commonly used in patients with acute coronary syndrome [87 (58%) vs. 273 (68.08%); P = 0.027], after off-pump CABG [12 (8%) vs. 73 (18.2%); P = 0.003] and in patients with radial artery grafts [1 (0.67%) vs. 32 (7.98%); P < 0.001]. While SAPTs were more commonly used in patients with low ejection fraction [55 (36.67%) vs. 61 (15.21%); P < 0.001] and in patients with postoperative acute kidney injury [27 (18%) vs. 37 (9.23%); P = 0.004]. The attributed treatment effect of DAPT for follow-up major adverse cerebrovascular and cardiac events was not significantly different from that of SAPT [ß, -2.08 (95% confidence interval (CI), -20.8-16.7); P = 0.828]. The attributed treatment effect of DAPT on follow-up all-cause mortality was not significantly different from that of SAPT [ß, 4.12 (CI, -11.1-19.32); P = 0.595]. There was no difference in bleeding between groups ( P = 0.666). CONCLUSIONS: DAPTs were more commonly used in patients with acute coronary syndrome, after off-pump CABG, and with radial artery grafts. SAPTs were more commonly used in patients with low ejection fraction and acute kidney injury. Patients on DAPT after CABG for left-main disease had comparable major adverse cerebrovascular and cardiac events and survival to patients on SAPT, with no difference in bleeding events.

Percutaneous coronary intervention vs. coronary artery bypass grafting in emergency and non-emergency unprotected left-main revascularization.

BACKGROUND: The optimal revascularization strategy in patients with left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease in the emergency setting is still controversial. Thus, we aimed to compare the outcomes of percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) vs. coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with and without emergent LMCA disease. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 2138 patients recruited from 14 centers between 2015 and 2019. We compared patients with emergent LMCA revascularization who underwent PCI (n = 264) to patients who underwent CABG (n = 196) and patients with non-emergent LMCA revascularization with PCI (n = 958) to those who underwent CABG (n = 720). The study outcomes were in-hospital and follow-up all-cause mortality and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). RESULTS: Emergency PCI patients were older and had a significantly higher prevalence of chronic kidney disease, lower ejection fraction, and higher EuroSCORE than CABG patients. CABG patients had significantly higher SYNTAX scores, multivessel disease, and ostial lesions. In patients presenting with arrest, PCI had significantly lower MACCE (P = 0.017) and in-hospital mortality (P = 0.016) than CABG. In non-emergent revascularization, PCI was associated with lower MACCE in patients with low (P = 0.015) and intermediate (P < 0.001) EuroSCORE. PCI was associated with lower MACCE in patients with low (P = 0.002) and intermediate (P = 0.008) SYNTAX scores. In non-emergent revascularization, PCI was associated with reduced hospital mortality in patients with intermediate (P = 0.001) and high (P = 0.002) EuroSCORE compared to CABG. PCI was associated with lower hospital mortality in patients with low (P = 0.031) and intermediate (P = 0.001) SYNTAX scores. At a median follow-up time of 20 months (IQR: 10-37), emergency PCI had lower MACCE compared to CABG [HR: 0.30 (95% CI 0.14-0.66), P < 0.003], with no significant difference in all-cause mortality between emergency PCI and CABG [HR: 1.18 (95% CI 0.23-6.08), P = 0.845]. CONCLUSIONS: PCI could be advantageous over CABG in revascularizing LMCA disease in emergencies. PCI could be preferred for revascularization of non-emergent LMCA in patients with intermediate EuroSCORE and low and intermediate SYNTAX scores.

Left Main Coronary Artery Revascularization in Patients with Impaired Renal Function: Percutaneous Coronary Intervention versus Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

INTRODUCTION: The evidence about the optimal revascularization strategy in patients with left main coronary artery (LMCA) disease and impaired renal function is limited. Thus, we aimed to compare the outcomes of LMCA disease revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] vs. coronary artery bypass grafting [CABG]) in patients with and without impaired renal function. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study included 2,138 patients recruited from 14 centers between 2015 and 2,019. We compared patients with impaired renal function who had PCI (n= 316) to those who had CABG (n = 121) and compared patients with normal renal function who had PCI (n = 906) to those who had CABG (n = 795). The study outcomes were in-hospital and follow-up major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE). RESULTS: Multivariable logistic regression analysis showed that the risk of in-hospital MACCE was significantly higher in CABG compared to PCI in patients with impaired renal function (odds ratio [OR]: 8.13 [95% CI: 4.19-15.76], p < 0.001) and normal renal function (OR: 2.59 [95% CI: 1.79-3.73]; p < 0.001). There were no differences in follow-up MACCE between CABG and PCI in patients with impaired renal function (HR: 1.14 [95% CI: 0.71-1.81], p = 0.585) and normal renal function (HR: 1.12 [0.90-1.39], p = 0.312). CONCLUSIONS: PCI could have an advantage over CABG in revascularization of LMCA disease in patients with impaired renal function regarding in-hospital MACCE. The follow-up MACCE was comparable between PCI and CABG in patients with impaired and normal renal function.

Percutaneous Coronary Intervention Vs Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery for Unprotected Left Main Coronary Disease: G-LM Registry.

Coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) has been the standard of care for revascularization for patients with obstructive unprotected left main coronary disease (ULMCA). There have been multiple randomized and registry data demonstrating the technical and clinical efficacy of PCI in certain patients with ULMCA. The purpose of this study is to evaluate clinical outcomes of ULMCA PCI as compared to CABG in patients requiring revascularization in three Gulf countries. All ULMCA cases treated by PCI with DES versus CABG were retrospectively identified from 14 centers in 3 Arab Gulf countries (KSA, UAE, and Bahrain) from January 2015 to December 2019. In total, 2138 patients were included: 1222 were treated with PCI versus 916 with CABG. Patients undergoing PCI were older, and had higher comorbidities and mean European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE). Aborted cardiac arrest and cardiogenic shock were reported more in the PCI group at hospital presentation. In addition, lower ejection fractions were reported in the PCI group. In hospital mortality and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) occurred more in patients undergoing CABG than PCI. At median follow-up of 15 months (interquartile range, 30), no difference was observed in freedom from revascularization, MACCE, or total mortality between those treated with PCI and CABG. While findings are similar to Western data registries, continued follow-up will be needed to ascertain whether this pattern continues into latter years.

Prevalence and Risk Factors of Dry Eye Symptoms in a Saudi Arabian Population.

BACKGROUND: The information about dry eye epidemiology in Saudi Arabia is few in literature. PURPOSE: To estimate the prevalence and identify determinants of dry eye symptoms (DES) in Al-Ahsa, Saudi Arabia. METHODS: Using a multi-stage proportionate sampling technique, Saudis of both genders from 6 urban and 4 rural Primary Health Care centers in Al-Ahsa were enrolled. They were interviewed to gather data on sociodemography, symptoms of dry eye, factors potentially related to dry eye, and chronic comorbidities. If one or more of DESs present often or constantly, we labeled the person with DES. RESULTS: We examined 1858 Saudi adults with mean age of 39.3 ± 14.1 years. The age-adjusted prevalence of DES was 32.1% (95% confidence interval [CI] = 30.0-34.3). Multivariate logistic regression analysis showed that female gender (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 2.1, 95% CI = 1.7-2.6), older age (>56 years; aOR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.0-2.1), current smoking (aOR = 1.4, 95% CI = 1.1-1.8) and history of diabetes mellitus (aOR = 1.5, 95% CI = 1.2-2.0) were significantly associated with DES. Nonsignificant variables included residence (urban/rural); work status; wearing contact lenses; multivitamin use; caffeine use; history of trachoma, hypertension, bronchial asthma, coronary artery disease, thyroid disease, arthritis, hemolytic blood diseases (sickle cell-thalassemia), gout, and osteoporosis. CONCLUSION: DES are highly prevalent among the adult population of Al-Ahsa. Females, persons more than 55 years of age, smokers and diabetics were associated to DES.

Quantifying Aortic Valve Calcification using Coronary Computed Tomography Angiography.

INTRODUCTION: Aortic valve calcification (AVC) has been associated with major adverse cardiovascular events and all-cause mortality. We sought to develop and validate a method to quantify AVC using coronary CT angiography (CTA). METHODS: Of 59 patients who underwent both non-contrast and contrast enhanced coronary CTA, 25 patients served as the derivation cohort and 34 patients served as the validation cohort. For non-contrast enhanced CT, quantification of AVC was performed using the Agatston method for coronary artery calcification (CAC). For contrast enhanced coronary CTA, a region of interest (ROI) was placed in the ascending aorta and the mean aortic attenuation value (HUAorta) and standard deviation (SD) were measured. Using a calcium threshold of mean HUAorta + 2SD, the AVCCTA was calculated. All other Agatston score parameters (weighting factors and area calculations) remained unchanged. RESULTS: In the derivation cohort, the correlation between AVCCAC and AVCCTA was excellent (r = 0.982). Using the line of best fit, a correction factor was calculated enabling the conversion of AVCCTA results to a AVCCAC equivalent (AVCCorrected = 1.868 × AVCCTA). Using this correction in the validation cohort, the correlation and agreement between AVCCAC and AVCCorrected were good (ICC = 0.939; 95% CI: 0.881-0.969; kappa = 0.700; 95% CI: 0.469-0.931). CONCLUSION: The quantification of AVCCorrected using contrast enhanced CTA is feasible using a systematic approach with very good reliability and good agreement with AVCCAC. Larger-scale validation studies are needed to determine whether the use of AVCCAC can be eliminated in favour of AVCCorrected.

Intraaortic balloon pump in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial infarction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiogenic shock is associated with significant mortality, particularly when caused by myocardial infarction. Intraaortic balloon pump (IABP) is the primary hemodynamic adjunct in patients with cardiogenic shock; however, evidence suggests that IABP may not improve mortality in this population. METHODS: We conducted an electronic search of the Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane trial registry databases. Two reviewers independently screened citations and identified eligible trials. The same reviewers abstracted data independently. We pooled the data using a fixed effect model and reported dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Subsequently, we used the GRADE approach to judge the quality of evidence. RESULTS: We included 4 randomized trials with 735 patients. The use of IABP did not reduce the risk of death in patients with cardiogenic shock secondary to cardiac ischemia when compared with usual care (RR, 0.94; 95% CI, 0.79-1.13; P = 0.52; I² = 0%; moderate confidence). The use of IABP was not associated with an increased risk of stroke (RR, 0.77; 95% CI 0.22-2.69; P = 0.68; I² = 48%; very low confidence), limb ischemia (RR, 1.24; 95% CI, 0.59-2.59; P = 0.58; I² = 0%; low confidence), or major bleeding (RR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.34-1.72; P = 0.52; I² = 0%; low confidence). CONCLUSIONS: The use of IABP in patients with cardiogenic shock complicating myocardial ischemia does not reduce mortality (moderate confidence) and is not associated with a higher risk of complications (very low to low confidence). The results should be interpreted with caution owing to limitations such as imprecision, risk of bias, and clinical heterogeneity.