Association Between Body Mass Index, Obesity, and Clinical Outcomes Following Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Brazil: An Analysis of One Year of Follow-up of BYPASS Registry Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the association between body mass index (BMI), obesity, clinical outcomes, and mortality following coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in Brazil using a large sample with one year of follow-up from the Brazilian Registry of Cardiovascular Surgeries in Adults (or BYPASS) Registry database. METHODS: A multicenter cohort-study enrolled 2,589 patients submitted to isolated CABG and divided them into normal weight (BMI 20.0-24.9 kg/m2), overweight (BMI 25.0-29.9 kg/m2), and obesity (BMI > 30.0 kg/m2) groups. Inpatient postoperative outcomes included the most frequently described complications and events. Collected post-discharge outcomes included rehospitalization and mortality rates within 30 days, six months, and one year of follow-up. RESULTS: Sternal wound infections (SWI) rate was higher in obese compared to normal-weight patients (relative risk [RR]=5.89, 95% confidence interval [CI]=2.37-17.82; P=0.001). Rehospitalization rates in six months after discharge were higher in obesity and overweight groups than in normal weight group (χ=6.03, P=0.049); obese patients presented a 2.2-fold increase in the risk for rehospitalization within six months compared to normal-weight patients (RR=2.16, 95% CI=1.17-4.09; P=0.045). Postoperative complications and mortality rates did not differ among groups during time periods. CONCLUSION: Obesity increased the risk for SWI, leading to higher rehospitalization rates and need for surgical interventions within six months following CABG. Age, female sex, and diabetes were associated with a higher risk of mortality. The obesity paradox remains controversial since BMI may not be sufficient to assess postoperative risk in light of more complex and dynamic evaluations of body composition and physical fitness.

The ISCHEMIA trial revisited: setting the record straight on the benefits of coronary bypass surgery and the misinterpretation of a landmark trial.

OBJECTIVES: The ISCHEMIA trial is a landmark study that has been the subject of heated debate within the cardiovascular community. In this analysis of the ISCHEMIA trial, we aim to set the record straight on the benefits of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and the misinterpretation of this landmark trial. We sought to clarify and reorient this misinterpretation. METHODS: We herein analyse the ISCHEMIA trial in detail and describe how its misinterpretation has led to an erroneous guideline recommendation downgrading for prognosis-altering surgical therapy in these at-risk patients. RESULTS: The interim ISCHEMIA trial findings align with previous evidence where CABG reduces the long-term risks of myocardial infarction and mortality in advanced coronary artery disease. The trial outcomes of a significantly lower rate of cardiovascular mortality and a higher rate of non-cardiovascular mortality with the invasive strategy are explained according to landmark evidence. CONCLUSIONS: The ISCHEMIA trial findings are aligned with previous evidence and should not be used to downgrade recommendations in recent guidelines for the indisputable benefits of CABG.

Expert systematic review on the choice of conduits for coronary artery bypass grafting: endorsed by the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (EACTS) and The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS).

PREAMBLE: The finalized document was endorsed by the EACTS Council and STS Executive Committee before being simultaneously published in the European Journal of Cardio-thoracic Surgery (EJCTS) and The Annals of Thoracic Surgery (The Annals) and the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (JTCVS).

Joint Recommendations From The Latin American Association of Cardiac and Endovascular Surgery (LACES) and The Cardiovascular Anesthesia Committee of The Latin American Confederation of Anesthesia Societies (CLASA) on the Timing for Cardiac Surgery After COVID-19 Infection.

INTRODUCTION: Since the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, cardiac surgeries in patients with previous infection by COVID-19 were suspended or postponed, which led to surgeries performed in patients with an advanced stage of their disease and an increase in the waiting list. There is a heterogeneous attitude in Latin America on the optimal timing to cardiac surgery in patients with previous COVID-19 infection due to scarce data on its outcome. Two Latin American associations joined to establish common suggestions on the optimal timing of surgery in patients with previous COVID-19 infection. METHODS: Data collection was performed using a pre-established form, which included year of publication, objective, type of study (prospective/retrospective, descriptive/analytical), number of patients, year of study, waiting time between infection and surgery, type of surgery, morbidity, mortality, and conclusions regarding the association between mortality and morbidity. Final recommendations were approved by the board of directors of Latin American Association of Cardiac and Endovascular Surgery (LACES) and Latin American Confederation of Anesthesia Societies (CLASA). RESULTS: Of the initial 1,016 articles, 11 comprised the final selection. Only six of them included patients who underwent cardiac surgery. According to the analyzed literature, optimal timing for cardiac surgery needs to consider the following aspects: deferable surgery, symptomatic COVID-19 infection, completeness of COVID-19 vaccination. CONCLUSION: These recommendations derive from the analysis of the scarce literature published at present on outcomes after cardiac surgery in patients with previous COVID-19 infection. These are to be taken as a dynamic recommendation in which Latin American reality was taken into consideration.

The trade-offs in the making of the interventional heart surgeon.

The current generation of heart surgeons is experiencing growing consternation with the introduction of the so-called disruptive transcatheter procedures, seemingly threatening the stability and even existence of contemporary cardiovascular surgery. We provide a commentary reporting the comparative outcomes of transcatheter therapies and conventional surgery throughout different scenarios and the evolving superiority of the surgical techniques. The upfront conclusion is that surgeons should strive to keep their surgical skills; the downfall of surgery is not anticipated and as revealed, will hold its ground for the foreseeable future.