Advances in revascularization of the left coronary artery.

Ischaemic heart disease is the most common cardiovascular disease worldwide, and it contributes to a significant source of morbidity and mortality internationally. It can be asymptomatic for many years and present suddenly with acute coronary syndrome or can be progressive with angina and eventual acute myocardial infarction. Diseases of the left coronary system can be drastic and fatal if not managed correctly. With ongoing increase in the practice of percutaneous intervention; patient demographics for conventional coronary artery bypass grafting surgery have more risk factors than before. Conventional bypass surgery has also evolved to include minimally invasive and hybrid techniques. Although some evidence supports each approach, controversies remain.

Coronary artery bypass grafting: Factors affecting outcomes.

INTRODUCTION: Coronary artery bypass grafting forms the bulk of a cardiac surgeon's workload. An extensive amount of research has been undertaken to improve the outcomes of this procedure. This literature review aimed to summarize key areas that influence coronary artery bypass grafting in modern day practice. METHODS: A comprehensive electronic search was done using PubMed, Ovid, SCOPUS, Embase and google scholar from inception to July 2020. Articles were included if they discussed factors affecting outcomes in coronary bypass grafting (CABG). Case reports, expert opinion, and editorials were excluded. RESULTS: There are many factors that influence and predict outcomes following coronary artery bypass surgery. Age, diabetes, and isolated systolic hypertension were preoperative factors with strong correlation to mortality and morbidity rates post CABG. In addition to these, the degree of renal failure and heart failure correlated with poorer operative results. The use of the left internal mammary artery has transformed outcomes and has proven advantage over venous conduit use. Newer minimal invasive techniques have the potential to further optimize outcomes. CONCLUSION: The numerous and complex factors which impair outcomes following CABG need to be further researched and addressed using larger trials and possible optimization of multi-disciplinary team approach to further improve long term outcomes.

Surgical Treatment of Atrial Fibrillation: Cutting Through the Edges.

Medical management of atrial fibrillation can be complex, challenging and requiring time to prove its effectiveness; furthermore, the response can be refractory and inconsistent if the underlying pathology is not permanently addressed. Surgical ablation has become a key intervention, and since its first intervention in 1987 (the Cox-maze procedure), the technique has evolved from a conventional open method to a minimally invasive technique whilst retaining excellent outcomes. Furthermore, recent advances in the use of a hybrid approach have been established as satisfactory approach in managing atrial fibrillation with satisfactory outcomes. This literature review focuses on the evidence behind the surgical success in managing atrial fibrillation throughout the past, present and the future of these surgical interventions.

Surgical treatment of atrial fibrillation: cutting through the edges

Abstract Medical management of atrial fibrillation can be complex, challenging and requiring time to prove its effectiveness; furthermore, the response can be refractory and inconsistent if the underlying pathology is not permanently addressed. Surgical ablation has become a key intervention, and since its first intervention in 1987 (the Cox-maze procedure), the technique has evolved from a conventional open method to a minimally invasive technique whilst retaining excellent outcomes. Furthermore, recent advances in the use of a hybrid approach have been established as satisfactory approach in managing atrial fibrillation with satisfactory outcomes. This literature review focuses on the evidence behind the surgical success in managing atrial fibrillation throughout the past, present and the future of these surgical interventions.

Should Doctors Know Their Patients' Attachment Style? A Psychological Perspective and its Impact on Cardiac Surgery Outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: To increase our understanding of the psychological attachment styles in order to develop a preventative strategy that could potentially improve patients' perioperative outcomes. METHODS: A comprehensive literature search was performed utilizing major electronic databases. The search was done from inception to January 2019. All of the relevant papers have been extracted and critically appraised in this review. RESULTS: Understanding the psychological aspects of patients is crucial for a satisfactory postoperative outcome. Depression and anxiety have been shown to increase both mortality and morbidity after coronary artery bypass graft surgery, independently of medical factors, although the behavioural and biological mechanisms are poorly understood. Psychosocial assessment is an important part of the pre-transplant evaluation process. The majority of individuals undergoing a transplant have significant psychosocial problems and can either be deferred or denied the transplant until these psychosocial issues are approached and managed. Psychological distress has been shown to affect long-term prognosis of cardiac patients and as a result, it should be addressed during follow-up of cardiac arrest survivors due to cardiac cause. Several studies have considered different approaches and analyses of different psychological attachments, and the understanding of such parameters perioperatively could possibly minimise perioperatively complications. CONCLUSION: Since psychological distress affects long-term prognosis of cardiac surgery patients, it should be addressed during follow-up of cardiac arrest survivors due to cardiac cause.

Should doctors know their patients' attachment style? a psychological perspective and its impact on cardiac surgery outcomes

Abstract Objective: To increase our understanding of the psychological attachment styles in order to develop a preventative strategy that could potentially improve patients' perioperative outcomes. Methods: A comprehensive literature search was performed utilizing major electronic databases. The search was done from inception to January 2019. All of the relevant papers have been extracted and critically appraised in this review. Results: Understanding the psychological aspects of patients is crucial for a satisfactory postoperative outcome. Depression and anxiety have been shown to increase both mortality and morbidity after coronary artery bypass graft surgery, independently of medical factors, although the behavioural and biological mechanisms are poorly understood. Psychosocial assessment is an important part of the pre-transplant evaluation process. The majority of individuals undergoing a transplant have significant psychosocial problems and can either be deferred or denied the transplant until these psychosocial issues are approached and managed. Psychological distress has been shown to affect long-term prognosis of cardiac patients and as a result, it should be addressed during follow-up of cardiac arrest survivors due to cardiac cause. Several studies have considered different approaches and analyses of different psychological attachments, and the understanding of such parameters perioperatively could possibly minimise perioperatively complications. Conclusion: Since psychological distress affects long-term prognosis of cardiac surgery patients, it should be addressed during follow-up of cardiac arrest survivors due to cardiac cause.

General Anesthesia Versus Local Anesthesia in Carotid Endarterectomy: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: The choice of anesthetic technique in carotid endarterectomy (CEA) has been controversial. This study compared the outcomes of general anesthesia (GA) and local anesthesia (LA) in CEA. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of comparative studies. SETTING: Hospitals. PARTICIPANTS: Adult patients undergoing CEA with either LA or GA. INTERVENTIONS: The effects of GA and LA on CEA outcomes were compared. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: PubMed, OVID, Scopus, and Embase were searched to June 2018. Thirty-one studies with 152,376 patients were analyzed. A random effect model was used, and heterogeneity was assessed with the I2 and chi-square tests. LA was associated with shorter surgical time (weighted mean difference -9.15 min [-15.55 to -2.75]; p = 0.005) and less stroke (odds ratio [OR] 0.76 [0.62-0.92]; p = 0.006), cardiac complications (OR 0.59 [0.47-0.73]; p < 0.00001), and in-hospital mortality (OR 0.72 [0.59-0.90]; p = 0.003). Transient neurologic deficit rates were similar (OR 0.69 [0.46-1.04]; p = 0.07). Heterogeneity was significant for surgical time (I2 = 0.99, chi-square = 1,336.04; p < 0.00001), transient neurologic deficit (I2 = 0.41, chi-square = 28.81; p = 0.04), and cardiac complications (I2 = 0.42, chi-square = 43.32; p = 0.01) but not for stroke (I2 = 0.22, chi-square = 30.72; p = 0.16) and mortality (I2 = 0.00, chi-square = 21.69; p = 0.65). Randomized controlled trial subgroup analysis was performed, and all the aforementioned variables were not significantly different or heterogenous. CONCLUSION: The results from this study showed no inferiority of using LA to GA in patients undergoing CEA. Future investigations should be reported more systematically, preferably with randomization or propensity-matched analysis, and thus registries will facilitate investigation of this subject. Anesthetic choice in CEA should be individualized and encouraged where applicable.

Innominate vs. axillary artery cannulation in aortic surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Abstract Objective: To investigate whether axillary artery cannulation has supremacy over innominate artery cannulation in thoracic aortic surgery. Methods: A comprehensive search was undertaken among the four major databases (PubMed, Excerpta Medica dataBASE [EMBASE], Scopus, and Ovid) to identify all randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials comparing axillary to innominate artery cannulation in thoracic aortic surgery. Databases were evaluated and assessed up to March 2017. Results: Only three studies fulfilled the criteria for this meta-analysis, including 534 patients. Cardiopulmonary bypass time was significantly shorter in the innominate group (P=0.004). However, the innominate group had significantly higher risk of prolonged intubation > 48 hours (P=0.04) than the axillary group. Further analysis revealed no significant difference between the innominate and axillary groups for deep hypothermic circulatory arrest time (P=0.06). The relative risks for temporary and permanent neurological deficits as well as in-hospital mortality were not significantly different for both groups (P=0.90, P=0.49, and P=0.55, respectively). Length of hospital stay was similar for both groups. Conclusion: There is no superiority of axillary over innominate artery cannulation in thoracic aortic surgery in terms of perioperative outcomes; however, as the studies were limited, larger scale comparative studies are required to provide a solid evidence base for choosing optimal arterial cannulation site.

Innominate vs. Axillary Artery Cannulation in Aortic Surgery: a Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate whether axillary artery cannulation has supremacy over innominate artery cannulation in thoracic aortic surgery. METHODS: A comprehensive search was undertaken among the four major databases (PubMed, Excerpta Medica dataBASE [EMBASE], Scopus, and Ovid) to identify all randomized and nonrandomized controlled trials comparing axillary to innominate artery cannulation in thoracic aortic surgery. Databases were evaluated and assessed up to March 2017. RESULTS: Only three studies fulfilled the criteria for this meta-analysis, including 534 patients. Cardiopulmonary bypass time was significantly shorter in the innominate group (P=0.004). However, the innominate group had significantly higher risk of prolonged intubation > 48 hours (P=0.04) than the axillary group. Further analysis revealed no significant difference between the innominate and axillary groups for deep hypothermic circulatory arrest time (P=0.06). The relative risks for temporary and permanent neurological deficits as well as in-hospital mortality were not significantly different for both groups (P=0.90, P=0.49, and P=0.55, respectively). Length of hospital stay was similar for both groups. CONCLUSION: There is no superiority of axillary over innominate artery cannulation in thoracic aortic surgery in terms of perioperative outcomes; however, as the studies were limited, larger scale comparative studies are required to provide a solid evidence base for choosing optimal arterial cannulation site.