Mortality risk prediction in high-risk patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: Are traditional risk scores accurate?

BACKGROUND: The performance of traditional scores is significantly limited to predict mortality in high-risk cardiac surgery. The aim of this study was to compare the performance of STS, ESII and HiriSCORE models in predicting mortality in high-risk patients undergoing CABG. METHODS: Cross-sectional analysis in the international prospective database of high-risk patients: HiriSCORE project. We evaluated 248 patients with STS or ESII (5-10%) undergoing CABG in 8 hospitals in Brazil and China. The main outcome was mortality, defined as all deaths occurred during the hospitalization in which the operation was performed, even after 30 days. Five variables were selected as predictors of mortality in this cohort of patients. The model's performance was evaluated through the calibration-in-the-large and the receiver operating curve (ROC) tests. RESULTS: The mean age was 69.90±9.45, with 52.02% being female, 25% of the patients were on New York Heart Association (NYHA) class IV and 49.6% had Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) class 4 angina, and 85.5% had urgency or emergency status. The mortality observed in the sample was 13.31%. The HiriSCORE model showed better calibration (15.0%) compared to ESII (6.6%) and the STS model (2.0%). In the ROC curve, the HiriSCORE model showed better accuracy (ROC = 0.74) than the traditional models STS (ROC = 0.67) and ESII (ROC = 0.50). CONCLUSION: Traditional models were inadequate to predict mortality of high-risk patients undergoing CABG. However, the HiriSCORE model was simple and accurate to predict mortality in high-risk patients.

Five-year outcomes after off-pump or on-pump coronary-artery bypass grafting

BACKGROUND: We previously reported that there was no significant difference at 30 days or at 1 year in the rate of the composite outcome of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, or renal failure between patients who underwent coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) performed with a beating-heart technique (off-pump) and those who underwent CABG performed with cardiopulmonary bypass (on-pump). We now report the results at 5 years (the end of the trial). METHODS: A total of 4752 patients (from 19 countries) who had coronary artery disease were randomly assigned to undergo off-pump or on-pump CABG. For this report, we analyzed a composite outcome of death, stroke, myocardial infarction, renal failure, or repeat coronary revascularization (either CABG or percutaneous coronary intervention). The mean follow-up period was 4.8 years. RESULTS: There were no significant differences between the off-pump group and the on-pump group in the rate of the composite outcome (23.1% and 23.6%, respectively; hazard ratio with off-pump CABG, 0.98; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.87 to 1.10; P=0.72) or in the rates of the components of the outcome, including repeat coronary revascularization, which was performed in 2.8% of the patients in the off-pump group and in 2.3% of the patients in the on-pump group (hazard ratio, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.85 to 1.73; P=0.29)...

Rationale and design of the coronary artery bypass grafting surgery off or on pump revascularization study: a large international randomized trial in cardiac surgery

Background Uncertainty remains regarding the benefits and risks of the technique of operating on a beating heart(off pump) for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery versus on-pump CABG. Prior trials had few events and relativelyshort follow-up. There is a need for a large randomized, controlled trial with long-term follow-up to inform both the short- andlong-term impact of the 2 approaches to CABG.Methods We plan to randomize 4,700 patients in whom CABG is planned to undergo the procedure on pump or offpump. The coprimary outcomes are a composite of total mortality, myocardial infarction (MI), stroke, and renal failure at30 days and a composite of total mortality, MI, stroke, renal failure, and repeat revascularization at 5 years. We will alsoundertake a cost-effectiveness analysis at 30 days and 5 years after CABG surgery. Other outcomes include neurocognitivedysfunction, recurrence of angina, cardiovascular mortality, blood transfusions, and quality of life.Results As of May 3, 2011, CORONARY has recruited N3,884 patients from 79 centers in 19 countries. Currently,patient's mean age is 67.6 years, 80.7% are men, 47.0% have a history of diabetes, 51.4% have a history of smoking, and34.4% had a previous MI. In addition, 20.9% of patients have a left main disease, and 96.6% have double or triplevessel disease.Conclusions CORONARY is the largest trial yet conducted comparing off-pump CABG to on-pump CABG. Its resultswill lead to a better understanding of the safety and efficacy of off-pump CABG. (Am Heart J 2012;163:1-6.)

Off-pump or on-pump coronary-arterybypass grafting at 30 days

BackgroundThe relative benefits and risks of performing coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) with a beating-heart technique (off-pump CABG), as compared with cardiopulmonarybypass (on-pump CABG), are not clearly established.MethodsAt 79 centers in 19 countries, we randomly assigned 4752 patients in whom CABG was planned to undergo the procedure off-pump or on-pump. The first coprimary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or new renal failure requiring dialysis at 30 days after randomization.ResultsThere was no significant difference in the rate of the primary composite outcomebetween off-pump and on-pump CABG (9.8% vs. 10.3%; hazard ratio for the offpump group, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.14; P = 0.59) or in any of its individual components. The use of off-pump CABG, as compared with on-pump CABG, significantly reduced the rates of blood-product transfusion (50.7% vs. 63.3%; relative risk, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.85; P<0.001), reoperation for perioperative bleeding(1.4% vs. 2.4%; relative risk, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.93; P = 0.02), acute kidney injury (28.0% vs. 32.1%; relative risk, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.96; P = 0.01), and respiratorycomplications (5.9% vs. 7.5%; relative risk, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.98; P = 0.03) but increased the rate of early repeat revascularizations (0.7% vs. 0.2%; hazard ratio, 4.01; 95% CI, 1.34 to 12.0; P = 0.01).ConclusionsThere was no significant difference between off-pump and on-pump CABG with respect to the 30-day rate of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or renal failure requiring dialysis. The use of off-pump CABG resulted in reduced rates of transfusion, reoperation for erioperative bleeding, respiratory complications, and acute kidney injury but also resulted in an increased risk of early revascularization. (Funded by theCanadian Institutes of Health Research; CORONARY ClinicalTrials.gov number,NCT00463294.)