Advanced considerations in survival analysis.

Investigation of survival during the follow-up period is common in cardiovascular research and has intrinsic issues that require precise knowledge, such as survival or censoring. Besides, as the follow-up period lengthens and events other than mortality are studied, the analysis becomes more complex, so Kaplan-Meier analyses or Cox models are not always sufficient. In this primer, we provide the reader with detailed information on the interpretation of the most common survival analyses and delve into methods to analyse competing risks or alternatives to the conventional methods when the proportional hazards assumption is not met.

Ultrafast track versus conventional fast track in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a propensity score-matched analysis.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed at comparing the risk of major adverse events and length of stay between patients undergoing ultrafast track and conventional fast track. METHODS: Retrospective cohort study adjusted by propensity score matching, including patients operated on between March 2020 and December 2022 of any of the following: coronary, valve surgery or ascending aorta surgery. Patients were divided into 2 groups: ultrafast track: extubation in the operating room and fast track: extubation attempted in the first 6 postoperative hours. The primary objective was to compare the risk of the combined event death, lung respiratory outcomes (reintubation, mechanical ventilation longer than 24 h or pneumonia), or acute renal failure. RESULTS: A total of 1126 patients were included. A total of 579 (51.4%) were extubated in the operating room. A total of 331 pairs were available after matching by propensity score. The risk of the primary outcome was 11.8% (n = 39) in the fast-track group and 6.3% (n = 21) in the ultrafast-track group (P = 0.013), mostly driven by lung adverse events (6.9% vs 2.4%, P = 0.011) while no significant differences were detected in the risk of death (2.4% vs 1.8%, P = 0.77) or acute renal failure (8% vs 6.3%, P = 0.56). The risk of myocardial infarction was higher in the fast-track group (2.7% vs 0%, P = 0.039). The median length of stay in the postoperative intensive care unit was longer in the fast-track group [24.7 h (interquartile range 21.5; 62.9) vs 23.5 h (interquartile range 22; 46), P = 0.015]. CONCLUSIONS: In patients undergoing cardiac surgery, extubation in the operating room is associated to a lower risk of postoperative complications (mostly driven by lung adverse events) and length of stay in intensive care unit as compared to fast track.

5-Year haemodynamic performance of three aortic bioprostheses. A randomized clinical trial.

OBJECTIVES: The Carpentier Perimount (CP) Magna Ease, the Crown Phospholipid Reduction Treatment (PRT) and the Trifecta bovine pericardial valves have been widely used worldwide. The primary end point of this study was to compare the haemodynamic performance quantified by in vivo echocardiograms of these 3 aortic prostheses. METHODS: The "BEST-VALVE" (comparison of 3 contemporary cardiac bioprostheses: mid-term valve haemodynamic performance) was a single-centre randomized clinical trial to compare the haemodynamic and clinical outcomes of the aforementioned bioprostheses. The 5-year results are assessed in this manuscript. RESULTS: A total of 154 patients were included. The CP Magna Ease (n = 48, 31.2%), Crown PRT (n = 51, 32.1%) and Trifecta (n = 55, 35.7%) valves were compared. Significant differences were observed among the 3 bioprostheses 5 years after the procedure. The following haemodynamic differences were found between the CP Magna Ease and the Crown PRT bioprostheses [mean aortic gradient: 12.3 mmHg (interquartile range {IQR} 7.8-17.5) for the CP Magna Ease vs 15 mmHg (IQR 10.8-31.9) for the Crown PRT, P < 0.001] and between the CP Magna Ease and the Trifecta prostheses [mean aortic gradient: 12.3 mmHg (IQR 7.8-17.5) for the CP Magna Ease vs 14.7 mmHg (IQR 8.2-55) for the Trifecta, P < 0.001], with a better haemodynamic performance of the CP Magna Ease. The cumulative incidence of severe structural valve degeneration was 9.5% in the Trifecta group at 6 years of follow-up. The 1-, 3- and 5-year survival from all-cause mortality was 91.5%, 83.5% and 74.8%, respectively (log rank P = 0.440). Survival from the composite event at the 1-, 3- and 5-year follow-up was 92.8%, 74.6% and 59%, respectively (log rank P = 0.299). CONCLUSIONS: We detected significant differences between the 3 bioprostheses; the CP Magna Ease had the best haemodynamic performance at the 5-year follow-up.

Co-Management Reduces Mortality in Post-Sternotomy Mediastinitis.

Background: Post-sternotomy mediastinitis (PSM) is one of the most feared complications of cardiac surgery. The impact of a multidisciplinary management approach on this pathology is yet unknown. Patients and Methods: A multidisciplinary approach based on a co-management model (CMM) of care was initiated in January 2018 because of the incorporation of a hospitalist unit on a cardiac surgery department. An observational retrospective cohort study was designed to evaluate the impact of the CMM of care compared to the standard model (SM) of care in patients diagnosed with PSM. Our primary and secondary outcomes were survival time and treatment failure rate (two or more surgical procedures needed to solve PSM or PSM-related death), respectively. Data related to patient death date were collected from the Spanish National Death Index. A multivariable Cox regression model was created using those variables believed to be clinically relevant. Results: Ninety-one patients developed PSM from January 2010 to June 2020. Regarding the pre-operative clinical status, surgical procedure, and PSM severity, both groups had similar baseline characteristics. Patients were followed for a mean of 27.54 ± 30.5 months. A total of 60.3% of the SM group and 11.1% of the CMM group (p < 0.001) died. Treatment failure occurred in 53 patients (72.6%) in the SM group versus 7 (38.6%) in the CMM group (p = 0.007). The CMM independently reduced overall mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 0.11; 95% confidence interval [CI]. 0.01-0.83) and treatment failure rate (HR, 0.01; 95% CI, 0.001-0.183). Gram-positive bacterial infection (HR, 3.73; 95% CI, .6-8.3), and complete osteosynthesis material removal (HR, 0.47; 95% CI, 0.24-0.91) also influenced mortality in our model. Conclusions: A co-management care model reduced overall mortality in patients diagnosed with post-sternotomy mediastinitis.

One-Year Hemodynamic Performance of Three Cardiac Aortic Bioprostheses: A Randomized Comparative Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: We aimed to compare 1 year the hemodynamic in-vivo performance of three biological aortic prostheses (Carpentier Perimount Magna EaseTM, Crown PRTTM, and TrifectaTM). METHODS: The sample used in this study comes from the "BEST-VALVE" clinical trial, which is a phase IV single-blinded randomized clinical trial with the three above-mentioned prostheses. RESULTS: 154 patients were included. Carpentier Perimount Magna EaseTM (n = 48, 31.2%), Crown PRTTM (n = 51, 32.1%) and TrifectaTM (n = 55, 35.7%). One year after the surgery, the mean aortic gradient and the peak aortic velocity was 17.5 (IQR 11.3-26) and 227.1 (IQR 202.0-268.8) for Carpentier Perimount Magna EaseTM, 21.4 (IQR 14.5-26.7) and 237.8 (IQR 195.9-261.9) for Crown PRTTM, and 13 (IQR 9.6-17.8) and 209.7 (IQR 176.5-241.4) for TrifectaTM, respectively. Pairwise comparisons demonstrated improved mean gradients and maximum velocity of TrifectaTM as compared to Crown PRTTM. Among patients with nominal prosthesis sizes ≤ 21, the mean and peak aortic gradient was higher for Crown PRTTM compared with TrifectaTM, and in patients with an aortic annulus measured with metric Hegar dilators less than or equal to 22 mm. CONCLUSIONS: One year after surgery, the three prostheses presented a different hemodynamic performance, being TrifectaTM superior to Crown PRTTM.

Variablity of Mechanical or Tissue Valve Implantation in Patients Undergoing Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Spain: National Retrospective Analysis from 2007 to 2018.

BACKGROUND: There is no robust evidence regarding the types of valves implanted among patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) in Spain. METHODS: All cases of patients undergoing SAVR ± coronary artery bypass grafting from January 2007 to December 2018 in the public Spanish National Health System were included. We analyzed the trends of SAVR volume, risk profile and type of implanted valve across time and place. Using multivariable logistic regression, we identified factors associated with biological SAVR. RESULTS: In total, 62,870 episodes of SAVR in 15 Spanish territories were included. In 35,693 (56.8%), a tissue valve was implanted. The annual volume of procedures increased from 107.3/million (2007) to 128.6 (2017). In 2018, it fell to 108.5. Age increased and Charlson's comorbity index worsened throughout the study period. Tissue valve implantation increased in most regions. After adjusting for other covariates, we observed a high variability in aortic valve implantation across different regions, with differences of as much as 20-fold in the use of tissue valves. CONCLUSIONS: Between 2007 and 2018, we detected a significant increase in the use of bioprostheses in patients undergoing SAVR in Spain, and a great variability in the types of valve between the Spanish territories, which was not explained by the different risk profiles of patients.

Superviviente a doble complicación mecánica tras el infarto: rotura del músculo papilar posteromedial y rotura contenida de pared libre / Survivor of a double mechanical complication after myocardial infarction: papillary muscle rupture and contained free-wall rupture

No disponible