A Randomized Trial of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells for Moderate to Severe Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome from COVID-19.

Rationale: There are limited therapeutic options for patients with coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-related acute respiratory distress syndrome with inflammation-mediated lung injury. Mesenchymal stromal cells offer promise as immunomodulatory agents. Objectives: Evaluation of efficacy and safety of allogeneic mesenchymal cells in mechanically-ventilated patients with moderate or severe COVID-19-induced respiratory failure. Methods: Patients were randomized to two infusions of 2 million cells/kg or sham infusions, in addition to the standard of care. We hypothesized that cell therapy would be superior to sham control for the primary endpoint of 30-day mortality. The key secondary endpoint was ventilator-free survival within 60 days, accounting for deaths and withdrawals in a ranked analysis. Measurements and Main Results: At the third interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board recommended that the trial halt enrollment as the prespecified mortality reduction from 40% to 23% was unlikely to be achieved (n = 222 out of planned 300). Thirty-day mortality was 37.5% (42/112) in cell recipients versus 42.7% (47/110) in control patients (relative risk [RR], 0.88; 95% confidence interval, 0.64-1.21; P = 0.43). There were no significant differences in days alive off ventilation within 60 days (median rank, 117.3 [interquartile range, 60.0-169.5] in cell patients and 102.0 [interquartile range, 54.0-162.5] in control subjects; higher is better). Resolution or improvement of acute respiratory distress syndrome at 30 days was observed in 51/104 (49.0%) cell recipients and 46/106 (43.4%) control patients (odds ratio, 1.36; 95% confidence interval, 0.57-3.21). There were no infusion-related toxicities and overall serious adverse events over 30 days were similar. Conclusions: Mesenchymal cells, while safe, did not improve 30-day survival or 60-day ventilator-free days in patients with moderate and/or severe COVID-19-related acute respiratory distress syndrome.

Intimal hyperplasia, saphenous vein graft disease, and clinical outcomes: Insights from the CTSN VEST randomized trial.

BACKGROUND: Diffuse intimal hyperplasia and graft irregularity adversely affect the long-term patency of saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) and clinical outcomes of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). The VEST trial evaluated the efficacy of external graft support in limiting the development of intimal hyperplasia (IH) at 1 year postsurgery. In the present secondary analysis, we explored the associations between graft disease and IH and clinical events. We also examined risk factors for early graft occlusion. METHODS: VEST is a within-patient randomized, multicenter trial that enrolled 224 patients with multivessel coronary disease undergoing CABG surgery, of whom 203 were evaluated by 1 year postsurgery. Intimal hyperplasia, lumen uniformity, graft stenosis, and graft perfusion were measured by intravascular ultrasound and angiography. Major cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE; including death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and revascularization) were recorded over a median follow-up of 3 years. RESULTS: Worse lumen uniformity, greater stenosis, and worse graft perfusion were associated with higher IH values and an increased incidence of clinical events. Consistent with previous findings, we identified endoscopic vein harvesting, female sex, and transit time flow measurement of pulsatility index and flow as risk factors for SVG occlusion during the first year postsurgery. CONCLUSIONS: In this secondary analysis of the VEST trial, we observed an association between intimal hyperplasia area and clinical measures of SVG disease at 1 year postsurgery. More severe SVG disease and larger areas of IH were associated with a higher incidence of 3-year MACCE. Ongoing follow-up to 5 years will further elucidate the impact of SVG disease on long-term clinical outcomes of CABG.

External Support for Saphenous Vein Grafts in Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Intimal hyperplasia and subsequent saphenous vein graft failure may have significant adverse clinical effects in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery. External support of saphenous vein grafts has the potential to prevent vein graft dilation and hence slow the rate of intimal hyperplasia and increase long-term vein patency. Objective: To determine efficacy, as measured by intimal hyperplasia, and safety of an external saphenous vein graft support device in patients undergoing a coronary bypass graft procedure. Design, Setting, and Participants: This within-patient randomized, open-label, multicenter study was conducted at 17 Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network centers in North America. Between January 2018 and February 2019, 224 patients with multivessel coronary artery disease undergoing isolated bypass surgery were enrolled. For each patient, 1 of 2 vein grafts was randomized to receive external support or no support. Interventions: External vein graft support or no support. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy end point was intimal hyperplasia area assessed by intravascular ultrasound at 12 months postrandomization for each study graft. Secondary confirmatory end points were lumen diameter uniformity assessed by angiography and graft failure (≥50% stenosis) by quantitative coronary angiography. Major cardiac and cerebrovascular events were collected through month 12. Results: Among 224 patients (mean [SD] age, 65.8 [8.3] years; 178 [79.5%] male), 203 (90.6%) were eligible for intravascular ultrasound, of which 85 (41.9%) had at least 1 study graft occluded or severely diseased at 12 months (55 supported, 56 unsupported). After imputation of data missing because of graft occlusion or severe disease, the estimated mean (SE) intimal hyperplasia area was 5.11 (0.16) mm2 in supported grafts and 5.79 (0.20) mm2 in unsupported grafts (P = .07). In a sensitivity analysis of 113 patients with both grafts imaged, the mean intimal hyperplasia area was 4.58 (0.18) mm2 and 5.12 (0.23) mm2 in supported and unsupported grafts, respectively (P = .04). By 12 months, 5 patients (2.2%) died and 16 patients (7.1%) experienced a major cardiac or cerebrovascular event. Conclusions and Relevance: The 12-month difference in intimal hyperplasia area between supported and unsupported grafts did not achieve statistical significance. Cumulative mortality and major cardiac or cerebrovascular events rates were similar to those in other randomized coronary artery bypass trials. Further investigation to assess the effect of external graft support devices on long-term graft patency and clinical outcomes is warranted. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03209609.

Concomitant Tricuspid Repair in Patients with Degenerative Mitral Regurgitation.

BACKGROUND: Tricuspid regurgitation is common in patients with severe degenerative mitral regurgitation. However, the evidence base is insufficient to inform a decision about whether to perform tricuspid-valve repair during mitral-valve surgery in patients who have moderate tricuspid regurgitation or less-than-moderate regurgitation with annular dilatation. METHODS: We randomly assigned 401 patients who were undergoing mitral-valve surgery for degenerative mitral regurgitation to receive a procedure with or without tricuspid annuloplasty (TA). The primary 2-year end point was a composite of reoperation for tricuspid regurgitation, progression of tricuspid regurgitation by two grades from baseline or the presence of severe tricuspid regurgitation, or death. RESULTS: Patients who underwent mitral-valve surgery plus TA had fewer primary-end-point events than those who underwent mitral-valve surgery alone (3.9% vs. 10.2%) (relative risk, 0.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.16 to 0.86; P = 0.02). Two-year mortality was 3.2% in the surgery-plus-TA group and 4.5% in the surgery-alone group (relative risk, 0.69; 95% CI, 0.25 to 1.88). The 2-year prevalence of progression of tricuspid regurgitation was lower in the surgery-plus-TA group than in the surgery-alone group (0.6% vs. 6.1%; relative risk, 0.09; 95% CI, 0.01 to 0.69). The frequencies of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events, functional status, and quality of life were similar in the two groups at 2 years, although the incidence of permanent pacemaker implantation was higher in the surgery-plus-TA group than in the surgery-alone group (14.1% vs. 2.5%; rate ratio, 5.75; 95% CI, 2.27 to 14.60). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing mitral-valve surgery, those who also received TA had a lower incidence of a primary-end-point event than those who underwent mitral-valve surgery alone at 2 years, a reduction that was driven by less frequent progression to severe tricuspid regurgitation. Tricuspid repair resulted in more frequent permanent pacemaker implantation. Whether reduced progression of tricuspid regurgitation results in long-term clinical benefit can be determined only with longer follow-up. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and the German Center for Cardiovascular Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02675244.).

Pacemaker implantation associated with tricuspid repair in the setting of mitral valve surgery: Insights from a Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network randomized trial.

OBJECTIVES: In a recent trial, tricuspid annuloplasty (TA) during mitral valve surgery (MVS) for degenerative mitral regurgitation and moderate or less tricuspid regurgitation (TR) reduced the composite rate of death, reoperation for TR, or TR progression at 2 years. However, this benefit was counterbalanced by an increase in implantation of permanent pacemakers (PPMs). In this study, we analyzed the timing, indications, and risk factors for these implantations. METHODS: We randomized 401 patients (MVS alone = 203; MVS + TA = 198). Potential risk factors for PPMs were assessed using multivariable time-to-event models with death and PPM implantation for heart failure indications as competing risks. RESULTS: A PPM was implanted in 36 patients (9.6; 95% CI, 6.8-13.0) within 2 years of randomization, with 30/187 (16.0%) in the MVS + TA and 6/188 (3.2%) in the MVS groups (rate ratio, 5.08; 95% CI, 2.16-11.94; P < .001). Most (29/36; 80.6%) implantations occurred within 30 days postoperatively. Independent risk factors for PPM implantation within 2 years were TA (hazard ratio [HR], 5.94; 95% CI, 2.27-15.53; P < .001), increasing age (5 years, HR, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.01-1.52; P = .04), and left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF; HR, 0.96; 95% CI, 0.92-0.99; P = .02). In the subset of TA recipients (n = 197), age (5 years, HR, 1.05; 95% CI, 1.00-1.10; P = .04) and LVEF (HR, 0.95; 95% CI, 0.91-0.99; P = .01) were associated with PPM within 2 years. CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant TA, age, and baseline LVEF were risk factors for PPM implantation in patients who underwent MVS for degenerative mitral regurgitation. Although TA was effective in preventing progression of TR, innovation is needed to identify ways to decrease PPM implantation rates.

Intramyocardial Injection of Mesenchymal Precursor Cells and Successful Temporary Weaning From Left Ventricular Assist Device Support in Patients With Advanced Heart Failure: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy improves myocardial function, but few patients recover sufficiently for explant, which has focused attention on stem cells to augment cardiac recovery. Objective: To assess efficacy and adverse effects of intramyocardial injections of mesenchymal precursor cells (MPCs) during LVAD implant. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized phase 2 clinical trial involving patients with advanced heart failure, undergoing LVAD implant, at 19 North American centers (July 2015-August 2017). The 1-year follow-up ended August 2018. Interventions: Intramyocardial injections of 150 million allogeneic MPCs or cryoprotective medium as a sham treatment in a 2:1 ratio (n = 106 vs n = 53). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary efficacy end point was the proportion of successful temporary weans (of 3 planned assessments) from LVAD support within 6 months of randomization. This end point was assessed using a Bayesian analysis with a predefined threshold of a posterior probability of 80% to indicate success. The 1-year primary safety end point was the incidence of intervention-related adverse events (myocarditis, myocardial rupture, neoplasm, hypersensitivity reactions, and immune sensitization). Secondary end points included readmissions and adverse events at 6 months and 1-year survival. Results: Of 159 patients (mean age, 56 years; 11.3% women), 155 (97.5%) completed 1-year of follow-up. The posterior probability that MPCs increased the likelihood of successful weaning was 69%; below the predefined threshold for success. The mean proportion of successful temporary weaning from LVAD support over 6 months was 61% in the MPC group and 58% in the control group (rate ratio [RR], 1.08; 95% CI, 0.83-1.41; P = .55). No patient experienced a primary safety end point. Of 10 prespecified secondary end points reported, 9 did not reach statistical significance. One-year mortality was not significantly different between the MPC group and the control group (14.2% vs 15.1%; hazard ratio [HR], 0.89; 95%, CI, 0.38-2.11; P = .80). The rate of serious adverse events was not significantly different between groups (70.9 vs 78.7 per 100 patient-months; difference, -7.89; 95% CI, -39.95 to 24.17; P = .63) nor was the rate of readmissions (0.68 vs 0.75 per 100 patient-months; difference, -0.07; 95% CI, -0.41 to 0.27; P = .68). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with advanced heart failure, intramyocardial injections of mesenchymal precursor cells, compared with injections of a cryoprotective medium as sham treatment, did not improve successful temporary weaning from left ventricular assist device support at 6 months. The findings do not support the use of intramyocardial mesenchymal stem cells to promote cardiac recovery as measured by temporary weaning from device support. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02362646.

Cost-Effectiveness of Mitral Valve Repair Versus Replacement for Severe Ischemic Mitral Regurgitation: A Randomized Clinical Trial From the Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network

BACKGROUND: The CTSN (Cardiothoracic Surgical Trials Network) recently reported no difference in left ventricular end-systolic volume index or in survival at 2 years between patients with severe ischemic mitral regurgitation (MR) randomized to mitral valve repair or replacement. However, replacement provided more durable correction of MR and fewer cardiovascular readmissions. Yet, costeffectiveness outcomes have not been addressed. METHODS AND RESULTS: We conducted a cost-effectiveness analysis of the surgical treatment of ischemic MR based on the CTSN trial (n=126 for repair; n=125 for replacement). Patient-level data on readmissions, survival, qualityof- life, and US hospital costs were used to estimate costs and quality-adjusted life years per patient over the trial duration and a 10-year time horizon. We performed microsimulation for extrapolation of outcomes beyond the 2 years of trial data. Bootstrap and deterministic sensitivity analyses were done to address parameter uncertainty. In-hospital cost estimates were $78 216 for replacement versus $72 761 for repair (difference: $5455; 95% uncertainty interval [UI]: −7784­21 193) while 2-year costs were $97 427 versus $96 261 (difference: $1166; 95% UI: −16 253­17 172), respectively. Quality-adjusted life years at 2 years were 1.18 for replacement versus 1.23 for repair (difference: −0.05; 95% UI: −0.17 to 0.07). Over 5 and 10 years, the benefits of reduction in cardiovascular readmission rates with replacement increased, and survival minimally improved compared with repair. At 5 years, cumulative costs and quality-adjusted life years showed no difference on average, but by 10 years, there was a small, uncertain benefit for replacement: $118 023 versus $119 837 (difference: −$1814; 95% UI: −27 144 to 22 602) and qualityadjusted life years: 4.06 versus 3.97 (difference: 0.09; 95% UI: −0.87 to 1.08). After 10 years, the incremental cost-effectiveness of replacement continued to improve. CONCLUSIONS: Our cost-effectiveness analysis predicts potential savings in cost and gains in quality-adjusted survival at 10 years when mitral valve replacement is compared with repair for severe ischemic MR. These projected benefits, however, were small and subject to variability. Efforts to further delineate predictors of long-term outcomes in patients with severe ischemic MR are needed to optimize surgical decisions for individual patients, which should yield more cost-effective care. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: URL: https://www.clinicaltrials.gov. Unique identifier: NCT00807040.

Effect of Cerebral Embolic Protection Devices on CNS Infarction in Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Stroke is a major complication of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Objective: To determine the efficacy and adverse effects of cerebral embolic protection devices in reducing ischemic central nervous system (CNS) injury during SAVR. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial of patients with calcific aortic stenosis undergoing SAVR at 18 North American centers between March 2015 and July 2016. The end of follow-up was December 2016. Interventions: Use of 1 of 2 cerebral embolic protection devices (n = 118 for suction-based extraction and n = 133 for intra-aortic filtration device) vs a standard aortic cannula (control; n = 132) at the time of SAVR. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was freedom from clinical or radiographic CNS infarction at 7 days (± 3 days) after the procedure. Secondary end points included a composite of mortality, clinical ischemic stroke, and acute kidney injury within 30 days after surgery; delirium; mortality; serious adverse events; and neurocognition. Results: Among 383 randomized patients (mean age, 73.9 years; 38.4% women; 368 [96.1%] completed the trial), the rate of freedom from CNS infarction at 7 days was 32.0% with suction-based extraction vs 33.3% with control (between-group difference, -1.3%; 95% CI, -13.8% to 11.2%) and 25.6% with intra-aortic filtration vs 32.4% with control (between-group difference, -6.9%; 95% CI, -17.9% to 4.2%). The 30-day composite end point was not significantly different between suction-based extraction and control (21.4% vs 24.2%, respectively; between-group difference, -2.8% [95% CI, -13.5% to 7.9%]) nor between intra-aortic filtration and control (33.3% vs 23.7%; between-group difference, 9.7% [95% CI, -1.2% to 20.5%]). There were no significant differences in mortality (3.4% for suction-based extraction vs 1.7% for control; and 2.3% for intra-aortic filtration vs 1.5% for control) or clinical stroke (5.1% for suction-based extraction vs 5.8% for control; and 8.3% for intra-aortic filtration vs 6.1% for control). Delirium at postoperative day 7 was 6.3% for suction-based extraction vs 15.3% for control (between-group difference, -9.1%; 95% CI, -17.1% to -1.0%) and 8.1% for intra-aortic filtration vs 15.6% for control (between-group difference, -7.4%; 95% CI, -15.5% to 0.6%). Mortality and overall serious adverse events at 90 days were not significantly different across groups. Patients in the intra-aortic filtration group vs patients in the control group experienced significantly more acute kidney injury events (14 vs 4, respectively; P = .02) and cardiac arrhythmias (57 vs 30; P = .004). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients undergoing SAVR, cerebral embolic protection devices compared with a standard aortic cannula did not significantly reduce the risk of CNS infarction at 7 days. Potential benefits for reduction in delirium, cognition, and symptomatic stroke merit larger trials with longer follow-up. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02389894.

Rate Control versus Rhythm Control for Atrial Fibrillation after Cardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Atrial fibrillation after cardiac surgery is associated with increased rates of death, complications, and hospitalizations. In patients with postoperative atrial fibrillation who are in stable condition, the best initial treatment strategy--heart-rate control or rhythm control--remains controversial. METHODS: Patients with new-onset postoperative atrial fibrillation were randomly assigned to undergo either rate control or rhythm control. The primary end point was the total number of days of hospitalization within 60 days after randomization, as assessed by the Wilcoxon rank-sum test. RESULTS: Postoperative atrial fibrillation occurred in 695 of the 2109 patients (33.0%) who were enrolled preoperatively; of these patients, 523 underwent randomization. The total numbers of hospital days in the rate-control group and the rhythm-control group were similar (median, 5.1 days and 5.0 days, respectively; P=0.76). There were no significant between-group differences in the rates of death (P=0.64) or overall serious adverse events (24.8 per 100 patient-months in the rate-control group and 26.4 per 100 patient-months in the rhythm-control group, P=0.61), including thromboembolic and bleeding events. About 25% of the patients in each group deviated from the assigned therapy, mainly because of drug ineffectiveness (in the rate-control group) or amiodarone side effects or adverse drug reactions (in the rhythm-control group). At 60 days, 93.8% of the patients in the rate-control group and 97.9% of those in the rhythm-control group had had a stable heart rhythm without atrial fibrillation for the previous 30 days (P=0.02), and 84.2% and 86.9%, respectively, had been free from atrial fibrillation from discharge to 60 days (P=0.41). CONCLUSIONS: Strategies for rate control and rhythm control to treat postoperative atrial fibrillation were associated with equal numbers of days of hospitalization, similar complication rates, and similarly low rates of persistent atrial fibrillation 60 days after onset. Neither treatment strategy showed a net clinical advantage over the other. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02132767.).

Two-Year Outcomes of Surgical Treatment of Moderate Ischemic Mitral Regurgitation.

BACKGROUND: In a trial comparing coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) alone with CABG plus mitral-valve repair in patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation, we found no significant difference in the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) or survival after 1 year. Concomitant mitral-valve repair was associated with a reduced prevalence of moderate or severe mitral regurgitation, but patients had more adverse events. We now report 2-year outcomes. METHODS: We randomly assigned 301 patients to undergo either CABG alone or the combined procedure. Patients were followed for 2 years for clinical and echocardiographic outcomes. RESULTS: At 2 years, the mean (±SD) LVESVI was 41.2±20.0 ml per square meter of body-surface area in the CABG-alone group and 43.2±20.6 ml per square meter in the combined-procedure group (mean improvement over baseline, -14.1 ml per square meter and -14.6 ml per square meter, respectively). The rate of death was 10.6% in the CABG-alone group and 10.0% in the combined-procedure group (hazard ratio in the combined-procedure group, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.45 to 1.83; P=0.78). There was no significant between-group difference in the rank-based assessment of the LVESVI (including death) at 2 years (z score, 0.38; P=0.71). The 2-year rate of moderate or severe residual mitral regurgitation was higher in the CABG-alone group than in the combined-procedure group (32.3% vs. 11.2%, P<0.001). Overall rates of hospital readmission and serious adverse events were similar in the two groups, but neurologic events and supraventricular arrhythmias remained more frequent in the combined-procedure group. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation undergoing CABG, the addition of mitral-valve repair did not lead to significant differences in left ventricular reverse remodeling at 2 years. Mitral-valve repair provided a more durable correction of mitral regurgitation but did not significantly improve survival or reduce overall adverse events or readmissions and was associated with an early hazard of increased neurologic events and supraventricular arrhythmias. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and Canadian Institutes of Health Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00806988.).

Surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation during mitral-valve surgery.

BACKGROUND: Among patients undergoing mitral-valve surgery, 30 to 50% present with atrial fibrillation, which is associated with reduced survival and increased risk of stroke. Surgical ablation of atrial fibrillation has been widely adopted, but evidence regarding its safety and effectiveness is limited. METHODS: We randomly assigned 260 patients with persistent or long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation who required mitral-valve surgery to undergo either surgical ablation (ablation group) or no ablation (control group) during the mitral-valve operation. Patients in the ablation group underwent further randomization to pulmonary-vein isolation or a biatrial maze procedure. All patients underwent closure of the left atrial appendage. The primary end point was freedom from atrial fibrillation at both 6 months and 12 months (as assessed by means of 3-day Holter monitoring). RESULTS: More patients in the ablation group than in the control group were free from atrial fibrillation at both 6 and 12 months (63.2% vs. 29.4%, P<0.001). There was no significant difference in the rate of freedom from atrial fibrillation between patients who underwent pulmonary-vein isolation and those who underwent the biatrial maze procedure (61.0% and 66.0%, respectively; P=0.60). One-year mortality was 6.8% in the ablation group and 8.7% in the control group (hazard ratio with ablation, 0.76; 95% confidence interval, 0.32 to 1.84; P=0.55). Ablation was associated with more implantations of a permanent pacemaker than was no ablation (21.5 vs. 8.1 per 100 patient-years, P=0.01). There were no significant between-group differences in major cardiac or cerebrovascular adverse events, overall serious adverse events, or hospital readmissions. CONCLUSIONS: The addition of atrial fibrillation ablation to mitral-valve surgery significantly increased the rate of freedom from atrial fibrillation at 1 year among patients with persistent or long-standing persistent atrial fibrillation, but the risk of implantation of a permanent pacemaker was also increased. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00903370.).

Surgical treatment of moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation.

BACKGROUND: Ischemic mitral regurgitation is associated with increased mortality and morbidity. For surgical patients with moderate regurgitation, the benefits of adding mitral-valve repair to coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) are uncertain. METHODS: We randomly assigned 301 patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation to CABG alone or CABG plus mitral-valve repair (combined procedure). The primary end point was the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI), a measure of left ventricular remodeling, at 1 year. This end point was assessed with the use of a Wilcoxon rank-sum test in which deaths were categorized as the lowest LVESVI rank. RESULTS: At 1 year, the mean LVESVI among surviving patients was 46.1±22.4 ml per square meter of body-surface area in the CABG-alone group and 49.6±31.5 ml per square meter in the combined-procedure group (mean change from baseline, -9.4 and -9.3 ml per square meter, respectively). The rate of death was 6.7% in the combined-procedure group and 7.3% in the CABG-alone group (hazard ratio with mitral-valve repair, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.38 to 2.12; P=0.81). The rank-based assessment of LVESVI at 1 year (incorporating deaths) showed no significant between-group difference (z score, 0.50; P=0.61). The addition of mitral-valve repair was associated with a longer bypass time (P<0.001), a longer hospital stay after surgery (P=0.002), and more neurologic events (P=0.03). Moderate or severe mitral regurgitation was less common in the combined-procedure group than in the CABG-alone group (11.2% vs. 31.0%, P<0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events, deaths, readmissions, functional status, or quality of life at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: In patients with moderate ischemic mitral regurgitation, the addition of mitral-valve repair to CABG did not result in a higher degree of left ventricular reverse remodeling. Mitral-valve repair was associated with a reduced prevalence of moderate or severe mitral regurgitation but an increased number of untoward events. Thus, at 1 year, this trial did not show a clinically meaningful advantage of adding mitral-valve repair to CABG. Longer-term follow-up may determine whether the lower prevalence of mitral regurgitation translates into a net clinical benefit. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00806988.).

Management practices and major infections after cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Infections are the most common noncardiac complication after cardiac surgery, but their incidence across a broad range of operations, as well as the management factors that shape infection risk, remain unknown. OBJECTIVES: This study sought to prospectively examine the frequency of post-operative infections and associated mortality, and modifiable management practices predictive of infections within 65 days from cardiac surgery. METHODS: This study enrolled 5,158 patients and analyzed independently adjudicated infections using a competing risk model (with death as the competing event). RESULTS: Nearly 5% of patients experienced major infections. Baseline characteristics associated with increased infection risk included chronic lung disease (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.21 to 2.26), heart failure (HR: 1.47; 95% CI: 1.11 to 1.95), and longer surgery (HR: 1.31; 95% CI: 1.21 to 1.41). Practices associated with reduced infection risk included prophylaxis with second-generation cephalosporins (HR: 0.70; 95% CI: 0.52 to 0.94), whereas post-operative antibiotic duration >48 h (HR: 1.92; 95% CI: 1.28 to 2.88), stress hyperglycemia (HR: 1.32; 95% CI: 1.01 to 1.73); intubation time of 24 to 48 h (HR: 1.49; 95% CI: 1.04 to 2.14); and ventilation >48 h (HR: 2.45; 95% CI: 1.66 to 3.63) were associated with increased risk. HRs for infection were similar with either <24 h or <48 h of antibiotic prophylaxis. There was a significant but differential effect of transfusion by surgery type (excluding left ventricular assist device procedures/transplant) (HR: 1.13; 95% CI: 1.07 to 1.20). Major infections substantially increased mortality (HR: 10.02; 95% CI: 6.12 to 16.39). CONCLUSIONS: Major infections dramatically affect survival and readmissions. Second-generation cephalosporins were strongly associated with reduced major infection risk, but optimal duration of antibiotic prophylaxis requires further study. Given practice variations, considerable opportunities exist for improving outcomes and preventing readmissions. (Management Practices and Risk of Infection Following Cardiac Surgery; NCT01089712).

Mitral-valve repair versus replacement for severe ischemic mitral regurgitation.

BACKGROUND: Ischemic mitral regurgitation is associated with a substantial risk of death. Practice guidelines recommend surgery for patients with a severe form of this condition but acknowledge that the supporting evidence for repair or replacement is limited. METHODS: We randomly assigned 251 patients with severe ischemic mitral regurgitation to undergo either mitral-valve repair or chordal-sparing replacement in order to evaluate efficacy and safety. The primary end point was the left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI) at 12 months, as assessed with the use of a Wilcoxon rank-sum test in which deaths were categorized below the lowest LVESVI rank. RESULTS: At 12 months, the mean LVESVI among surviving patients was 54.6±25.0 ml per square meter of body-surface area in the repair group and 60.7±31.5 ml per square meter in the replacement group (mean change from baseline, -6.6 and -6.8 ml per square meter, respectively). The rate of death was 14.3% in the repair group and 17.6% in the replacement group (hazard ratio with repair, 0.79; 95% confidence interval, 0.42 to 1.47; P=0.45 by the log-rank test). There was no significant between-group difference in LVESVI after adjustment for death (z score, 1.33; P=0.18). The rate of moderate or severe recurrence of mitral regurgitation at 12 months was higher in the repair group than in the replacement group (32.6% vs. 2.3%, P<0.001). There were no significant between-group differences in the rate of a composite of major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events, in functional status, or in quality of life at 12 months. CONCLUSIONS: We observed no significant difference in left ventricular reverse remodeling or survival at 12 months between patients who underwent mitral-valve repair and those who underwent mitral-valve replacement. Replacement provided a more durable correction of mitral regurgitation, but there was no significant between-group difference in clinical outcomes. (Funded by the National Institutes of Health and the Canadian Institutes of Health; ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00807040.).