Multiple arterial vs. single arterial coronary artery bypass grafting: sex-related differences in outcomes.

BACKGROUND AND AIMS: Uncertainty exists over whether multiple arterial grafting has a sex-related association with survival after coronary artery bypass grafting. This study aims to compare the long-term survival of using multiple arterial grafting vs. single arterial grafting in women and men undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting. METHODS: The retrospective study used the Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiothoracic Surgical Database with linkage to the National Death Index. Patients from 2001 to 2020 were identified. Sex-stratified, inverse probability weighted Cox proportional hazard model was used to facilitate survival comparisons. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. RESULTS: A total number of 54 275 adult patients receiving at least two grafts in primary isolated bypass operations were analysed. The entire study cohort consisted of 10 693 (19.7%) female patients and 29 711 (54.7%) multiple arterial grafting procedures. At a median (interquartile range) postoperative follow-up of 4.9 (2.3-8.4) years, mortality was significantly lower in male patients undergoing multiarterial than single arterial procedures (adjusted hazard ratio 0.82; 95% confidence interval 0.77-0.87; P < .001). The survival benefit was also significant for females (adjusted hazard ratio 0.83; 95% confidence interval 0.76-0.91; P < .001) at a median (interquartile range) follow-up of 5.2 (2.4-8.7) years. The interaction model from Cox regression suggested insignificant subgroup effect from sex (P = .08) on the observed survival advantage. The survival benefits associated with multiple arterial grafting were consistent across all sex-stratified subgroups except for female patients with left main coronary disease. CONCLUSIONS: Compared to single arterial grafting, multiple arterial revascularization is associated with improved long-term survival for women as well as men.

Identifying risk factors for poor multidimensional recovery after major surgery: A systematic review.

Traditional risk factors used for predicting poor postoperative recovery have focused on postoperative complications, adverse symptoms (nausea, pain), length of hospital stay, and patient quality of life. Despite these being traditional performance indicators of patient postoperative "status," they may not fully define the multidimensional nature of patient recovery. The definition of postoperative recovery is thus evolving to include patient-reported outcomes that are important to the patient. Previous reviews have focused on risk factors for the above traditional outcomes after major surgery. Yet, there remains a need for further study of risk factors predicting multidimensional patient-focused recovery, and investigation beyond the immediate postoperative period after patients are discharged from the hospital. This review aimed to appraise the current literature identifying risk factors for multidimensional patient recovery. METHODS: A systematic review without meta-analysis was performed to qualitatively summarize preoperative risk factors for multidimensional recovery 4-6 weeks after major surgery (PROSPERO, CRD42022321626). We reviewed three electronic databases between January 2012 and April 2022. The primary outcome was risk factors for multidimensional recovery at 4-6 weeks. A GRADE quality appraisal and a risk of bias assessment were completed. RESULTS: In total, 5150 studies were identified, after which 1506 duplicates were removed. After the primary and secondary screening, nine articles were included in the final review. Interrater agreements between the two assessors for the primary and secondary screening process were 86% (k = 0.47) and 94% (k = 0.70), respectively. Factors associated with poor recovery were found to include ASA grade, recovery tool baseline score, physical function, number of co-morbidities, previous surgery, and psychological well-being. Mixed results were reported for age, BMI, and preoperative pain. Due to the observational nature, heterogeneity, multiple definitions of recovery, and moderate risk of bias of the primary studies, the quality of evidence was rated from very low to low. CONCLUSION: Our review found that there were few studies assessing preoperative risk factors as predictors for poor postoperative multidimensional recovery. This confirms the need for higher quality studies assessing risk for poor recovery, ideally with a consistent and multi-dimensional definition of recovery.

Health-related quality of life after restrictive versus liberal RBC transfusion for cardiac surgery: Sub-study from a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Transfusion Requirements in Cardiac Surgery III (TRICS III), a multi-center randomized controlled trial, demonstrated clinical non-inferiority for restrictive versus liberal RBC transfusion for patients undergoing cardiac surgery. However, it is uncertain if transfusion strategy affects long-term health-related quality of life (HRQOL). STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: In this planned sub-study of Australian patients in TRICS III, we sought to determine the non-inferiority of restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy on long-term HRQOL and to describe clinical outcomes 24 months postoperatively. The restrictive strategy involved transfusing RBCs when hemoglobin was <7.5 g/dl; the transfusion triggers in the liberal group were: <9.5 g/L intraoperatively, <9.5 g/L in intensive care, or <8.5 g/dl on the ward. HRQOL assessments were performed using the 36-item short form survey version 2 (SF-36v2). Primary outcome was non-inferiority of summary measures of SF-36v2 at 12 months, (non-inferiority margin: -0.25 effect size; restrictive minus liberal scores). Secondary outcomes included non-inferiority of HRQOL at 18 and 24 months. RESULTS: Six hundred seventeen Australian patients received allocated randomization; HRQOL data were available for 208/311 in restrictive and 217/306 in liberal group. After multiple imputation, non-inferiority of restrictive transfusion at 12 months was not demonstrated for HRQOL, and the estimates were directionally in favor of liberal transfusion. Non-inferiority also could not be concluded at 18 and 24 months. Sensitivity analyses supported these results. There were no differences in quality-adjusted life years or composite clinical outcomes up to 24 months after surgery. DISCUSSION: The non-inferiority of a restrictive compared to a liberal transfusion strategy was not established for long-term HRQOL in this dataset.

Effect of Midazolam in Addition to Propofol and Opiate Sedation on the Quality of Recovery After Colonoscopy: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: There is a concern that midazolam, when used as a component of sedation for colonoscopy, may impair cognition and prolong recovery. We aimed to identify whether midazolam produced short- and longer-term effects on multiple dimensions of recovery including cognition. METHODS: A 2-center double-blinded, placebo-controlled, parallel-group, randomized, phase IV study with a 1:1 allocation ratio was conducted in adults ≥18 years of age undergoing elective outpatient colonoscopy, with sufficient English language proficiency to complete the Postoperative Quality of Recovery Scale (PostopQRS). Participants were administered either midazolam (0.04 mg·kg) or an equivalent volume of 0.9% saline before sedation with propofol with or without an opiate. The primary outcome was incidence of recovery in the cognitive domain of the PostopQRS on day 3 after colonoscopy, which was analyzed using a χ test. Secondary outcomes included recovery in other domains of the PostopQRS over time, time to eye-opening, and hospital stay, and patient and endoscopist satisfaction. All hypotheses were defined before recruitment. RESULTS: During September 2015 to June 2018, 406 patients were allocated to either midazolam (n = 201) or placebo (n = 205), with one withdrawn before allocation. There was no significant difference in recovery in the cognitive domain of the PostopQRS on day 3 after colonoscopy (midazolam 86.8% vs placebo 88.7%, odds ratio, 0.838; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.42-1.683; P= .625). Furthermore, there was no difference in recovery over time in the cognitive domain of the PostopQRS (P = .534). Overall recovery of the PostopQRS increased over time but was not different between groups. Furthermore, there were no differences between groups for nociceptive, emotive, activities-of-daily-living domains of the PostopQRS. Patient and endoscopist satisfaction were high and not different. There were no differences in time to eye-opening (midazolam 9.4 ± 12.8 minutes vs placebo 7.3 ± 0.7 minutes; P = .055), or time to hospital discharge (midazolam 103.4 ± 1.4 minutes vs placebo 98.4 ± 37.0 minutes; P = .516). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of midazolam 0.04 mg·kg as adjunct to propofol and opiate sedation for elective colonoscopy did not show evidence of any significant differences in recovery in the cognitive domain of the PostopQRS, overall quality of recovery as measured by the PostopQRS, or emergence and hospital discharge times. The use of midazolam should be determined by the anesthesiologist.

The importance of postoperative quality of recovery: influences, assessment, and clinical and prognostic implications.

Quality of recovery is a complex construct whose definition is influenced heavily by the opinions and biases of the individual patient, clinician, or institution. Asa result, recovery assessment tools differ in their fundamental definitions of recovery, breadth, and assessment time frame. Accurate assessment of recovery is essential as suboptimal recovery has both economic and prognostic implications. Quality of care is often substituted as a surrogate at the institutional level for quality of recovery, but it is ideologically distinct from patients' perceived quality of care, recovery, and satisfaction. Recovery tools also differ in their assessment of recovery as a continuous vs dichotomous variable and in their focus at the group vs individual level. Ideally, recovery measures should assess outcomes in a simple dichotomous fashion and maintain relevancy by assessing in multiple domains at various time points. Assessment of recovery in a dichotomous fashion also has both clinical and research applications. It allows identification of suboptimal recovery at both individual and group levels,respectively, and when performed in real time, it allows the opportunity for timely targeted intervention specific to individual patients as well as for resource rationalization.

The future of postoperative quality of recovery assessment: multidimensional, dichotomous, and directed to individualize care to patients after surgery.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Recovery after surgery is a complex interplay of the patient, the surgery, and the perioperative anaesthesia management. Assessment of recovery should address the needs of multiple stakeholders, including the institutions and healthcare providers, but primarily should be focused on the patients and their perception of quality of recovery and return to normalcy. This review will summarize the development of assessment of recovery to a multidimensional dichotomous construct that requires a real-time assessment tool validated for repeat measures and containing cognitive assessment. RECENT FINDINGS: Recovery is neither defined by a single composite number nor is it quantified at a single time point, but rather it is a continuum occurring in multiple domains and over periods of time from hours, to days to weeks or months after surgery. Recovery is often incomplete which may persist long term, leading to patient suffering, loss of work, and increased demands on family and healthcare providers long after apparently successful surgery. The important correlation between poor recovery, cognitive decline, institutional placement, and increased short and long-term mortality has been hampered by the heterogeneity of definitions and tools used and their assessment of recovery as a continuous vs. dichotomous score and at the group vs. individual level. Most research has been aimed at audit or group comparison rather than attempting to identify incomplete recovery at an early time period after surgery in specific patients and individualization of care based on the domain where recovery has failed. SUMMARY: Recovery is best defined as a multidimensional dichotomous construct encompassing nociceptive, emotive, functional, and cognitive domains. Its assessment tool should provide both real-time and restrospective recovery data, thus enabling clinical and research applications, and be validated for repeat measures over a breadth of multiple clinically relevant postoperative time points.

Sex differences in long-term survival after total arterial coronary artery bypass grafting.

OBJECTIVES: It is uncertain if the evidence on improved long-term survival of total arterial coronary artery bypass grafting applies to female patients. This study aims to compare the long-term survival outcomes of using total arterial revascularization (TAR) versus at least 1 saphenous vein graft separately for men and women. METHODS: This retrospective analysis of the Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac-Thoracic Surgical Database had administrative linkage to the National Death Index. We identified all patients undergoing primary isolated coronary bypass from June 2001 to January 2020 inclusive. Following sex stratification, propensity score matching with 36 variables and Cox proportional hazard regression were used to facilitate adjusted comparisons. A Cox interaction-term analysis was performed to investigate the impact of sex on TAR survival benefit. The primary outcome was all-cause mortality. RESULTS: Of the 69 624 eligible patients receiving at least 2 grafts, 13 019 (18.7%) were female patients. Matching generated 14 951 male and 3530 female pairs. Compared to vein-dependent procedures, TAR was associated with significantly reduced incidence of long-term all-cause mortality for both male (hazard ratio, 0.86; 95% confidence interval, 0.81-0.91; P < 0.001) and female (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.73-0.91; P < 0.001) cohorts. Interaction-term analysis indicated no significant subgroup effect from sex (P = 0.573) on the survival advantage of TAR. The treatment effect provided by TAR remained significant across most sex-stratified disease subgroups. CONCLUSIONS: TAR, when compared to the use of at least 1 saphenous vein graft, provides comparable superior long-term survival outcomes in both females and males.

Approaches to the measurement of post-operative recovery.

Modern recovery assessment has progressed from that which addressed purely physiological restitution in the immediate post-operative period to that which is a multi-dimensional construct existing as a continuum and which follows a predictable trajectory. Recovery tools differ in their derivation, validation and scope of assessment. Importantly, few are validated for repeat measures, an aspect crucial when assessing the temporal nature of modern recovery. Recovery can be assessed as a continuous or dichotomous outcome and as occurring within an individual patient or within a group. Dichotomisation of recovery assessment mandates that a threshold be determined, above which recovery is deemed to have occurred. Ideally, recovery is assessed as a dichotomous outcome using the patient as their own pre-operative comparator, thus allowing recovery assessment at an individual patient, as well as group, level and overall as well as within each recovery domain.

The future of recovery - Integrated, digitalised and in real time.

Traditional perioperative risk prediction recovery identifies patient populations at risk of suboptimal recovery but not individual patients in whom this actually occurs and in whom timely intervention is beneficial. Patient-focused recovery emphasises a return to a semblance of normality and an ability to perform activities previously undertaken. A patient's sense of self-efficacy and engagement in their own care positively influences functional improvement and emotive recovery. The future of recovery assessment is that which is individualised, digitalised, integrated and in real time. Real-time recovery (RTR) assessment is the contemporaneous collection, analysis and reporting of data that enable the identification of suboptimal recovery in individual patients in a timeframe that minimises the delay in the implementation of the targeted treatment. There is a need to validate the clinical utility of existing biometric technology, wireless hybrid devices and digitalised platforms in providing both clinician and patient with RTR data and to determine the effect, if any, that RTR has on patient engagement and outcome.

A matter of perspective - Objective versus subjective outcomes in the assessment of quality of recovery.

Current post-operative recovery assessment exists as a dichotomy, maintaining objectivity whilst providing relevance to patient-centred care. Both objective and subjective measures are utilised in modern recovery assessment and are best viewed as complimentary. At institutional and provider levels, performance indicators are utilised as surrogates for quality of recovery but only if these indicators are assessed in the clinical context from which they are derived. Patient-reported outcomes prioritise the patient's perspective of symptoms and care, which are the most important aspects at the time of assessment but are limited by their susceptibility to response shift and recall bias. Ideally, quality of recovery is assessed using objective measures in concert with measures of clinical complexity and in parallel with patient-reported outcomes.

Characterizing the continuously acquired cardiovascular time series during hemodialysis, using median hybrid filter preprocessing noise reduction.

The clinical characterization of cardiovascular dynamics during hemodialysis (HD) has important pathophysiological implications in terms of diagnostic, cardiovascular risk assessment, and treatment efficacy perspectives. Currently the diagnosis of significant intradialytic systolic blood pressure (SBP) changes among HD patients is imprecise and opportunistic, reliant upon the presence of hypotensive symptoms in conjunction with coincident but isolated noninvasive brachial cuff blood pressure (NIBP) readings. Considering hemodynamic variables as a time series makes a continuous recording approach more desirable than intermittent measures; however, in the clinical environment, the data signal is susceptible to corruption due to both impulsive and Gaussian-type noise. Signal preprocessing is an attractive solution to this problem. Prospectively collected continuous noninvasive SBP data over the short-break intradialytic period in ten patients was preprocessed using a novel median hybrid filter (MHF) algorithm and compared with 50 time-coincident pairs of intradialytic NIBP measures from routine HD practice. The median hybrid preprocessing technique for continuously acquired cardiovascular data yielded a dynamic regression without significant noise and artifact, suitable for high-level profiling of time-dependent SBP behavior. Signal accuracy is highly comparable with standard NIBP measurement, with the added clinical benefit of dynamic real-time hemodynamic information.

The clinical outcome of restricting drug-eluting stents to patients at highest risk of restenosis.

AIMS: To assess the clinical outcomes of patients where drug eluting stents (DES) were restricted to those at highest risks of restenosis, we compared three different strategies for stent implantation: bare metal stents (BMS) only, DES only and a group where DES use was restricted (RES). METHOD AND RESULTS: Initial comparison was made between BMS only (279 patients, 316 lesions) and DES only (272 patients, 302 lesions). The endpoints of death, non-fatal myocardial infarction and target lesion revascularisation (TLR) [MACE] were assessed at 12 months. The incidence of MACE in the BMS only and DES only groups were 14% and 7% (p=0.002) and TLR was 8% and 1% (p<0.0001). Comparison was then made between these results and a third group where DES was restricted to patients at highest risk of restenosis. The restricted group (RES) comprised 249 patients (271 lesions) of which 53% received DES. RES remained significantly better than BMS, MACE (14% vs. 8%, p=0.02) and TLR (8% vs. 3%, p=0.02). When RES was compared with DES only, there was no significant difference in MACE (8% vs. 7% p=0.42), but there was a significantly lower TLR rate in the DES only group (1% vs. 3% p=0.04). CONCLUSIONS: The overall incidence of events in patients where DES use was restricted to 53% of patients remains low and this may be an acceptable treatment strategy to reduce costs.