Revascularization In High-risk Patients Research Articles

Repeat coronary revascularization in high-risk patients treated with ticagrelor monotherapy after PCI: Insights from the randomized TWILIGHT trial

Abstract Background Repeat revascularization after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) remains a major concern, even though its impact on mortality is limited. The effect of ticagrelor monotherapy vs. standard dual antiplatelet therapy (DAPT) on this outcome is unclear. Aim To assess the impact of ticagrelor monotherapy vs. DAPT on repeat revascularization after PCI. Methods In the TWILIGHT trial, high-risk patients who were event-free and adherent to a ticagrelor-based DAPT for 3 months after PCI were randomized to ticagrelor plus aspirin or ticagrelor plus placebo for 12 additional months. In this post-hoc analysis, the primary endpoint was repeat revascularization due to recurrent or persistent symptomatic myocardial ischemia. Secondary endpoints included target lesion revascularization (TLR), target vessel revascularization (TVR) and major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) and net adverse clinical events (NACE) (Figure). All endpoints were adjudicated and assessed at 12 months after randomization in the per-protocol population. Results Among 6,759 patients, ticagrelor monotherapy and ticagrelor plus aspirin were associated with a similar risk of repeat revascularization (7.1% vs 6.7%, HR 1.07, 95% CI 0.89-1.29), TLR, TVR and MACCE (Figure), while NACE was lower with ticagrelor monotherapy. Conclusion In high-risk patients undergoing PCI, ticagrelor monotherapy after 3 months of ticagrelor plus aspirin was associated with similar rates of recurrent coronary revascularization and MACCE and a lower risk of NACE compared with continued DAPT.

Clinically Driven Revascularization in High-Risk Patients Treated With Ticagrelor Monotherapy After PCI: Insights from the Randomized TWILIGHT Trial

Repeat coronary revascularization is a common adverse event after successful percutaneous coronary intervention. This analysis aimed to assess the effects of ticagrelor monotherapy on repeat clinically driven revascularization (CDR). In the TWILIGHT (Ticagrelor With Aspirin or Alone in High-Risk Patients after Coronary Intervention) trial, after 3months of ticagrelor plus aspirin, high-risk patients were maintained on ticagrelor and randomly allocated to aspirin or placebo for 1year. The primary end point of this analysis was CDR within 12months after randomization. The key secondary end points were major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or CDR, and net adverse clinical events (NACEs), including the individual components of MACCEs and clinically relevant bleeding. The analysis was performed in the per-protocol population. CDR occurred in 473 of 7,039 patients and was associated with a significantly higher risk of subsequent all-cause death, myocardial infarction, or stroke (adjusted hazard ratios [HRs] 2.92, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.82 to 4.67). Ticagrelor monotherapy was associated with a similar 12-month risk of CDR (7.1% vs 6.6%; HR 1.09, 95% CI 0.90 to 1.30, p=0.363) and MACCEs (8.9% vs 8.6%; HR 1.04, 95% CI 0.89 to 1.22, p=0.619), and a lower risk of NACEs (12.2% vs 14.6%; HR 0.83 95% CI 0.73 to 0.94, p=0.004) than ticagrelor plus aspirin. In conclusion, among high-risk patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention, ticagrelor monotherapy after 3months of ticagrelor-based dual antiplatelet therapy was associated with a similar risk of CDR and MACCEs and a decrease of NACEs (TWILIGHT: NCT02270242).

LB-9 | Repeated Coronary Revascularization in High-Risk Patients Treated With Ticagrelor Monotherapy After PCI: Insights from the Randomized TWILIGHT Trial

LB-9 | Repeated Coronary Revascularization in High-Risk Patients Treated With Ticagrelor Monotherapy After PCI: Insights from the Randomized TWILIGHT Trial

TransCarotid Revascularization With Dynamic Flow Reversal Versus Carotid Endarterectomy in the Vascular Quality Initiative Surveillance Project.

To compare the outcomes of TCAR with flow reversal to the gold standard CEA using data from the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative TCAR Surveillance Project. TCAR is a novel minimally invasive procedure for carotid revascularization in high-risk patients that is associated with significantly lower stroke rates compared with carotid artery stenting via the transfemoral approach. Patients in the United States and Canada who underwent TCAR and CEA for carotid artery stenosis (2016-2019) were included. Propensity scores were calculated based on baseline clinical variables and used to match patients in the 2 treatment groups (n = 6384 each). The primary endpoint was the combined outcome of perioperative stroke and/or death. No significant differences were observed between TCAR and CEA in terms of in-hospital stroke/death [TCAR, 1.6% vs CEA, 1.6%, RR (95% CI): 1.01 (0.77-1.33), P = 0.945], stroke [1.4% vs 1.4%, RR (95% CI): 1.02 (0.76-1.37), P = 0.881], or death [0.4% vs 0.3%, RR (95% CI): 1.14 (0.64-2.02), P = 0.662]. Compared to CEA, TCAR was associated with lower rates of in-hospital myocardial infarction [0.5% vs 0.9%, RR (95% CI): 0.53 (0.35-0.83), P = 0.005], cranial nerve injury [0.4% vs 2.7%, RR (95% CI): 0.14 (0.08-0.23), P < 0.001], and post-procedural hypertension [13% vs 18.8%, RR (95% CI): 0.69 (0.63-0.76), P < 0.001]. They were also less likely to stay in the hospital for more than 1 day [26.4% vs 30.1%, RR (95% CI): 0.88 (0.82-0.94), P < 0.001]. No significant interaction was observed between procedure and symptomatic status in predicting postoperative outcomes. At 1 year, the incidence of ipsilateral stroke or death was similar between the 2 groups [HR (95% CI): 1.09 (0.87-1.36), P = 0.44]. This propensity-score matched analysis demonstrated significant reduction in the risk of postoperative myocardial infarction and cranial nerve injury after TCAR compared to CEA, with no differences in the rates of stroke/death.

On-pump beating-heart coronary artery bypass grafting in high-risk patients: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

Operative technique for surgical myocardial revascularization in high-risk patients remains an argument of debate. On-pump coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) with cardioplegic arrest and off-pump CABG have intrinsic limitations. The hybrid approach of on-pump beating-heart CABG (OPBHC) has been proposed over the years with conflicting results. This systematic review and meta-analysis intends to summarize the contemporary literature. A literature search was conducted through major electronic databases. The systematic review provided a total of 279 articles, of those 17 studies were included in the present study. Compared with on-pump CABG, OPBHC patients showed a preoperative higher risk profile but had reduced early mortality (risk ratio [RR], 0.59, 95% CI, 0.36-0.97) and reduced postoperative stroke (RR, 0.60, 95% CI, 0.39-0.91). Also, interesting trends towards reduced postoperative intra-aortic balloon pump use (RR, 0.56, 95% CI, 0.31-1.01) and myocardial infarction (RR, 0.48, 95% CI, 0.22-1.07) were observed. Baseline characteristics and postoperative complications were similar between OPBHC and off-pump CABG, but limited data are available. The risk of incomplete revascularization in OPBHC is lower than off-pump CABG (RR, 0.53, 95% CI, 0.33-0.87) but higher than conventional on-pump CABG (RR, 1.71, 95% CI, 1.23-2.39). OPBHC is an effective technique to perform surgical revascularization in high-risk patients as preventing haemodynamic deterioration and guaranteeing adequate end-organ perfusion. OPBHC represents an alternative technique to on-pump and off-pump CABG, in those cases in which complications deriving from cardioplegic arrest or manipulation of the heart are more likely. For these reasons, OPBHC might be useful in patients with recent myocardial infarction or with left ventricular dysfunction.

Outcomes of transcarotid revascularization with dynamic flow reversal versus carotid endarterectomy in the TCAR Surveillance Project

Carotid endarterectomy remains the reference standard procedure for carotid revascularization in patients with significant carotid artery stenosis. However, carotid artery stenting was established as a minimally invasive procedure for patients who are not candidates for open surgery due to medical or anatomic high-risk factors. However, despite years of technical refinement and significant improvement in proper patient selection and aggressive medical management, carotid artery stenting via the transfemoral approach has been scrutinized due to a higher risk of stroke or death in the perioperative period compared with carotid endarterectomy. The higher risk of stroke after carotid artery stenting was attributed to manipulation of the diseased aortic arch and the carotid lesion before placement of distal embolic protection devices, as well as failure of these devices to provide adequate neuroprotection. These limitations led to the development of transcarotid artery revascularization, which avoids the need to cross the aortic arch through direct access to the common carotid artery and utilizes a robust neuroprotection mechanism through clamping the proximal carotid artery and establishing active reversal of cerebral blood flow to clear embolic debris. Earlier studies have demonstrated favorable outcomes after transcarotid artery revascularization in high-risk patients. In this study, we aimed to compare the in-hospital outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization with those of carotid endarterectomy in patients with symptomatic and asymptomatic carotid artery stenosis.

In-hospital outcomes of transcarotid artery revascularization and carotid endarterectomy in the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative

ObjectiveTranscarotid artery revascularization (TCAR) with flow reversal offers a less invasive option for carotid revascularization in high-risk patients and has the lowest reported overall stroke rate for any prospective trial of carotid artery stenting. However, outcome comparisons between TCAR and carotid endarterectomy (CEA) are needed to confirm the safety of TCAR outside of highly selected patients and providers. MethodsWe compared in-hospital outcomes of patients undergoing TCAR and CEA from January 2016 to March 2018 using the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative TCAR Surveillance Project registry and the Society for Vascular Surgery Vascular Quality Initiative CEA database, respectively. The primary outcome was a composite of in-hospital stroke and death. ResultsA total of 1182 patients underwent TCAR compared with 10,797 patients who underwent CEA. Patients undergoing TCAR were older (median age, 74 vs 71 years; P < .001) and more likely to be symptomatic (32% vs 27%; P < .001); they also had more medical comorbidities, including coronary artery disease (55% vs 28%; P < .001), chronic heart failure (20% vs 11%; P < .001), chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (29% vs 23%; P < .001), and chronic kidney disease (39% vs 34%; P = .001). On unadjusted analysis, TCAR had similar rates of in-hospital stroke/death (1.6% vs 1.4%; P = .33) and stroke/death/myocardial infarction (MI; 2.5% vs 1.9%; P = .16) compared with CEA. There was no difference in rates of stroke (1.4% vs 1.2%; P = .68), in-hospital death (0.3% vs 0.3%; P = .88), 30-day death (0.9% vs 0.4%; P = .06), or MI (1.1% vs 0.6%; P = .11). However, on average, TCAR procedures were 33 minutes shorter than CEA (78 ± 33 minutes vs 111 ± 43 minutes; P < .001). Patients undergoing TCAR were also less likely to incur cranial nerve injuries (0.6% vs 1.8%; P < .001) and less likely to have a postoperative length of stay >1 day (27% vs 30%; P = .046). On adjusted analysis, there was no difference in terms of stroke/death (odds ratio, 1.3; 95% confidence interval, 0.8-2.2; P = .28), stroke/death/MI (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.9-2.1, P = .18), or the individual outcomes. ConclusionsDespite a substantially higher medical risk in patients undergoing TCAR, in-hospital stroke/death rates were similar between TCAR and CEA. Further comparative studies with larger samples sizes and longer follow-up will be needed to establish the role of TCAR in extracranial carotid disease management.

Outcomes of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting after Extracorporeal Life Support in Patients with Cardiac Arrest or Cardiogenic Shock.

BackgroundExtracorporeal life support (ECLS) is used as a bridge to revascularization in high-risk patients with ischemic heart disease. We reviewed our experiences of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) after ECLS in patients with cardiac arrest or refractory cardiogenic shock.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed 4,616 patients who underwent CABG at our institution between May 2006 and February 2017. We identified patients who underwent CABG following ECLS for cardiogenic shock or cardiac arrest. Twenty-three patients (0.5% of all CABG cases) were enrolled in the analysis. Their median age was 65 years (Q1–Q3, 58–77 years). Nine patients (39.1%) were diagnosed with ST-elevation myocardial infarction. Mechanical complications after acute myocardial infarction, including acute mitral regurgitation, left ventricular rupture, and ventricular septal defect, occurred in 9 patients (39.1%).ResultsThe median time from cardiopulmonary resuscitation to ECLS initiation was 25 minutes (Q1–Q3, 18.5–28.5 minutes). Conventional CABG was performed in 10 patients (43.5%) who underwent concomitant intracardiac procedures. Postoperative ECLS was required in 16 patients (69.5%). The rate of successful ECLS weaning was 91.3% (n=21). There were 6 early mortalities (26.1%).ConclusionCABG after ECLS was very rare in real-world circumstances. Although the early mortality rate was high, the risk of mortality may be acceptable under such devastating circumstances.

Оценка функции почек после мини-инвазивной реваскуляризации миокарда у больных ишемической болезнью сердца из группы высокого риска

Оценка функции почек после мини-инвазивной реваскуляризации миокарда у больных ишемической болезнью сердца из группы высокого риска

Sodium bicarbonate does not prevent postoperative acute kidney injury after off-pump coronary revascularization: a double-blinded randomized controlled trial

BackgroundAcute kidney injury (AKI) is a common morbidity after off-pump coronary revascularization. We investigated whether perioperative administration of sodium bicarbonate, which might reduce renal injury by alleviating oxidative stress in renal tubules, prevents postoperative AKI in off-pump coronary revascularization patients having renal risk factors. MethodsPatients (n=162) having at least one of the following AKI risk factors were enrolled: (i) age >70 yr; (ii) diabetes mellitus; (iii) chronic renal disease; (iv) congestive heart failure or left ventricular ejection fraction <35%; and (v) reoperation or emergency. Patients were evenly randomized to receive either sodium bicarbonate (0.5 mmol kg−1 for 1 h upon induction of anaesthesia followed by 0.15 mmol kg−1 h−1 for 23 h) or 0.9% saline. Acute kidney injury within 48 h after surgery was assessed using the Acute Kidney Injury Network criteria. ResultsThe incidences of AKI were 21 and 26% in the bicarbonate and control groups, respectively (P=0.458). Serially measured serum creatinine concentrations and perioperative fluid balance were also comparable between the groups. The length of postoperative hospitalization and incidence of morbidity end points were similar between the groups, whereas significantly more patients in the bicarbonate group required prolonged mechanical ventilation (>24 h) relative to the control group (20 vs 6, P=0.003). ConclusionsPerioperative sodium bicarbonate administration did not decrease the incidence of AKI after off-pump coronary revascularization in high-risk patients and might even be associated with a need for prolonged ventilatory care. Clinical trial registrationNCT01840241.

Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting versus optimal medical therapy alone: effectiveness of incomplete revascularization in high risk patients.

BackgroundGeriatric patients with multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD) are a challenging group to treat; these cases elicit discussion within heart teams regarding the actual benefit of undertaking major surgery on these patients and often lead to abandon the surgical option. Percutaneous procedures represent an important option, but coronary anatomy may be unfavorable. Off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) provides good quality graft on left anterior descending (LAD) without exposing the patient to cardiopulmonary bypass, and might be the ideal choice in patients with multiple comorbidities, not eligible to percutaneous or on-pump procedures. The objective of this study was to compare survival during a mid-term follow-up in high-risk patients with no percutaneous alternative, either treated with OPCAB or discharged in medical therapy.MethodsWe retrospectively evaluated from June 2008 to June 2013, 83 high-risk patients with multivessel CAD were included: 42 were treated with incomplete off-pump revascularization using left internal mammary artery (LIMA) on LAD; 41 were discharged in optimal medical therapy (OMT), having refused surgery. Follow-up ended in March 2015, with a telephonic interview. Primary endpoint was survival from all-cause mortality; secondary endpoints were survival from cardiac-related mortality and freedom from non-fatal major adverse cardiac events (MACEs).ResultsDuring follow up, 11 deaths in OPCAB group and 27 deaths in OMT group occurred. Death was due to cardiac factors in 6 and 15 patients, respectively. MACEs were observed in 6 patients in OPCAB group and in 4 patients in OMT group. With regards to survival from all-cause mortality, patients who underwent OPCAB survived more than those discharged in OMT (Log Rank < 0.001), and OMT group carries a propensity score-adjusted hazard ratio of 3.862 (P < 0.001). With regards to survival from cardiac-related events, patients who underwent OPCAB survived more than those discharged in OMT (Log Rank = 0.002), and OMT group carries a propensity score-adjusted hazard ratio of 3.663 (P = 0.010). There is no statistically significant difference concerning freedom from MACEs (Log Rank = 0.273).ConclusionsFor high-risk patients with multivessel CAD, not eligible to on-pump complete revascularization surgery or percutaneous procedures, incomplete revascularization with OPCAB LIMA-on-LAD offers benefits in survival when compared to OMT alone.

Early Results of Simultaneous Transaortic Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation and Total Arterial Off-Pump Coronary Artery Revascularization in High-Risk Patients.

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) has become an alternative procedure for treating aortic stenosis (AS) in patients with advanced age and severe comorbidities. Ischemic heart disease (IHD) is present with AS in 40-50% of patients with typical angina. Considering the high operative mortality and morbidity rates in these patients, hybrid TAVI and off-pump CABG (OPCAB) have become realistic treatment options. Between August 2014 and November 2015, 12 patients were evaluated for simultaneous TAVI and OPCAB. Because of their advanced age and comorbidities these patients were not considered suitable for standard open heart surgery. PCI was also considered unsuitable, because of left anterior descending artery (LAD) proximal lesions and/or high SYNTAX score. TAVI was conducted through a median sternotomy after left internal thoracic artery (LITA) to LAD anastomosis. In 11 cases OPCAB with LITA and composite RA graft was performed using an aorta no-touch technique. Mean age at operation was 81±6.3 years. Average number of distal anastomoses was 2.6. Perivalvular leakage was mild in 3 patients, trivial in 8, and none in 1. There was no conversion to on-pump procedure and no hospital deaths. Simultaneous transaortic TAVI and OPCAB in high-risk patients with severe AS and IHD is a reasonable option. This method could be an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement and CABG. (Circ J 2016; 80: 1946-1950).

Off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery: Intra-aortic balloon pump aides multivessel revascularization in high-risk patients

Objective: Off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) has been demonstrated to be a safe technique with similar outcomes to on-pump coronary artery bypass (ONCAB) in low-risk patients, while its role and benefits in high-risk patients are the subject of ongoing clinical trials. This review compares our high-risk patients aided by intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) with low-risk patients undergoing OPCAB to identify any differences in outcomes. Materials and Methods: One hundred and twenty-four patients who underwent OPCAB surgery between January 2004 and December 2013 were retrospectively reviewed. 61.3% were males, 57.3% were African Americans, mean age was 62.7 ± 13.3, and range was 30-90 years. Patients were divided into Group 1, 26 (21.0%) patients with IABP and Group 2, 98 (79.0%) patients without IABP. Group 1 patients had higher risk profile with mean ejection fraction (EF) 26.0 ± 10.8 and EF ≤20 present in 46.1% compared to 45.2 ± 11.9 and 5.1%, respectively, in Group 2 (P < 0.001). Results: 92.35% of Group 1 and 82.7% of Group 2 patients had multivessel disease with a mean number of bypass grafts 2.9 ± 0.97 versus 2.75 ± 0.8, respectively (P < 0.364). Left internal mammary artery (LIMA) to left anterior descending (LAD) was performed in all Group 1 and 97.9% of Group 2 patients, with saphenous vein graft (SVG) to the left circumflex and right coronary arteries in 73.1% versus 62.2% and 57.7% versus 52.0% of Groups 1 and 2, respectively. Complete revascularization occurred in 88.5% and 90.8% of Groups 1 and 2, respectively (P < 0.990). 4.0% were converted to ONCAB for either hemodynamic instability or intramyocardial coronary artery. Major morbidities were re-exploration for bleeding 3.8% versus 1.0%, stroke 3.8% versus 2.0%, acute kidney injury 11.5% versus 0%, and prolonged intubation 15.4% versus 2.0% in Groups 1 and 2, respectively. Euroscore II predicted (P) versus observed (O) mortality was 4.56% versus 4.03%, for Group 1, 7.82% versus 7.69% and Group 2, 3.64% versus 3.06%, and O/P ratios 0.88, 0.98 and 0.84 respectively. Two (2.0%) females in Group 2 with single LIMA to LAD underwent repeat revascularization with SVG to the LAD within 90 days. Conclusion: IABP helps stabilize hemodynamics during OPCAB in high-risk patients with moderate to severe left ventricular dysfunction. Mean number of bypass grafts and predicted versus observed mortality were similar between the low- and high-risk groups.

Use of impella for off pump myocardial revascularization in high risk patients

Patients undergoing coronary surgery are changed in the last years becoming a challenge for the cardiac surgeon not only for the quality of the coronary artery involved in the disease but also for the quality of patients. Low ejection fraction, elderly, COPD, kidney failure, Diabetes are often found in patients with coronary artery disease undergoing CABG.

Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting versus optimal medical therapy: effectiveness of incomplete surgical myocardial revascularization in high-risk patients with multi-vessel coronary artery disease

High-risk patients with multivessel disease (MVD) represent a surgical challenge carrying high mortality risk. These cases elicit discussion within heart teams regarding the actual benefit of undertaking major surgery on these patients and often lead to abandon the surgical option. Off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) provides good quality graft on left anterior descending (LAD) without exposing the patient to cardiopulmonary bypass, and, despite providing an incomplete revascularization, might be the ideal choice in patients with multiple comorbidities, not eligible to percutaneous or on-pump procedures.

Stress positron emission tomography is safe and can guide coronary revascularization in high-risk patients being considered for transcatheter aortic valve replacement

BackgroundThe safety and accuracy of regadenoson stress positron emission tomography (PET) in patients with significant aortic stenosis (AS) is unknown. In patients undergoing surgical aortic valve replacement, coronary artery bypass grafting for coronary artery disease is standard, but the appropriate revascularization strategy in patients undergoing TAVR is uncertain. Stress PET may identify patients that benefit from revascularization. MethodsFifty consecutive patients who were referred for consideration of TAVR and underwent a stress PET study were retrospectively identified. We assessed major adverse cardiac events and significant decreases in systolic blood pressure. The percentage of jeopardized myocardium was determined by combining ischemic and hibernating myocardium. ResultsOur patients were high risk with a mean Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality score of 11.4% and had severe AS with a moderately reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (EF) (mean aortic valve area of 0.78 ± 0.25 cm2 and mean EF of 39 ± 16%). There were no major adverse events during testing. Transient hypotension occurred in 16% of the patients. Revascularization was performed in 44% of patients, and 91% of these patients had revascularization to territories jeopardized on PET. These patients had substantial jeopardized myocardium (median 19%), and only 3 patients underwent revascularization despite less than 10% jeopardized myocardium. ConclusionsStress cardiac PET with regadenoson can be performed safely in patients with severe AS. Results of the PET study can accurately direct subsequent revascularization.

Hybrid Coronary Revascularization in 100 Patients With Multivessel Coronary Disease

Hybrid coronary revascularization, meaning, left mammary artery on left anterior descending artery combined with non-left anterior descending artery percutaneous coronary intervention stenting, is considered a viable alternative to conventional coronary artery bypass graft surgery or to multivessel percutaneous coronary intervention, to perform a functionally complete revascularization. One hundred consecutive patients underwent hybrid coronary revascularization. Coronary risk was assessed by the Synergy Between PCI With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) score. Long-term outcomes, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE) rate, and repeated target vessels revascularization (TVR) rate were evaluated. Mean age was 66.3±12.0 years. Mean SYNTAX score was 28.22±7. Mean European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II score was 4.05±1.83. Percutaneous coronary intervention was performed in all patients (n=100), in 75% of cases before and in 25% of cases after surgery (interval, 2.2±1.3 months). No in-hospital mortality was reported. At follow-up, 1 cardiac death of acute MI occurred. At 3.5±1.3 years follow-up, overall population freedom from MACCE rate was 82.6% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 79.5% to 85.7%) and the freedom from TVR rate was 86.1% (95% CI: 82.9% to 89.3%). MACCE and TVR rates were higher in patients with intermediate and high coronary risk than in patients with SYNTAX score of 22 or less, although not statistically significant (p>0.05). Cox regression analysis showed a significant increment of risk for TVR on overall population in patients with diabetes mellitus (OR 2.4, 95% CI 1.3-3.5, p=0.03) and in patients with non-left anterior descending artery stented lesions (OR 4.5, with 95% CI 2.8-6.2, p=0.02). Hybrid coronary revascularization is a viable option to perform a minimally invasive, functionally complete revascularization in high-risk patients for conventional revascularization, with better results when performed on patients with a SYNTAX score of 22 or less.

Invasive Treatment of Non–ST-segment Elevation Acute Coronary Syndrome: Cardiac Catheterization/Revascularization for All?

Patients admitted to hospital with symptoms and signs of non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes have different risk profiles and are in need of an individualized approach that takes into consideration not only age and sex but also comorbidities such as diabetes, renal failure, hypertension, heart failure, peripheral artery disease, earlier revascularization, etc. According to evidence-based medicine and as documented in current guidelines, there is currently evidence for early catheterization and, if feasible, revascularization in high-risk patients, especially in men. Nevertheless, because of a lack of definitive evidence, there is uncertainty about treating women in the same way. Because women are usually older and have more comorbidities, they are frailer and revascularization should be indicated with greater caution. There is no evidence that catheterization as such is worse for women than for men; however, for both men and women with low risk, a less invasive approach, such as coronary computed tomography angiography, could be considered as a first diagnostic tool.

Tratamiento invasivo del síndrome coronario agudo sin elevación del segmento ST: ¿cateterismo cardiaco/revascularización en todos los casos?

Patients admitted to hospital with symptoms and signs of non–ST-segment elevation acute coronary syndromes have different risk profiles and are in need of an individualized approach that takes into consideration not only age and sex but also comorbidities such as diabetes, renal failure, hypertension, heart failure, peripheral artery disease, earlier revascularization, etc. According to evidence-based medicine and as documented in current guidelines, there is currently evidence for early catheterization and, if feasible, revascularization in high-risk patients, especially in men. Nevertheless, because of a lack of definitive evidence, there is uncertainty about treating women in the same way. Because women are usually older and have more comorbidities, they are frailer and revascularization should be indicated with greater caution. There is no evidence that catheterization as such is worse for women than for men; however, for both men and women with low risk, a less invasive approach, such as coronary computed tomography angiography, could be considered as a first diagnostic tool.Full English text available from:www.revespcardiol.org/en

Surgical Technique and Peripheral Artery Disease

Invasive treatment for patients with peripheral artery disease (PAD) has changed dramatically. Medicare claims data from 1996 to 2006 reveal an almost doubling of lower-extremity vascular procedures: The use of endovascular repair increased >3-fold, bypass surgery decreased 42%, and the amputation rate decreased by 29%.1 For patients admitted to hospital for PAD between 1996 and 2005, the likelihood of undergoing surgery decreased from 34.5% to 26.3%.2 Although the rate of bypass is decreasing, surgery remains an important component in the armamentarium for treating patients with advanced vascular disease. Surgical revascularization is indicated in patients with acceptable surgical risk who require a more durable repair, in those with lesions technically unsuitable for endovascular repair, and in patients who experienced failure of endovascular repair. Despite significant increases in patient morbidity, surgical bypass has become safer over the past 2 decades. Nationally, mortality after surgical bypass decreased from 7% to 4% from the 1980s to mid-1990s. From 1998 to 2003, mortality for open and combined procedures stabilized at 3% to 4%.3 Data from the National Inpatient Survey comparing outcomes in 1998 and 2007 show significant reductions in complication rates across all categories except infection.4 Several factors may account for improved outcomes: a shift to endovascular therapy or “limited” open surgery to achieve revascularization in high-risk patients; better patient selection; more effective medication regimens consisting of a statin, an antiplatelet agent, and β-blocker; and improved intraoperative care and postoperative management. This review examines the risk of adverse events after vascular surgery, identifies strategies for determining and decreasing cardiac risk, and describes contemporary surgical approaches to treating patients with PAD. Patients with symptomatic PAD frequently have concomitant cerebrovascular or coronary artery disease (CAD) that places them at high risk for adverse cardiovascular outcomes after surgery. Direct reconstruction for aortoiliofemoral disease is …