User login
SYNTAX analysis: Making the case for CABG over PCI
Whenever seminal clinical trials report results that challenge conventional thinking, physicians face the challenge of actually applying those findings in the clinic. A team of cardiac surgeons from Baylor University in Plano, Tex., has offered its take on the clinical implications of recent findings from the cause-of-death analysis of the SYNTAX trial that compared coronary artery bypass grafting with stenting: When counseling higher-risk patients with coronary artery disease about revascularization procedures, cardiologists and cardiac surgeons should clearly elucidate the dramatic advantage of coronary artery bypass grafting over stenting that SYNTAX had demonstrated.
Michael Mack, MD, and coauthors made their case in a featured expert opinion in the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (2016;152:1237-40).
“In fact, there was a significant survival advantage for CABG in the patients with intermediate and high SYNTAX scores, with the death rate of CABG versus PCI being 9.6% versus 16.3% (P less than .047) and 8.8% versus 17.8% (P less than .02), respectively,” they wrote.
The advantages of surgery “have been most striking for patients with intermediate or high SYNTAX scores, but seem to exist for patients with low scores as well, although requiring more follow-up,” Dr. Mack and colleagues said. But the situation is less clear in other subgroups, particularly in patients with less diffuse distal disease and lower SYNTAX scores, they added.
Complete revascularization after the procedure may explain the better outcomes with CABG, as 43.3% of those in the PCI arm had incomplete revascularization vs. 36.8% in the CABG arm. “Incomplete revascularization was associated with increased risk for major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events three years after PCI, but incomplete revascularization in the CABG group could not be identified as a predictor for worse outcomes,” Dr. Mack and colleagues noted.
The expert opinion authors debunk one of the recent criticisms of SYNTAX: that its reliance on first-generation drug-eluting stents is dated and not relevant today. They noted the more recent Bypass Surgery Vs. Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease trial found a similarly higher rate of death, heart attack, and target vessel revascularization occurred more frequently in the PCI group (15.3% vs. 10.6% in the CABG group) (N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1204-12).
Nonetheless, Dr. Mack and coauthors found room for improvement for CABG through increased use of atrial revascularization and appropriate measures to minimize stroke.
The latest SYNTAX findings can inform the approach surgeons take with high-risk patients, they said. This should include “a discussion of these data, particularly in regard to survival.” And physicians should base their therapeutic recommendations on these data. “At present, there are data seeming to indicate that the majority of patients with three-vessel disease receiving invasive treatment in the United States are being treated with PCI, an outcome that is not congruent with these outcome findings,” they said.
Taking into consideration other SYNTAX analyses that have shown that completeness of revascularization is a determining factor in post-PCI outcomes, Dr. Mack and coauthors said that physicians should calculate the degree of coronary artery disease (CAD) left untreated after intervention, “and those patients who are likely to have a high residual SYNTAX score should be strongly considered for CABG.” Doctors should also focus “intensive efforts” on adherence to optimal medical therapy after both CABG and PCI.
“Finally, although there is a strong patient preference for a less-invasive treatment of their CAD, patients with advanced disease should be made aware that the choice of PCI puts them at an increased risk of death relative to CABG, and a full and transparent discussion should occur regarding the implications of their decision,” Dr. Mack and coauthors concluded.
They had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
In their invited editorial commentary, Saswata Deb, MD, and Stephen E. Fremes, MD, of the Schulich Heart Center at the University of Toronto, concurred with the conclusions of Dr. Mack and colleagues (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;152:1241-2). And Joseph F. Sabik III, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic arrived at a similar conclusion in an accompanying editorial (J. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;152:1227-8).
Dr. Deb and Dr. Fremes found noteworthy the point Dr. Mack and coauthors raised about cardiologists and internists continuing to recommend PCI to patients with complex multivessel CAD despite evidence from SYNTAX and other trials. “This raises the importance of having a multidisciplinary heart team,” Dr. Deb and Dr. Fremes said.
But they also raised an important question about the difference in outcomes between CABG and PCI in complex multivessel disease. CABG should be the preferred intervention if the high rates of late fatal myocardial infarction after PCI are due to incomplete revascularization; however, if late stent thrombosis was the cause of this disparity in outcomes, then improvements in PCI could close that gap.
In his editorial, Dr. Sabik attributed the difference in outcomes between PCI and CABG to the ability of the former to both treat existing and prevent future stenosis. PCI can be “difficult, dangerous, and even impossible” when the target vessel is totally occluded or the stenosis is complex, hence leading to incomplete revascularization and residual ischemia. “Performing CABG to these vessels is no more difficult than for an isolated, noncomplex stenosis,” Dr. Sabik said.
Dr. Sabik disclosed he is the principal investigator for an Abbott Laboratories–sponsored trial of left main coronary disease, and is on the scientific advisory board of Medtronic.
Dr. Deb and Dr. Fremes had no relationships to disclose.
In their invited editorial commentary, Saswata Deb, MD, and Stephen E. Fremes, MD, of the Schulich Heart Center at the University of Toronto, concurred with the conclusions of Dr. Mack and colleagues (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;152:1241-2). And Joseph F. Sabik III, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic arrived at a similar conclusion in an accompanying editorial (J. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;152:1227-8).
Dr. Deb and Dr. Fremes found noteworthy the point Dr. Mack and coauthors raised about cardiologists and internists continuing to recommend PCI to patients with complex multivessel CAD despite evidence from SYNTAX and other trials. “This raises the importance of having a multidisciplinary heart team,” Dr. Deb and Dr. Fremes said.
But they also raised an important question about the difference in outcomes between CABG and PCI in complex multivessel disease. CABG should be the preferred intervention if the high rates of late fatal myocardial infarction after PCI are due to incomplete revascularization; however, if late stent thrombosis was the cause of this disparity in outcomes, then improvements in PCI could close that gap.
In his editorial, Dr. Sabik attributed the difference in outcomes between PCI and CABG to the ability of the former to both treat existing and prevent future stenosis. PCI can be “difficult, dangerous, and even impossible” when the target vessel is totally occluded or the stenosis is complex, hence leading to incomplete revascularization and residual ischemia. “Performing CABG to these vessels is no more difficult than for an isolated, noncomplex stenosis,” Dr. Sabik said.
Dr. Sabik disclosed he is the principal investigator for an Abbott Laboratories–sponsored trial of left main coronary disease, and is on the scientific advisory board of Medtronic.
Dr. Deb and Dr. Fremes had no relationships to disclose.
In their invited editorial commentary, Saswata Deb, MD, and Stephen E. Fremes, MD, of the Schulich Heart Center at the University of Toronto, concurred with the conclusions of Dr. Mack and colleagues (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;152:1241-2). And Joseph F. Sabik III, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic arrived at a similar conclusion in an accompanying editorial (J. Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;152:1227-8).
Dr. Deb and Dr. Fremes found noteworthy the point Dr. Mack and coauthors raised about cardiologists and internists continuing to recommend PCI to patients with complex multivessel CAD despite evidence from SYNTAX and other trials. “This raises the importance of having a multidisciplinary heart team,” Dr. Deb and Dr. Fremes said.
But they also raised an important question about the difference in outcomes between CABG and PCI in complex multivessel disease. CABG should be the preferred intervention if the high rates of late fatal myocardial infarction after PCI are due to incomplete revascularization; however, if late stent thrombosis was the cause of this disparity in outcomes, then improvements in PCI could close that gap.
In his editorial, Dr. Sabik attributed the difference in outcomes between PCI and CABG to the ability of the former to both treat existing and prevent future stenosis. PCI can be “difficult, dangerous, and even impossible” when the target vessel is totally occluded or the stenosis is complex, hence leading to incomplete revascularization and residual ischemia. “Performing CABG to these vessels is no more difficult than for an isolated, noncomplex stenosis,” Dr. Sabik said.
Dr. Sabik disclosed he is the principal investigator for an Abbott Laboratories–sponsored trial of left main coronary disease, and is on the scientific advisory board of Medtronic.
Dr. Deb and Dr. Fremes had no relationships to disclose.
Whenever seminal clinical trials report results that challenge conventional thinking, physicians face the challenge of actually applying those findings in the clinic. A team of cardiac surgeons from Baylor University in Plano, Tex., has offered its take on the clinical implications of recent findings from the cause-of-death analysis of the SYNTAX trial that compared coronary artery bypass grafting with stenting: When counseling higher-risk patients with coronary artery disease about revascularization procedures, cardiologists and cardiac surgeons should clearly elucidate the dramatic advantage of coronary artery bypass grafting over stenting that SYNTAX had demonstrated.
Michael Mack, MD, and coauthors made their case in a featured expert opinion in the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (2016;152:1237-40).
“In fact, there was a significant survival advantage for CABG in the patients with intermediate and high SYNTAX scores, with the death rate of CABG versus PCI being 9.6% versus 16.3% (P less than .047) and 8.8% versus 17.8% (P less than .02), respectively,” they wrote.
The advantages of surgery “have been most striking for patients with intermediate or high SYNTAX scores, but seem to exist for patients with low scores as well, although requiring more follow-up,” Dr. Mack and colleagues said. But the situation is less clear in other subgroups, particularly in patients with less diffuse distal disease and lower SYNTAX scores, they added.
Complete revascularization after the procedure may explain the better outcomes with CABG, as 43.3% of those in the PCI arm had incomplete revascularization vs. 36.8% in the CABG arm. “Incomplete revascularization was associated with increased risk for major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events three years after PCI, but incomplete revascularization in the CABG group could not be identified as a predictor for worse outcomes,” Dr. Mack and colleagues noted.
The expert opinion authors debunk one of the recent criticisms of SYNTAX: that its reliance on first-generation drug-eluting stents is dated and not relevant today. They noted the more recent Bypass Surgery Vs. Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease trial found a similarly higher rate of death, heart attack, and target vessel revascularization occurred more frequently in the PCI group (15.3% vs. 10.6% in the CABG group) (N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1204-12).
Nonetheless, Dr. Mack and coauthors found room for improvement for CABG through increased use of atrial revascularization and appropriate measures to minimize stroke.
The latest SYNTAX findings can inform the approach surgeons take with high-risk patients, they said. This should include “a discussion of these data, particularly in regard to survival.” And physicians should base their therapeutic recommendations on these data. “At present, there are data seeming to indicate that the majority of patients with three-vessel disease receiving invasive treatment in the United States are being treated with PCI, an outcome that is not congruent with these outcome findings,” they said.
Taking into consideration other SYNTAX analyses that have shown that completeness of revascularization is a determining factor in post-PCI outcomes, Dr. Mack and coauthors said that physicians should calculate the degree of coronary artery disease (CAD) left untreated after intervention, “and those patients who are likely to have a high residual SYNTAX score should be strongly considered for CABG.” Doctors should also focus “intensive efforts” on adherence to optimal medical therapy after both CABG and PCI.
“Finally, although there is a strong patient preference for a less-invasive treatment of their CAD, patients with advanced disease should be made aware that the choice of PCI puts them at an increased risk of death relative to CABG, and a full and transparent discussion should occur regarding the implications of their decision,” Dr. Mack and coauthors concluded.
They had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
Whenever seminal clinical trials report results that challenge conventional thinking, physicians face the challenge of actually applying those findings in the clinic. A team of cardiac surgeons from Baylor University in Plano, Tex., has offered its take on the clinical implications of recent findings from the cause-of-death analysis of the SYNTAX trial that compared coronary artery bypass grafting with stenting: When counseling higher-risk patients with coronary artery disease about revascularization procedures, cardiologists and cardiac surgeons should clearly elucidate the dramatic advantage of coronary artery bypass grafting over stenting that SYNTAX had demonstrated.
Michael Mack, MD, and coauthors made their case in a featured expert opinion in the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (2016;152:1237-40).
“In fact, there was a significant survival advantage for CABG in the patients with intermediate and high SYNTAX scores, with the death rate of CABG versus PCI being 9.6% versus 16.3% (P less than .047) and 8.8% versus 17.8% (P less than .02), respectively,” they wrote.
The advantages of surgery “have been most striking for patients with intermediate or high SYNTAX scores, but seem to exist for patients with low scores as well, although requiring more follow-up,” Dr. Mack and colleagues said. But the situation is less clear in other subgroups, particularly in patients with less diffuse distal disease and lower SYNTAX scores, they added.
Complete revascularization after the procedure may explain the better outcomes with CABG, as 43.3% of those in the PCI arm had incomplete revascularization vs. 36.8% in the CABG arm. “Incomplete revascularization was associated with increased risk for major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events three years after PCI, but incomplete revascularization in the CABG group could not be identified as a predictor for worse outcomes,” Dr. Mack and colleagues noted.
The expert opinion authors debunk one of the recent criticisms of SYNTAX: that its reliance on first-generation drug-eluting stents is dated and not relevant today. They noted the more recent Bypass Surgery Vs. Everolimus-Eluting Stent Implantation for Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease trial found a similarly higher rate of death, heart attack, and target vessel revascularization occurred more frequently in the PCI group (15.3% vs. 10.6% in the CABG group) (N Engl J Med. 2015;372:1204-12).
Nonetheless, Dr. Mack and coauthors found room for improvement for CABG through increased use of atrial revascularization and appropriate measures to minimize stroke.
The latest SYNTAX findings can inform the approach surgeons take with high-risk patients, they said. This should include “a discussion of these data, particularly in regard to survival.” And physicians should base their therapeutic recommendations on these data. “At present, there are data seeming to indicate that the majority of patients with three-vessel disease receiving invasive treatment in the United States are being treated with PCI, an outcome that is not congruent with these outcome findings,” they said.
Taking into consideration other SYNTAX analyses that have shown that completeness of revascularization is a determining factor in post-PCI outcomes, Dr. Mack and coauthors said that physicians should calculate the degree of coronary artery disease (CAD) left untreated after intervention, “and those patients who are likely to have a high residual SYNTAX score should be strongly considered for CABG.” Doctors should also focus “intensive efforts” on adherence to optimal medical therapy after both CABG and PCI.
“Finally, although there is a strong patient preference for a less-invasive treatment of their CAD, patients with advanced disease should be made aware that the choice of PCI puts them at an increased risk of death relative to CABG, and a full and transparent discussion should occur regarding the implications of their decision,” Dr. Mack and coauthors concluded.
They had no relevant financial relationships to disclose.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY
Key clinical point: Physicians should clearly communicate to patients with complex multivessel artery disease the key findings of the SYNTAX trial.
Major finding: The SYNTAX trials showed the risk of cardiac death from myocardial infarction after percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is 10 times greater than that after coronary artery bypass grafting in higher-risk patients.
Data source: A post hoc analysis of causes of death in all 3,075 trial and registry patients in the Synergy Between Percutaneous Coronary Intervention With Taxus and Cardiac Surgery (SYNTAX) trial.
Disclosures: Dr. Mack and coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.
VIDEO: HeartMate 3 LVAD solves pump thrombosis
NEW ORLEANS – HeartMate 3, the latest left ventricular assist device in the HeartMate line, appears to have solved the problem of pump thrombosis, a complication that has dogged ventricular pumps since the issue leapt into medical awareness about 3 years ago (New Engl J Med. 2014 Jan 2;370:33-40).
During 6 months of follow-up, none of 152 heart failure patients assigned to receive a HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device (LVAD) developed suspected or confirmed pump thrombosis, compared with 14 patients (10%) having pump thrombosis out of 138 recipients of the prior-generation HeartMate II LVAD who served as the control group for the study.
“Three years ago, when the issue of pump thrombosis was first revealed, there was a lot of consternation and some drop in LVAD use, especially as destination therapy. We think that seeing no pump thrombosis whatsoever will give people renewed confidence in this technology,” said Dr. Mehra, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and medical director of the Heart and Vascular Center of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.
Pump thrombosis has also been a problem for the patients who have received a competitor LVAD, the HeartWare HVAD device (Circulation. 2015 Nov 10;132[suppl 3]:A19675), approved for U.S. use as bridge to transplant. HeartMate II is approved for both bridge to transplant and for destination therapy.
In addition to apparently eliminating pump thrombosis, HeartMate 3’s size and potential implantation approach should make its placement during routine use as quick and minimally invasive as the HeartWare device, features that should further help broader use of HeartMate 3, commented Mark Slaughter, MD, professor and chairman of cardiovascular and thoracic surgery at the University of Louisville (Ky.). But Dr. Slaughter and others were also quick to highlight the shortcomings that remain with both devices that will continue to hamper a broader role for LVAD treatment of patients with advanced heart failure.
“We thought that if there was less pump thrombosis we’d see less stroke, but that is not what the data suggest. It’s the big puzzle we need to figure out before we see widespread acceptance of this treatment,” Dr. Sweitzer said.
“This will not shift LVAD use substantially,” commented Christopher B. Granger, MD, a professor of medicine and a heart failure specialist at Duke University, Durham, N.C. “Reducing the need for reoperation is good for the field, and is an incremental advance, but it is not transformational,” he said in an interview.
The MOMENTUM 3 (Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HeartMate 3) trial randomized 294 patients at 69 U.S. centers. The study’s primary endpoint of 6-month survival free from disabling stroke or reoperation to repair or replace the LVAD occurred in 86% of 152 patients who received a HeartMate 3 and 77% of 142 patients randomized to HeartMate II, a statistical difference that met the prespecified criteria for both noninferiority and superiority. Concurrently with Dr. Mehra’s report at the meeting, a journal article appeared online (New Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1610426). He stated that as far as he understood, St. Jude would submit the 6-month data he reported to the Food and Drug Administration in an application for marketing approval for HeartMate 3.
“I agree that there are still morbid evens [with HeartMate 3] that need to be surmounted, but this is a confidence-building step in the right direction,” Dr. Mehra said.
[email protected]
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
By eliminating all episodes of pump thrombosis during 6-month follow-up, the HeartMate 3 appeared to resolve one of the major issues that has stood in the way of patients and physicians feeling comfortable with left ventricular assist devices. The smaller size of the HeartMate 3 pump and its ability to be placed with minimally invasive and fairly rapid surgery is another big advance, putting this device on par with the rival pump, the HeartWare HVAD.
But the performance of the HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device (LVAD) in MOMENTUM 3 also highlighted the shortcomings that still remain for these devices: the unchanged rates of stroke, gastrointestinal bleeds, and infections with HeartMate 3, compared with HeartMate II in this trial, and similar 6-month survival rates in the two arms of the study.
The HeartMate 3 can be implanted without sternotomy, using an 8 cm incision on the lateral chest wall, resulting in a shorter postoperative stay and fewer perisurgical adverse events. Despite the less invasive surgery and absence of pump thrombosis, some patients and physicians will remain hesitant to use an LVAD unless it is unavoidable because of concern about strokes. Until further design and procedural refinements change the rate of serious strokes and other adverse events, LVADs will not be fully competitive with heart transplantation.
The competition between HeartMate and the HeartWare devices will help drive this field forward, leading to further improvements in outcomes and expanded LVAD use.
Mark Slaughter, MD, is professor of surgery and chairman of cardiovascular and thoracic surgery at the University of Louisville (Ky.). He was an investigator in MOMENTUM 3, he has been a consultant to EvaHeart and Oregon Heart, and he has received research support from Carmat and HeartWare. He made these comments as designated discussant for the report and in a video interview.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
By eliminating all episodes of pump thrombosis during 6-month follow-up, the HeartMate 3 appeared to resolve one of the major issues that has stood in the way of patients and physicians feeling comfortable with left ventricular assist devices. The smaller size of the HeartMate 3 pump and its ability to be placed with minimally invasive and fairly rapid surgery is another big advance, putting this device on par with the rival pump, the HeartWare HVAD.
But the performance of the HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device (LVAD) in MOMENTUM 3 also highlighted the shortcomings that still remain for these devices: the unchanged rates of stroke, gastrointestinal bleeds, and infections with HeartMate 3, compared with HeartMate II in this trial, and similar 6-month survival rates in the two arms of the study.
The HeartMate 3 can be implanted without sternotomy, using an 8 cm incision on the lateral chest wall, resulting in a shorter postoperative stay and fewer perisurgical adverse events. Despite the less invasive surgery and absence of pump thrombosis, some patients and physicians will remain hesitant to use an LVAD unless it is unavoidable because of concern about strokes. Until further design and procedural refinements change the rate of serious strokes and other adverse events, LVADs will not be fully competitive with heart transplantation.
The competition between HeartMate and the HeartWare devices will help drive this field forward, leading to further improvements in outcomes and expanded LVAD use.
Mark Slaughter, MD, is professor of surgery and chairman of cardiovascular and thoracic surgery at the University of Louisville (Ky.). He was an investigator in MOMENTUM 3, he has been a consultant to EvaHeart and Oregon Heart, and he has received research support from Carmat and HeartWare. He made these comments as designated discussant for the report and in a video interview.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
By eliminating all episodes of pump thrombosis during 6-month follow-up, the HeartMate 3 appeared to resolve one of the major issues that has stood in the way of patients and physicians feeling comfortable with left ventricular assist devices. The smaller size of the HeartMate 3 pump and its ability to be placed with minimally invasive and fairly rapid surgery is another big advance, putting this device on par with the rival pump, the HeartWare HVAD.
But the performance of the HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device (LVAD) in MOMENTUM 3 also highlighted the shortcomings that still remain for these devices: the unchanged rates of stroke, gastrointestinal bleeds, and infections with HeartMate 3, compared with HeartMate II in this trial, and similar 6-month survival rates in the two arms of the study.
The HeartMate 3 can be implanted without sternotomy, using an 8 cm incision on the lateral chest wall, resulting in a shorter postoperative stay and fewer perisurgical adverse events. Despite the less invasive surgery and absence of pump thrombosis, some patients and physicians will remain hesitant to use an LVAD unless it is unavoidable because of concern about strokes. Until further design and procedural refinements change the rate of serious strokes and other adverse events, LVADs will not be fully competitive with heart transplantation.
The competition between HeartMate and the HeartWare devices will help drive this field forward, leading to further improvements in outcomes and expanded LVAD use.
Mark Slaughter, MD, is professor of surgery and chairman of cardiovascular and thoracic surgery at the University of Louisville (Ky.). He was an investigator in MOMENTUM 3, he has been a consultant to EvaHeart and Oregon Heart, and he has received research support from Carmat and HeartWare. He made these comments as designated discussant for the report and in a video interview.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
NEW ORLEANS – HeartMate 3, the latest left ventricular assist device in the HeartMate line, appears to have solved the problem of pump thrombosis, a complication that has dogged ventricular pumps since the issue leapt into medical awareness about 3 years ago (New Engl J Med. 2014 Jan 2;370:33-40).
During 6 months of follow-up, none of 152 heart failure patients assigned to receive a HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device (LVAD) developed suspected or confirmed pump thrombosis, compared with 14 patients (10%) having pump thrombosis out of 138 recipients of the prior-generation HeartMate II LVAD who served as the control group for the study.
“Three years ago, when the issue of pump thrombosis was first revealed, there was a lot of consternation and some drop in LVAD use, especially as destination therapy. We think that seeing no pump thrombosis whatsoever will give people renewed confidence in this technology,” said Dr. Mehra, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and medical director of the Heart and Vascular Center of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.
Pump thrombosis has also been a problem for the patients who have received a competitor LVAD, the HeartWare HVAD device (Circulation. 2015 Nov 10;132[suppl 3]:A19675), approved for U.S. use as bridge to transplant. HeartMate II is approved for both bridge to transplant and for destination therapy.
In addition to apparently eliminating pump thrombosis, HeartMate 3’s size and potential implantation approach should make its placement during routine use as quick and minimally invasive as the HeartWare device, features that should further help broader use of HeartMate 3, commented Mark Slaughter, MD, professor and chairman of cardiovascular and thoracic surgery at the University of Louisville (Ky.). But Dr. Slaughter and others were also quick to highlight the shortcomings that remain with both devices that will continue to hamper a broader role for LVAD treatment of patients with advanced heart failure.
“We thought that if there was less pump thrombosis we’d see less stroke, but that is not what the data suggest. It’s the big puzzle we need to figure out before we see widespread acceptance of this treatment,” Dr. Sweitzer said.
“This will not shift LVAD use substantially,” commented Christopher B. Granger, MD, a professor of medicine and a heart failure specialist at Duke University, Durham, N.C. “Reducing the need for reoperation is good for the field, and is an incremental advance, but it is not transformational,” he said in an interview.
The MOMENTUM 3 (Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HeartMate 3) trial randomized 294 patients at 69 U.S. centers. The study’s primary endpoint of 6-month survival free from disabling stroke or reoperation to repair or replace the LVAD occurred in 86% of 152 patients who received a HeartMate 3 and 77% of 142 patients randomized to HeartMate II, a statistical difference that met the prespecified criteria for both noninferiority and superiority. Concurrently with Dr. Mehra’s report at the meeting, a journal article appeared online (New Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1610426). He stated that as far as he understood, St. Jude would submit the 6-month data he reported to the Food and Drug Administration in an application for marketing approval for HeartMate 3.
“I agree that there are still morbid evens [with HeartMate 3] that need to be surmounted, but this is a confidence-building step in the right direction,” Dr. Mehra said.
[email protected]
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
NEW ORLEANS – HeartMate 3, the latest left ventricular assist device in the HeartMate line, appears to have solved the problem of pump thrombosis, a complication that has dogged ventricular pumps since the issue leapt into medical awareness about 3 years ago (New Engl J Med. 2014 Jan 2;370:33-40).
During 6 months of follow-up, none of 152 heart failure patients assigned to receive a HeartMate 3 left ventricular assist device (LVAD) developed suspected or confirmed pump thrombosis, compared with 14 patients (10%) having pump thrombosis out of 138 recipients of the prior-generation HeartMate II LVAD who served as the control group for the study.
“Three years ago, when the issue of pump thrombosis was first revealed, there was a lot of consternation and some drop in LVAD use, especially as destination therapy. We think that seeing no pump thrombosis whatsoever will give people renewed confidence in this technology,” said Dr. Mehra, professor of medicine at Harvard Medical School and medical director of the Heart and Vascular Center of Brigham and Women’s Hospital, both in Boston.
Pump thrombosis has also been a problem for the patients who have received a competitor LVAD, the HeartWare HVAD device (Circulation. 2015 Nov 10;132[suppl 3]:A19675), approved for U.S. use as bridge to transplant. HeartMate II is approved for both bridge to transplant and for destination therapy.
In addition to apparently eliminating pump thrombosis, HeartMate 3’s size and potential implantation approach should make its placement during routine use as quick and minimally invasive as the HeartWare device, features that should further help broader use of HeartMate 3, commented Mark Slaughter, MD, professor and chairman of cardiovascular and thoracic surgery at the University of Louisville (Ky.). But Dr. Slaughter and others were also quick to highlight the shortcomings that remain with both devices that will continue to hamper a broader role for LVAD treatment of patients with advanced heart failure.
“We thought that if there was less pump thrombosis we’d see less stroke, but that is not what the data suggest. It’s the big puzzle we need to figure out before we see widespread acceptance of this treatment,” Dr. Sweitzer said.
“This will not shift LVAD use substantially,” commented Christopher B. Granger, MD, a professor of medicine and a heart failure specialist at Duke University, Durham, N.C. “Reducing the need for reoperation is good for the field, and is an incremental advance, but it is not transformational,” he said in an interview.
The MOMENTUM 3 (Multicenter Study of MagLev Technology in Patients Undergoing Mechanical Circulatory Support Therapy with HeartMate 3) trial randomized 294 patients at 69 U.S. centers. The study’s primary endpoint of 6-month survival free from disabling stroke or reoperation to repair or replace the LVAD occurred in 86% of 152 patients who received a HeartMate 3 and 77% of 142 patients randomized to HeartMate II, a statistical difference that met the prespecified criteria for both noninferiority and superiority. Concurrently with Dr. Mehra’s report at the meeting, a journal article appeared online (New Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 16. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1610426). He stated that as far as he understood, St. Jude would submit the 6-month data he reported to the Food and Drug Administration in an application for marketing approval for HeartMate 3.
“I agree that there are still morbid evens [with HeartMate 3] that need to be surmounted, but this is a confidence-building step in the right direction,” Dr. Mehra said.
[email protected]
On Twitter @mitchelzoler
AT THE AHA SCIENTIFIC SESSIONS
Key clinical point:
Major finding: During 6 months, suspected or confirmed pump thrombosis occurred in no HeartMate 3 patients and in 10% of HeartMate II recipients.
Data source: The MOMENTUM 3 trial, which randomized 294 patients at 69 U.S. centers.
Disclosures: MOMENTUM 3 was sponsored by St. Jude, the company developing the HeartMate 3 LVAD. Dr. Mehra has received travel reimbursements from St. Jude and has been a consultant to Medtronic, Stealth, and Teva. Dr. Sweitzer was an investigator in MOMENTUM 3 and has been a consultant to Acorda and Medtronic and received research support from Bayer, Corvia, and Novartis. Dr. Granger has been a consultant to Boehringer Ingelheim, and received research support from Medtronic and several other drug and device companies. Dr. Slaughter was an investigator in MOMENTUM 3, has been a consultant to EvaHeart and Oregon Heart, and has received research support from Carmat and HeartWare.
Risk stratification important for aortic valve disease in pregnancy
CHICAGO – Pregnancy-associated hemodynamic and physiologic changes can challenge hearts with diseased aortic valves. Understanding pregnancy’s toll on the body can help physicians take better care of pregnant women with aortic stenosis or aortic regurgitation, said Patrick T. O’Gara, MD. “This is a relatively infrequent condition, and it causes all of us a great deal of apprehension,” he said.
Dr. O’Gara, director of clinical cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, walked attendees through current recommendations for caring for pregnant women with aortic valve disease in a presentation at the annual Heart Valve Summit.
When talking to women with aortic valve disease, it’s important to let them know that a pregnancy during which they experience an adverse maternal cardiac event appears to increase their risk for later events as well, said Dr. O’Gara. One study of pregnancy in women with aortic valve disease, said Dr. O’Gara, found that the risk of later events for women who had had a cardiac event in pregnancy was 27% plus or minus 9 percentage points in the 5 years following pregnancy, while the risk was just 15% plus or minus 3 percentage points for women whose pregnancies were not complicated by cardiac adverse events (P = .02) (Heart. 2010 Oct;96(20):1656-61).
The World Health Organization classification of pregnancy risk, said Dr. O’Gara, provides some guidance. Patients who are WHO class III are considered to be high risk; pregnancy in these individuals calls for counseling and a multidisciplinary care team. Patients who fall into this class are those with mechanical heart valves, those with Marfan syndrome and aortic involvement with a valve diameter of 40-45 mm, and those with bicuspid aortic valve disease with a valve diameter of 45-50 mm.
WHO class IV patients, according to the guidelines, are at prohibitive risk. These patients should consider terminating a pregnancy if one occurs. Conditions that place women into WHO class IV include symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS), severe left ventricular dysfunction with an ejection fraction less than 40%, and severe coarctation of the aorta. Women with Marfan syndrome with aortic valve diameters greater than 45 mm and women with bicuspid aortic valves and a diameter over 50 mm also fall into this category of prohibitive risk.
If a physician is lucky enough to have a pre-conception relationship with a patient, then a host of considerations can come into play. In addition to cardiac risk stratification, obstetric and intrapartum risk to the mother as well as neonatal risk should be considered. Some factors to take into account are maternal life expectancy and potential long-term complications to the mother from pregnancy and childbirth.
Plasma volume increases rapidly through the first trimester, plateauing about halfway through pregnancy. With this normal dilutional anemia, “Most normal pregnancies are accompanied by a grade II systolic murmur, best heard at the upper left sternal border,” said Dr. O’Gara. Since stroke volume and heart rate both also increase through pregnancy, cardiac output goes up as well.
“Importantly, systemic vascular resistance is reduced throughout pregnancy,” said Dr. O’Gara. Consequently, “regurgitant heart valve problems are generally much better tolerated than stenotic lesions in pregnancy. That’s physiologic principle number one.”
In labor, abrupt hemodynamic changes include increases in cardiac output, heart rate, blood pressure, and venous return. “Labor and delivery are very stressful hemodynamic times for women,” said Dr. O’Gara.
In the immediate postpartum period, uterine contraction results in a return of a significant amount of blood to the maternal circulation. This effectively creates an autotransfusion, with resulting increased preload and cardiac output. The inferior vena cava is also freed from the pressure of a gravid uterus, increasing venous return further. Finally, there’s also a marked increase in systemic vascular resistance.
Aside from the risk of adverse cardiac events, other adverse outcomes for women can include an increased risk of premature rupture of membranes and postpartum hemorrhage. For the neonate, preterm birth and respiratory distress are more likely. Newborns are more likely to be small for gestational age, to suffer intraventricular hemorrhage, and to die. Depending on the parental genetic status, the infant may be at risk of congenital heart disease as well.
Neonatal risk may also be increased, said Dr. O’Gara. Some maternal conditions that can increase risk for the infant include a baseline New York Heart Association (NYHA) class of greater than II or having cyanosis; having a left heart obstruction; being a smoker; having a multiple gestation; having a mechanical heart valve; and taking an oral anticoagulant.
Ideally, a full discussion would include a genetic referral if indicated, as well as coordination with a gynecologist or primary care provider to provide contraception and to assist with planning for and optimizing outcomes of a pregnancy.
The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have issued guidelines that include a class I recommendation regarding valve intervention before pregnancy for symptomatic patients with severe AS (those with aortic velocity of at least 4.0 m/sec, or mean pressure gradient greater than 41 mm Hg; stage D). For patients who meet the same hemodynamic criteria for severe AS but who are asymptomatic (stage C), the guidelines have a class IIa recommendation that pre-pregnancy valve intervention is “reasonable.” These recommendations have level C evidence supporting them.
However, another class IIa recommendation for patients with severe AS who are already pregnant advises valve intervention only in the case of hemodynamic deterioration, or the development of NYHA class III to IV heart failure symptoms. This is backed by grade B evidence, according to the associations.
For aortic regurgitation (AR), a level I recommendation advises valve repair or replacement before pregnancy if patients are symptomatic and have severe (stage D) regurgitation. Pregnant patients with severe regurgitation should only be considered for a valve operation if they have refractory NYHA class IV heart failure symptoms. These recommendations have level C evidence supporting them.
Since AR is better tolerated in pregnancy than AS, the nature of the valve disease is one of many factors to consider when deciding whether to perform intervention before the patient becomes pregnant. Plans for future pregnancy may also affect the choice of prosthesis, as anticoagulation management during pregnancy can be extremely tricky.
The recommendations overall make clear that, based on available evidence, “there should be a high threshold for intervention during pregnancy,” said Dr. O’Gara. And no one should go it alone when taking care of these complicated patients. “Care of pregnant women with heart disease requires coordination with a multidisciplinary team,” he said.
Dr. O’Gara reported no relevant disclosures.
[email protected]
On Twitter @karioakes
CHICAGO – Pregnancy-associated hemodynamic and physiologic changes can challenge hearts with diseased aortic valves. Understanding pregnancy’s toll on the body can help physicians take better care of pregnant women with aortic stenosis or aortic regurgitation, said Patrick T. O’Gara, MD. “This is a relatively infrequent condition, and it causes all of us a great deal of apprehension,” he said.
Dr. O’Gara, director of clinical cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, walked attendees through current recommendations for caring for pregnant women with aortic valve disease in a presentation at the annual Heart Valve Summit.
When talking to women with aortic valve disease, it’s important to let them know that a pregnancy during which they experience an adverse maternal cardiac event appears to increase their risk for later events as well, said Dr. O’Gara. One study of pregnancy in women with aortic valve disease, said Dr. O’Gara, found that the risk of later events for women who had had a cardiac event in pregnancy was 27% plus or minus 9 percentage points in the 5 years following pregnancy, while the risk was just 15% plus or minus 3 percentage points for women whose pregnancies were not complicated by cardiac adverse events (P = .02) (Heart. 2010 Oct;96(20):1656-61).
The World Health Organization classification of pregnancy risk, said Dr. O’Gara, provides some guidance. Patients who are WHO class III are considered to be high risk; pregnancy in these individuals calls for counseling and a multidisciplinary care team. Patients who fall into this class are those with mechanical heart valves, those with Marfan syndrome and aortic involvement with a valve diameter of 40-45 mm, and those with bicuspid aortic valve disease with a valve diameter of 45-50 mm.
WHO class IV patients, according to the guidelines, are at prohibitive risk. These patients should consider terminating a pregnancy if one occurs. Conditions that place women into WHO class IV include symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS), severe left ventricular dysfunction with an ejection fraction less than 40%, and severe coarctation of the aorta. Women with Marfan syndrome with aortic valve diameters greater than 45 mm and women with bicuspid aortic valves and a diameter over 50 mm also fall into this category of prohibitive risk.
If a physician is lucky enough to have a pre-conception relationship with a patient, then a host of considerations can come into play. In addition to cardiac risk stratification, obstetric and intrapartum risk to the mother as well as neonatal risk should be considered. Some factors to take into account are maternal life expectancy and potential long-term complications to the mother from pregnancy and childbirth.
Plasma volume increases rapidly through the first trimester, plateauing about halfway through pregnancy. With this normal dilutional anemia, “Most normal pregnancies are accompanied by a grade II systolic murmur, best heard at the upper left sternal border,” said Dr. O’Gara. Since stroke volume and heart rate both also increase through pregnancy, cardiac output goes up as well.
“Importantly, systemic vascular resistance is reduced throughout pregnancy,” said Dr. O’Gara. Consequently, “regurgitant heart valve problems are generally much better tolerated than stenotic lesions in pregnancy. That’s physiologic principle number one.”
In labor, abrupt hemodynamic changes include increases in cardiac output, heart rate, blood pressure, and venous return. “Labor and delivery are very stressful hemodynamic times for women,” said Dr. O’Gara.
In the immediate postpartum period, uterine contraction results in a return of a significant amount of blood to the maternal circulation. This effectively creates an autotransfusion, with resulting increased preload and cardiac output. The inferior vena cava is also freed from the pressure of a gravid uterus, increasing venous return further. Finally, there’s also a marked increase in systemic vascular resistance.
Aside from the risk of adverse cardiac events, other adverse outcomes for women can include an increased risk of premature rupture of membranes and postpartum hemorrhage. For the neonate, preterm birth and respiratory distress are more likely. Newborns are more likely to be small for gestational age, to suffer intraventricular hemorrhage, and to die. Depending on the parental genetic status, the infant may be at risk of congenital heart disease as well.
Neonatal risk may also be increased, said Dr. O’Gara. Some maternal conditions that can increase risk for the infant include a baseline New York Heart Association (NYHA) class of greater than II or having cyanosis; having a left heart obstruction; being a smoker; having a multiple gestation; having a mechanical heart valve; and taking an oral anticoagulant.
Ideally, a full discussion would include a genetic referral if indicated, as well as coordination with a gynecologist or primary care provider to provide contraception and to assist with planning for and optimizing outcomes of a pregnancy.
The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have issued guidelines that include a class I recommendation regarding valve intervention before pregnancy for symptomatic patients with severe AS (those with aortic velocity of at least 4.0 m/sec, or mean pressure gradient greater than 41 mm Hg; stage D). For patients who meet the same hemodynamic criteria for severe AS but who are asymptomatic (stage C), the guidelines have a class IIa recommendation that pre-pregnancy valve intervention is “reasonable.” These recommendations have level C evidence supporting them.
However, another class IIa recommendation for patients with severe AS who are already pregnant advises valve intervention only in the case of hemodynamic deterioration, or the development of NYHA class III to IV heart failure symptoms. This is backed by grade B evidence, according to the associations.
For aortic regurgitation (AR), a level I recommendation advises valve repair or replacement before pregnancy if patients are symptomatic and have severe (stage D) regurgitation. Pregnant patients with severe regurgitation should only be considered for a valve operation if they have refractory NYHA class IV heart failure symptoms. These recommendations have level C evidence supporting them.
Since AR is better tolerated in pregnancy than AS, the nature of the valve disease is one of many factors to consider when deciding whether to perform intervention before the patient becomes pregnant. Plans for future pregnancy may also affect the choice of prosthesis, as anticoagulation management during pregnancy can be extremely tricky.
The recommendations overall make clear that, based on available evidence, “there should be a high threshold for intervention during pregnancy,” said Dr. O’Gara. And no one should go it alone when taking care of these complicated patients. “Care of pregnant women with heart disease requires coordination with a multidisciplinary team,” he said.
Dr. O’Gara reported no relevant disclosures.
[email protected]
On Twitter @karioakes
CHICAGO – Pregnancy-associated hemodynamic and physiologic changes can challenge hearts with diseased aortic valves. Understanding pregnancy’s toll on the body can help physicians take better care of pregnant women with aortic stenosis or aortic regurgitation, said Patrick T. O’Gara, MD. “This is a relatively infrequent condition, and it causes all of us a great deal of apprehension,” he said.
Dr. O’Gara, director of clinical cardiology at Brigham and Women’s Hospital, Boston, walked attendees through current recommendations for caring for pregnant women with aortic valve disease in a presentation at the annual Heart Valve Summit.
When talking to women with aortic valve disease, it’s important to let them know that a pregnancy during which they experience an adverse maternal cardiac event appears to increase their risk for later events as well, said Dr. O’Gara. One study of pregnancy in women with aortic valve disease, said Dr. O’Gara, found that the risk of later events for women who had had a cardiac event in pregnancy was 27% plus or minus 9 percentage points in the 5 years following pregnancy, while the risk was just 15% plus or minus 3 percentage points for women whose pregnancies were not complicated by cardiac adverse events (P = .02) (Heart. 2010 Oct;96(20):1656-61).
The World Health Organization classification of pregnancy risk, said Dr. O’Gara, provides some guidance. Patients who are WHO class III are considered to be high risk; pregnancy in these individuals calls for counseling and a multidisciplinary care team. Patients who fall into this class are those with mechanical heart valves, those with Marfan syndrome and aortic involvement with a valve diameter of 40-45 mm, and those with bicuspid aortic valve disease with a valve diameter of 45-50 mm.
WHO class IV patients, according to the guidelines, are at prohibitive risk. These patients should consider terminating a pregnancy if one occurs. Conditions that place women into WHO class IV include symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS), severe left ventricular dysfunction with an ejection fraction less than 40%, and severe coarctation of the aorta. Women with Marfan syndrome with aortic valve diameters greater than 45 mm and women with bicuspid aortic valves and a diameter over 50 mm also fall into this category of prohibitive risk.
If a physician is lucky enough to have a pre-conception relationship with a patient, then a host of considerations can come into play. In addition to cardiac risk stratification, obstetric and intrapartum risk to the mother as well as neonatal risk should be considered. Some factors to take into account are maternal life expectancy and potential long-term complications to the mother from pregnancy and childbirth.
Plasma volume increases rapidly through the first trimester, plateauing about halfway through pregnancy. With this normal dilutional anemia, “Most normal pregnancies are accompanied by a grade II systolic murmur, best heard at the upper left sternal border,” said Dr. O’Gara. Since stroke volume and heart rate both also increase through pregnancy, cardiac output goes up as well.
“Importantly, systemic vascular resistance is reduced throughout pregnancy,” said Dr. O’Gara. Consequently, “regurgitant heart valve problems are generally much better tolerated than stenotic lesions in pregnancy. That’s physiologic principle number one.”
In labor, abrupt hemodynamic changes include increases in cardiac output, heart rate, blood pressure, and venous return. “Labor and delivery are very stressful hemodynamic times for women,” said Dr. O’Gara.
In the immediate postpartum period, uterine contraction results in a return of a significant amount of blood to the maternal circulation. This effectively creates an autotransfusion, with resulting increased preload and cardiac output. The inferior vena cava is also freed from the pressure of a gravid uterus, increasing venous return further. Finally, there’s also a marked increase in systemic vascular resistance.
Aside from the risk of adverse cardiac events, other adverse outcomes for women can include an increased risk of premature rupture of membranes and postpartum hemorrhage. For the neonate, preterm birth and respiratory distress are more likely. Newborns are more likely to be small for gestational age, to suffer intraventricular hemorrhage, and to die. Depending on the parental genetic status, the infant may be at risk of congenital heart disease as well.
Neonatal risk may also be increased, said Dr. O’Gara. Some maternal conditions that can increase risk for the infant include a baseline New York Heart Association (NYHA) class of greater than II or having cyanosis; having a left heart obstruction; being a smoker; having a multiple gestation; having a mechanical heart valve; and taking an oral anticoagulant.
Ideally, a full discussion would include a genetic referral if indicated, as well as coordination with a gynecologist or primary care provider to provide contraception and to assist with planning for and optimizing outcomes of a pregnancy.
The American College of Cardiology and the American Heart Association have issued guidelines that include a class I recommendation regarding valve intervention before pregnancy for symptomatic patients with severe AS (those with aortic velocity of at least 4.0 m/sec, or mean pressure gradient greater than 41 mm Hg; stage D). For patients who meet the same hemodynamic criteria for severe AS but who are asymptomatic (stage C), the guidelines have a class IIa recommendation that pre-pregnancy valve intervention is “reasonable.” These recommendations have level C evidence supporting them.
However, another class IIa recommendation for patients with severe AS who are already pregnant advises valve intervention only in the case of hemodynamic deterioration, or the development of NYHA class III to IV heart failure symptoms. This is backed by grade B evidence, according to the associations.
For aortic regurgitation (AR), a level I recommendation advises valve repair or replacement before pregnancy if patients are symptomatic and have severe (stage D) regurgitation. Pregnant patients with severe regurgitation should only be considered for a valve operation if they have refractory NYHA class IV heart failure symptoms. These recommendations have level C evidence supporting them.
Since AR is better tolerated in pregnancy than AS, the nature of the valve disease is one of many factors to consider when deciding whether to perform intervention before the patient becomes pregnant. Plans for future pregnancy may also affect the choice of prosthesis, as anticoagulation management during pregnancy can be extremely tricky.
The recommendations overall make clear that, based on available evidence, “there should be a high threshold for intervention during pregnancy,” said Dr. O’Gara. And no one should go it alone when taking care of these complicated patients. “Care of pregnant women with heart disease requires coordination with a multidisciplinary team,” he said.
Dr. O’Gara reported no relevant disclosures.
[email protected]
On Twitter @karioakes
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM THE HEART VALVE SUMMIT
VIDEO: For CABG, double arterial grafts found no better than single
NEW ORLEANS – Patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery do not see any 5-year survival advantage when their surgeon uses both internal mammary (thoracic) arteries for grafting rather than just one of them along with a vein, finds an interim analysis from the randomized Arterial Revascularization Trial (ART).
Overall, about 8.5% of the 3,102 patients randomized had died 5 years after surgery, with no significant difference between the bilateral graft and single graft groups, according to data reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions and simultaneously published (N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 14. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1610021). The former had roughly triple the rate of sternal reconstruction, mainly driven by complications in insulin-dependent diabetes patients having high body mass index.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
There is strong angiographic evidence that vein grafts have a high rate of failure over time because of atherosclerosis, but internal mammary artery grafts retain excellent patency, he elaborated. “People have speculated that this superior patency of internal mammary arteries will translate into a clinical survival benefit,” and observational data indeed suggest that the bilateral artery strategy reduces mortality by about one-fifth relative to the single artery strategy.
Yet uptake of the bilateral procedure has been low. It is used in fewer than 5% of patients undergoing CABG in the United States and fewer than 10% of those in Europe, reflecting concerns about its greater technical complexity, potentially increased mortality and morbidity, and – until now – lack of evidence from randomized trials.
“What I think we can conclude today is that there are excellent 5-year outcomes of CABG in both groups. This study confirms that it’s at least safe to use bilateral grafts over the medium term,” Dr. Taggart commented. He discussed the results in a video interview conducted at the meeting.
These interim ART data probably won’t sway practice one way or the other, he said. “People who believe in arterial grafts will continue to do them, and those who are not enthusiastic about the prospect of a slightly technically more difficult operation [can now] remain comfortable as to why they are not using both internal mammary arteries.”
Pointed questions
The lack of difference was possibly due to a very high level of guideline-based medical therapy in the trial (which may have especially protected the vein grafts) or to the fact that the annual failure rate of vein grafts is modest and steady up to 5 years but accelerates thereafter, Dr. Taggart proposed. The trial’s primary outcome of 10-year survival, expected in 2018, will likely differ, speculated Dr. Sellke, who is also program chair for the AHA scientific sessions.
“Do you think multiple arterial grafting is superior to single internal mammary artery grafting considering the lack of improvement in survival and other outcomes in the study, with the increase in sternal wound infections?” he asked.
“I personally, if I needed the operation, would insist on having bilateral internal mammary artery grafts done by an experienced operator because it is totally counterintuitive to believe that having more patent grafts in your heart at 10 to 20 years of follow-up is of no benefit,” Dr. Taggart maintained.
When data meet clinical practice
It may require time for the benefit of the bilateral artery graft to emerge, he agreed. “I’m undeterred from my belief that ... in patients who are getting CABG done in their 40s or 50s or early 60s, betting on a graft that’s going to outperform vein grafts is the better strategy.”
Until the trial’s 10-year results become available, physicians may wish to put these interim results in the context when counseling patients, according to Dr. Gardner.
“We have indisputable evidence that arterial grafts have better long-term patency than vein grafts,” he elaborated. “If we had a very sophisticated patient, we might tell them that we were a little surprised that this head-to-head trial of single versus double didn’t show any survival benefit at 5 years, but we still are persuaded by the data that shows the better patency, and we think in the situation that the patient’s in, that we would still recommend a double mammary, assuming that the patient doesn’t have comorbidities that would make that more dangerous.”
Trial details
ART enrolled patients from 28 cardiac surgical centers in seven countries. The patients, all of whom had multivessel coronary disease and were scheduled to undergo CABG, were randomized evenly to single or bilateral internal thoracic artery grafts.
The interim results showed differences in nonadherence to the randomized operation: 2.4% of patients in the single graft group ultimately underwent got bilateral grafts, whereas 14% of patients in the bilateral graft group ultimately got a single graft.
“This raises questions about how experienced some surgeons were with the use of bilateral internal mammary artery grafts,” Dr. Taggart commented.
At 5 years of follow-up, 8.7% of patients in the bilateral graft group and 8.4% of patients in the single graft group had died, a nonsignificant difference. “Those mortalities are similar to what has been observed in other contemporary trials of CABG,” he noted. There was no difference between diabetic and nondiabetic patients with respect to this outcome.
The rate of the composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was 12.2% in the bilateral graft group and 12.7% in the single graft group, also a nonsignificant difference.
On the other hand, patients in the bilateral graft group had higher rates of sternal wound complications (3.5% vs. 1.9%; P = .005) and sternal reconstruction (1.9% vs. 0.6%; P = .002).
The groups were statistically indistinguishable with respect to rates of mortality, major bleeding, or need for repeat revascularization, as well as angina status and quality of life measures, according to Dr. Taggart, who disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest.
NEW ORLEANS – Patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery do not see any 5-year survival advantage when their surgeon uses both internal mammary (thoracic) arteries for grafting rather than just one of them along with a vein, finds an interim analysis from the randomized Arterial Revascularization Trial (ART).
Overall, about 8.5% of the 3,102 patients randomized had died 5 years after surgery, with no significant difference between the bilateral graft and single graft groups, according to data reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions and simultaneously published (N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 14. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1610021). The former had roughly triple the rate of sternal reconstruction, mainly driven by complications in insulin-dependent diabetes patients having high body mass index.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
There is strong angiographic evidence that vein grafts have a high rate of failure over time because of atherosclerosis, but internal mammary artery grafts retain excellent patency, he elaborated. “People have speculated that this superior patency of internal mammary arteries will translate into a clinical survival benefit,” and observational data indeed suggest that the bilateral artery strategy reduces mortality by about one-fifth relative to the single artery strategy.
Yet uptake of the bilateral procedure has been low. It is used in fewer than 5% of patients undergoing CABG in the United States and fewer than 10% of those in Europe, reflecting concerns about its greater technical complexity, potentially increased mortality and morbidity, and – until now – lack of evidence from randomized trials.
“What I think we can conclude today is that there are excellent 5-year outcomes of CABG in both groups. This study confirms that it’s at least safe to use bilateral grafts over the medium term,” Dr. Taggart commented. He discussed the results in a video interview conducted at the meeting.
These interim ART data probably won’t sway practice one way or the other, he said. “People who believe in arterial grafts will continue to do them, and those who are not enthusiastic about the prospect of a slightly technically more difficult operation [can now] remain comfortable as to why they are not using both internal mammary arteries.”
Pointed questions
The lack of difference was possibly due to a very high level of guideline-based medical therapy in the trial (which may have especially protected the vein grafts) or to the fact that the annual failure rate of vein grafts is modest and steady up to 5 years but accelerates thereafter, Dr. Taggart proposed. The trial’s primary outcome of 10-year survival, expected in 2018, will likely differ, speculated Dr. Sellke, who is also program chair for the AHA scientific sessions.
“Do you think multiple arterial grafting is superior to single internal mammary artery grafting considering the lack of improvement in survival and other outcomes in the study, with the increase in sternal wound infections?” he asked.
“I personally, if I needed the operation, would insist on having bilateral internal mammary artery grafts done by an experienced operator because it is totally counterintuitive to believe that having more patent grafts in your heart at 10 to 20 years of follow-up is of no benefit,” Dr. Taggart maintained.
When data meet clinical practice
It may require time for the benefit of the bilateral artery graft to emerge, he agreed. “I’m undeterred from my belief that ... in patients who are getting CABG done in their 40s or 50s or early 60s, betting on a graft that’s going to outperform vein grafts is the better strategy.”
Until the trial’s 10-year results become available, physicians may wish to put these interim results in the context when counseling patients, according to Dr. Gardner.
“We have indisputable evidence that arterial grafts have better long-term patency than vein grafts,” he elaborated. “If we had a very sophisticated patient, we might tell them that we were a little surprised that this head-to-head trial of single versus double didn’t show any survival benefit at 5 years, but we still are persuaded by the data that shows the better patency, and we think in the situation that the patient’s in, that we would still recommend a double mammary, assuming that the patient doesn’t have comorbidities that would make that more dangerous.”
Trial details
ART enrolled patients from 28 cardiac surgical centers in seven countries. The patients, all of whom had multivessel coronary disease and were scheduled to undergo CABG, were randomized evenly to single or bilateral internal thoracic artery grafts.
The interim results showed differences in nonadherence to the randomized operation: 2.4% of patients in the single graft group ultimately underwent got bilateral grafts, whereas 14% of patients in the bilateral graft group ultimately got a single graft.
“This raises questions about how experienced some surgeons were with the use of bilateral internal mammary artery grafts,” Dr. Taggart commented.
At 5 years of follow-up, 8.7% of patients in the bilateral graft group and 8.4% of patients in the single graft group had died, a nonsignificant difference. “Those mortalities are similar to what has been observed in other contemporary trials of CABG,” he noted. There was no difference between diabetic and nondiabetic patients with respect to this outcome.
The rate of the composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was 12.2% in the bilateral graft group and 12.7% in the single graft group, also a nonsignificant difference.
On the other hand, patients in the bilateral graft group had higher rates of sternal wound complications (3.5% vs. 1.9%; P = .005) and sternal reconstruction (1.9% vs. 0.6%; P = .002).
The groups were statistically indistinguishable with respect to rates of mortality, major bleeding, or need for repeat revascularization, as well as angina status and quality of life measures, according to Dr. Taggart, who disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest.
NEW ORLEANS – Patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery do not see any 5-year survival advantage when their surgeon uses both internal mammary (thoracic) arteries for grafting rather than just one of them along with a vein, finds an interim analysis from the randomized Arterial Revascularization Trial (ART).
Overall, about 8.5% of the 3,102 patients randomized had died 5 years after surgery, with no significant difference between the bilateral graft and single graft groups, according to data reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions and simultaneously published (N Engl J Med. 2016 Nov 14. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1610021). The former had roughly triple the rate of sternal reconstruction, mainly driven by complications in insulin-dependent diabetes patients having high body mass index.
The video associated with this article is no longer available on this site. Please view all of our videos on the MDedge YouTube channel
There is strong angiographic evidence that vein grafts have a high rate of failure over time because of atherosclerosis, but internal mammary artery grafts retain excellent patency, he elaborated. “People have speculated that this superior patency of internal mammary arteries will translate into a clinical survival benefit,” and observational data indeed suggest that the bilateral artery strategy reduces mortality by about one-fifth relative to the single artery strategy.
Yet uptake of the bilateral procedure has been low. It is used in fewer than 5% of patients undergoing CABG in the United States and fewer than 10% of those in Europe, reflecting concerns about its greater technical complexity, potentially increased mortality and morbidity, and – until now – lack of evidence from randomized trials.
“What I think we can conclude today is that there are excellent 5-year outcomes of CABG in both groups. This study confirms that it’s at least safe to use bilateral grafts over the medium term,” Dr. Taggart commented. He discussed the results in a video interview conducted at the meeting.
These interim ART data probably won’t sway practice one way or the other, he said. “People who believe in arterial grafts will continue to do them, and those who are not enthusiastic about the prospect of a slightly technically more difficult operation [can now] remain comfortable as to why they are not using both internal mammary arteries.”
Pointed questions
The lack of difference was possibly due to a very high level of guideline-based medical therapy in the trial (which may have especially protected the vein grafts) or to the fact that the annual failure rate of vein grafts is modest and steady up to 5 years but accelerates thereafter, Dr. Taggart proposed. The trial’s primary outcome of 10-year survival, expected in 2018, will likely differ, speculated Dr. Sellke, who is also program chair for the AHA scientific sessions.
“Do you think multiple arterial grafting is superior to single internal mammary artery grafting considering the lack of improvement in survival and other outcomes in the study, with the increase in sternal wound infections?” he asked.
“I personally, if I needed the operation, would insist on having bilateral internal mammary artery grafts done by an experienced operator because it is totally counterintuitive to believe that having more patent grafts in your heart at 10 to 20 years of follow-up is of no benefit,” Dr. Taggart maintained.
When data meet clinical practice
It may require time for the benefit of the bilateral artery graft to emerge, he agreed. “I’m undeterred from my belief that ... in patients who are getting CABG done in their 40s or 50s or early 60s, betting on a graft that’s going to outperform vein grafts is the better strategy.”
Until the trial’s 10-year results become available, physicians may wish to put these interim results in the context when counseling patients, according to Dr. Gardner.
“We have indisputable evidence that arterial grafts have better long-term patency than vein grafts,” he elaborated. “If we had a very sophisticated patient, we might tell them that we were a little surprised that this head-to-head trial of single versus double didn’t show any survival benefit at 5 years, but we still are persuaded by the data that shows the better patency, and we think in the situation that the patient’s in, that we would still recommend a double mammary, assuming that the patient doesn’t have comorbidities that would make that more dangerous.”
Trial details
ART enrolled patients from 28 cardiac surgical centers in seven countries. The patients, all of whom had multivessel coronary disease and were scheduled to undergo CABG, were randomized evenly to single or bilateral internal thoracic artery grafts.
The interim results showed differences in nonadherence to the randomized operation: 2.4% of patients in the single graft group ultimately underwent got bilateral grafts, whereas 14% of patients in the bilateral graft group ultimately got a single graft.
“This raises questions about how experienced some surgeons were with the use of bilateral internal mammary artery grafts,” Dr. Taggart commented.
At 5 years of follow-up, 8.7% of patients in the bilateral graft group and 8.4% of patients in the single graft group had died, a nonsignificant difference. “Those mortalities are similar to what has been observed in other contemporary trials of CABG,” he noted. There was no difference between diabetic and nondiabetic patients with respect to this outcome.
The rate of the composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, or stroke was 12.2% in the bilateral graft group and 12.7% in the single graft group, also a nonsignificant difference.
On the other hand, patients in the bilateral graft group had higher rates of sternal wound complications (3.5% vs. 1.9%; P = .005) and sternal reconstruction (1.9% vs. 0.6%; P = .002).
The groups were statistically indistinguishable with respect to rates of mortality, major bleeding, or need for repeat revascularization, as well as angina status and quality of life measures, according to Dr. Taggart, who disclosed that he had no relevant conflicts of interest.
AT THE AHA SCIENTIFIC SESSIONS
Key clinical point:
Major finding: At 5 years, the rate of all-cause mortality was 8.7% in the bilateral graft group and 8.4% in the single graft group, a nonsignificant difference.
Data source: ART, a randomized trial among 3,102 patients with multivessel coronary disease undergoing CABG.
Disclosures: Dr. Taggart had no relevant conflicts of interest. The trial was funded by the U.K. Medical Research Council, the British Heart Foundation, and the U.K. National Institute of Health Research Efficacy and Mechanistic Evaluation.
Hypotension ‘dose’ drives mortality in traumatic brain injury
NEW ORLEANS – The severity and duration of hypotension in traumatic brain injury patients during EMS transport to an emergency department has a tight and essentially linear relationship to their mortality rate during subsequent weeks of recovery, according to an analysis of more than 7,500 brain-injured patients.
For each doubling of the combined severity and duration of hypotension during the prehospital period, when systolic blood pressure was less than 90 mm Hg, patient mortality rose by 19%, Daniel W. Spaite, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
However, the results do not address whether aggressive treatment of hypotension by EMS technicians in a patient with traumatic brain injury (TBI) leads to reduced mortality. That question is being assessed as part of the primary endpoint of the Excellence in Prehospital Injury Care-Traumatic Brain Injury (EPIC-TBI) study, which should have an answer by the end of 2017, said Dr. Spaite, professor of emergency medicine at the University of Arizona in Tuscon.
The innovation introduced by Dr. Spaite and his associates in their analysis of the EPIC-TBI data was to drill down into each patient’s hypotensive event, made possible by the 16,711 patients enrolled in EPIC-TBI.
The calculation they performed was limited to patients with EMS records of at least two blood pressure measurements during prehospital transport. These data allowed them to use both the extent to which systolic blood pressure dropped below 90 mm Hg and the amount of time pressure was below this threshold to better define the total hypotension exposure each patient received.
This meant that a TBI patient with a systolic pressure of 80 mm Hg for 10 minutes had twice the hypotension exposure of both a patient with a pressure of 85 mm Hg for 10 minutes, and a patient with a pressure of 80 mm Hg for 5 minutes.
Their analysis also adjusted the relationship of this total hypotensive dose and subsequent mortality based on several baseline demographic and clinical variables, including age, sex, injury severity, trauma type, and head-region severity score. After adjustment, the researchers found a “strikingly linear relationship” between hypotension dose and mortality, Dr. Spaite said, although a clear dose-response relationship was also evident in the unadjusted data.
EPIC-TBI enrolled TBI patients age 10 years or older during 2007-2014 through participation by dozens of EMS providers throughout Arizona. For the current analysis, the researchers identified 7,521 patients from the total group who had at least two blood pressure measurements taken during their prehospital EMS care and also met other inclusion criteria.
The best way to manage hypotension in TBI patients during the prehospital period remains unclear. Simply raising blood pressure with fluid infusion may not necessarily help, because it could exacerbate a patient’s bleeding, Dr. Spaite noted during an interview.
The primary goal of EPIC-TBI is to assess the impact of the third edition of the traumatic brain injury guidelines released in 2007 by the Brain Trauma Foundation. (The fourth edition of these guidelines came out in August 2016.) The new finding by Dr. Spaite and his associates will allow the full EPIC-TBI analysis to correlate patient outcomes with the impact that acute, prehospital treatment had on the hypotension dose received by each patient, he noted.
“What’s remarkable is that the single, prehospital parameter of hypotension for just a few minutes during transport can have such a strong impact on survival, given all the other factors that can influence outcomes” in TBI patients once they reach a hospital and during the period they remain hospitalized, Dr. Spaite said.
[email protected] On Twitter @mitchelzoler
NEW ORLEANS – The severity and duration of hypotension in traumatic brain injury patients during EMS transport to an emergency department has a tight and essentially linear relationship to their mortality rate during subsequent weeks of recovery, according to an analysis of more than 7,500 brain-injured patients.
For each doubling of the combined severity and duration of hypotension during the prehospital period, when systolic blood pressure was less than 90 mm Hg, patient mortality rose by 19%, Daniel W. Spaite, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
However, the results do not address whether aggressive treatment of hypotension by EMS technicians in a patient with traumatic brain injury (TBI) leads to reduced mortality. That question is being assessed as part of the primary endpoint of the Excellence in Prehospital Injury Care-Traumatic Brain Injury (EPIC-TBI) study, which should have an answer by the end of 2017, said Dr. Spaite, professor of emergency medicine at the University of Arizona in Tuscon.
The innovation introduced by Dr. Spaite and his associates in their analysis of the EPIC-TBI data was to drill down into each patient’s hypotensive event, made possible by the 16,711 patients enrolled in EPIC-TBI.
The calculation they performed was limited to patients with EMS records of at least two blood pressure measurements during prehospital transport. These data allowed them to use both the extent to which systolic blood pressure dropped below 90 mm Hg and the amount of time pressure was below this threshold to better define the total hypotension exposure each patient received.
This meant that a TBI patient with a systolic pressure of 80 mm Hg for 10 minutes had twice the hypotension exposure of both a patient with a pressure of 85 mm Hg for 10 minutes, and a patient with a pressure of 80 mm Hg for 5 minutes.
Their analysis also adjusted the relationship of this total hypotensive dose and subsequent mortality based on several baseline demographic and clinical variables, including age, sex, injury severity, trauma type, and head-region severity score. After adjustment, the researchers found a “strikingly linear relationship” between hypotension dose and mortality, Dr. Spaite said, although a clear dose-response relationship was also evident in the unadjusted data.
EPIC-TBI enrolled TBI patients age 10 years or older during 2007-2014 through participation by dozens of EMS providers throughout Arizona. For the current analysis, the researchers identified 7,521 patients from the total group who had at least two blood pressure measurements taken during their prehospital EMS care and also met other inclusion criteria.
The best way to manage hypotension in TBI patients during the prehospital period remains unclear. Simply raising blood pressure with fluid infusion may not necessarily help, because it could exacerbate a patient’s bleeding, Dr. Spaite noted during an interview.
The primary goal of EPIC-TBI is to assess the impact of the third edition of the traumatic brain injury guidelines released in 2007 by the Brain Trauma Foundation. (The fourth edition of these guidelines came out in August 2016.) The new finding by Dr. Spaite and his associates will allow the full EPIC-TBI analysis to correlate patient outcomes with the impact that acute, prehospital treatment had on the hypotension dose received by each patient, he noted.
“What’s remarkable is that the single, prehospital parameter of hypotension for just a few minutes during transport can have such a strong impact on survival, given all the other factors that can influence outcomes” in TBI patients once they reach a hospital and during the period they remain hospitalized, Dr. Spaite said.
[email protected] On Twitter @mitchelzoler
NEW ORLEANS – The severity and duration of hypotension in traumatic brain injury patients during EMS transport to an emergency department has a tight and essentially linear relationship to their mortality rate during subsequent weeks of recovery, according to an analysis of more than 7,500 brain-injured patients.
For each doubling of the combined severity and duration of hypotension during the prehospital period, when systolic blood pressure was less than 90 mm Hg, patient mortality rose by 19%, Daniel W. Spaite, MD, reported at the American Heart Association scientific sessions.
However, the results do not address whether aggressive treatment of hypotension by EMS technicians in a patient with traumatic brain injury (TBI) leads to reduced mortality. That question is being assessed as part of the primary endpoint of the Excellence in Prehospital Injury Care-Traumatic Brain Injury (EPIC-TBI) study, which should have an answer by the end of 2017, said Dr. Spaite, professor of emergency medicine at the University of Arizona in Tuscon.
The innovation introduced by Dr. Spaite and his associates in their analysis of the EPIC-TBI data was to drill down into each patient’s hypotensive event, made possible by the 16,711 patients enrolled in EPIC-TBI.
The calculation they performed was limited to patients with EMS records of at least two blood pressure measurements during prehospital transport. These data allowed them to use both the extent to which systolic blood pressure dropped below 90 mm Hg and the amount of time pressure was below this threshold to better define the total hypotension exposure each patient received.
This meant that a TBI patient with a systolic pressure of 80 mm Hg for 10 minutes had twice the hypotension exposure of both a patient with a pressure of 85 mm Hg for 10 minutes, and a patient with a pressure of 80 mm Hg for 5 minutes.
Their analysis also adjusted the relationship of this total hypotensive dose and subsequent mortality based on several baseline demographic and clinical variables, including age, sex, injury severity, trauma type, and head-region severity score. After adjustment, the researchers found a “strikingly linear relationship” between hypotension dose and mortality, Dr. Spaite said, although a clear dose-response relationship was also evident in the unadjusted data.
EPIC-TBI enrolled TBI patients age 10 years or older during 2007-2014 through participation by dozens of EMS providers throughout Arizona. For the current analysis, the researchers identified 7,521 patients from the total group who had at least two blood pressure measurements taken during their prehospital EMS care and also met other inclusion criteria.
The best way to manage hypotension in TBI patients during the prehospital period remains unclear. Simply raising blood pressure with fluid infusion may not necessarily help, because it could exacerbate a patient’s bleeding, Dr. Spaite noted during an interview.
The primary goal of EPIC-TBI is to assess the impact of the third edition of the traumatic brain injury guidelines released in 2007 by the Brain Trauma Foundation. (The fourth edition of these guidelines came out in August 2016.) The new finding by Dr. Spaite and his associates will allow the full EPIC-TBI analysis to correlate patient outcomes with the impact that acute, prehospital treatment had on the hypotension dose received by each patient, he noted.
“What’s remarkable is that the single, prehospital parameter of hypotension for just a few minutes during transport can have such a strong impact on survival, given all the other factors that can influence outcomes” in TBI patients once they reach a hospital and during the period they remain hospitalized, Dr. Spaite said.
[email protected] On Twitter @mitchelzoler
Key clinical point:
Major finding: For each doubling of the dose of prehospital hypotension (a function of severity and duration), mortality rose by 19%.
Data source: EPIC-TBI, a multicenter study with 16,711 patients, including 7,521 who met inclusion criteria for the current analysis.
Disclosures: Dr. Spaite had no disclosures.
Most infective endocarditis calls for early surgery
CHICAGO - Turning to surgery earlier in infective endocarditis may hold the key to a cure for some patients. Upcoming guidelines for surgical treatment of infective endocarditis lend evidence-based support to early surgical intervention in this high-mortality condition.
“Infective endocarditis is the most severe and potentially devastating complication for heart valve disease,” said Joseph Coselli, MD, in a presentation that reviewed current trends in incidence of infective endocarditis (IE) and laid out a rationale and strategy for early surgical intervention in some patients.
“Untreated infective endocarditis is universally fatal,” said Dr. Coselli. Even with current treatments, however, overall mortality for infective endocarditis is 20%-25%, he said.
Speaking at the joint AATS-ACC Heart Valve Summit, Dr. Coselli, chief of the division of cardiothoracic surgery at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, reviewed the key points in the upcoming guideline and the evidence that backs up the guidelines.
Dr. Coselli served on the writing committee for the 2016 AATS consensus guidelines for the surgical treatment of infective endocarditis; the guidelines are currently in press.
The guidelines propose that “at the time of surgery, the patient should be on an effective antimicrobial regimen to which the causative agent is sensitive,” he said. This is a level I recommendation, as is the recommendation that the surgeon should understand the pathology as well as possible before the procedure. Usually, say the guidelines, this is obtained by means of a transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE), assigning level I status to this recommendation as well.
According to the guidelines, patients with IE who may be surgical candidates during their hospitalization, regardless of whether their antimicrobial course is complete, include those who present with valve dysfunction that results in symptoms of heart failure. Surgery should also be considered in patients with left-sided IE with S. aureus, fungi, or other highly resistant organisms as the causative pathogen. If heart block, an aortic or annular abscess, or destructive penetrating lesions are present, surgery is also indicated. Finally, the guidelines recommend considering surgery if patients have persistent bacteremia or fevers at 5 to 7 days after initiation of appropriate antimicrobial therapy. All of these are class I indications in the upcoming guidelines, he said.
The patient who has relapsing infection, defined by the guidelines as recurrent bacteremia “after a complete course of appropriate antibiotics and subsequently negative blood culture,” who has no other identifiable source of infection, may also be a candidate.
Given the dearth of randomized trials in the area, no recommendation for intervention is backed by a level of evidence greater than B, said Dr. Coselli. And knowledge gaps persist in many areas, such as the appropriate timing of surgery in IE when there are neurological complications. Also, he said, “embolism risk needs to be better understood.” Imaging improvements would help guide decision-making, as would better data about contemporary rates of IE relapse and recurrence, said Dr. Coselli.
Though these surgeries should be done at centers that can field a complete team, and by experience valve surgeons, early intervention may be a key to success: “Operate before a devastating complication occurs,” said Dr. Coselli. “Understand what you see; don’t be afraid of radical debridement, and master alternative options to reconstruction” depending on the heart’s appearance in the OR, he said.
Surgeons can run into trouble in IE cases if they wait too long. “A patient who’s already had an embolic stroke may be too sick,” said Dr. Coselli. Insensitive organisms and ineffective antimicrobial therapy set the patient up for recurrent IE or treatment failure as well.
Having guidance for surgical intervention is important because cardiologists and surgeons will be seeing more infective endocarditis patients as heroin and other illicit intravenous drug use continues to rise, said Dr. Coselli. IE in intravenous drug users now accounts for up to 30% of all patients who seek treatment for IE, he said, citing a study that tracked characteristics of endocarditis patients undergoing surgery at a single institution from 2002-2014 (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016 Sep;152:832-41). Incidence in intravenous drug users can range to 2,000 cases per 100,000 patient-years, he said.
The study, conducted by Joon Bum Kim, MD, PhD, and his colleagues at Massachusetts General and Brigham and Women’s hospitals, both in Boston, followed 436 patients with IE, 78 of whom were intravenous drug users (IVDUs) at the time of diagnosis. Overall, the IVDUs were younger (mean age, 36 plus or minus 10 years) when compared with the non-IVDU group (mean age, 58 plus or minus 14 years; P less than 0.001). The non-IVDU cohort were also significantly more likely to have hypertension and diabetes, but less likely to smoke. However, IVDUs were more likely to have embolic events, and to have right-sided valve involvement.
Though early mortality was better in the IVDU group post-surgically, late complications, including reinfection and reoperation, were significantly more likely to occur in the IVDUs, with reinfection more than four times as frequent in IVDUs (aggregate valve-related complications, 41% in IVDUs vs. 10% in non-IVDUs; P = 0.001).
Despite the additional morbidity seen in IVDU-associated endocarditis, the 10-year survival rate was virtually identical between the two groups.
For many IE patients, said Dr. Coselli, “the arguments against surgery have lost strength.” Active systemic infections are treatable, sicker patients can be operated on earlier, and surgeons will gain experience with this sometimes technically challenging surgery, he said. Finally, Dr. Coselli said, even though the best available data support early surgical intervention in select IE patients, “final cure of IE is always the result of antimicrobial treatment and the patient’s own defense.”
[email protected]
On Twitter @karioakes
CHICAGO - Turning to surgery earlier in infective endocarditis may hold the key to a cure for some patients. Upcoming guidelines for surgical treatment of infective endocarditis lend evidence-based support to early surgical intervention in this high-mortality condition.
“Infective endocarditis is the most severe and potentially devastating complication for heart valve disease,” said Joseph Coselli, MD, in a presentation that reviewed current trends in incidence of infective endocarditis (IE) and laid out a rationale and strategy for early surgical intervention in some patients.
“Untreated infective endocarditis is universally fatal,” said Dr. Coselli. Even with current treatments, however, overall mortality for infective endocarditis is 20%-25%, he said.
Speaking at the joint AATS-ACC Heart Valve Summit, Dr. Coselli, chief of the division of cardiothoracic surgery at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, reviewed the key points in the upcoming guideline and the evidence that backs up the guidelines.
Dr. Coselli served on the writing committee for the 2016 AATS consensus guidelines for the surgical treatment of infective endocarditis; the guidelines are currently in press.
The guidelines propose that “at the time of surgery, the patient should be on an effective antimicrobial regimen to which the causative agent is sensitive,” he said. This is a level I recommendation, as is the recommendation that the surgeon should understand the pathology as well as possible before the procedure. Usually, say the guidelines, this is obtained by means of a transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE), assigning level I status to this recommendation as well.
According to the guidelines, patients with IE who may be surgical candidates during their hospitalization, regardless of whether their antimicrobial course is complete, include those who present with valve dysfunction that results in symptoms of heart failure. Surgery should also be considered in patients with left-sided IE with S. aureus, fungi, or other highly resistant organisms as the causative pathogen. If heart block, an aortic or annular abscess, or destructive penetrating lesions are present, surgery is also indicated. Finally, the guidelines recommend considering surgery if patients have persistent bacteremia or fevers at 5 to 7 days after initiation of appropriate antimicrobial therapy. All of these are class I indications in the upcoming guidelines, he said.
The patient who has relapsing infection, defined by the guidelines as recurrent bacteremia “after a complete course of appropriate antibiotics and subsequently negative blood culture,” who has no other identifiable source of infection, may also be a candidate.
Given the dearth of randomized trials in the area, no recommendation for intervention is backed by a level of evidence greater than B, said Dr. Coselli. And knowledge gaps persist in many areas, such as the appropriate timing of surgery in IE when there are neurological complications. Also, he said, “embolism risk needs to be better understood.” Imaging improvements would help guide decision-making, as would better data about contemporary rates of IE relapse and recurrence, said Dr. Coselli.
Though these surgeries should be done at centers that can field a complete team, and by experience valve surgeons, early intervention may be a key to success: “Operate before a devastating complication occurs,” said Dr. Coselli. “Understand what you see; don’t be afraid of radical debridement, and master alternative options to reconstruction” depending on the heart’s appearance in the OR, he said.
Surgeons can run into trouble in IE cases if they wait too long. “A patient who’s already had an embolic stroke may be too sick,” said Dr. Coselli. Insensitive organisms and ineffective antimicrobial therapy set the patient up for recurrent IE or treatment failure as well.
Having guidance for surgical intervention is important because cardiologists and surgeons will be seeing more infective endocarditis patients as heroin and other illicit intravenous drug use continues to rise, said Dr. Coselli. IE in intravenous drug users now accounts for up to 30% of all patients who seek treatment for IE, he said, citing a study that tracked characteristics of endocarditis patients undergoing surgery at a single institution from 2002-2014 (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016 Sep;152:832-41). Incidence in intravenous drug users can range to 2,000 cases per 100,000 patient-years, he said.
The study, conducted by Joon Bum Kim, MD, PhD, and his colleagues at Massachusetts General and Brigham and Women’s hospitals, both in Boston, followed 436 patients with IE, 78 of whom were intravenous drug users (IVDUs) at the time of diagnosis. Overall, the IVDUs were younger (mean age, 36 plus or minus 10 years) when compared with the non-IVDU group (mean age, 58 plus or minus 14 years; P less than 0.001). The non-IVDU cohort were also significantly more likely to have hypertension and diabetes, but less likely to smoke. However, IVDUs were more likely to have embolic events, and to have right-sided valve involvement.
Though early mortality was better in the IVDU group post-surgically, late complications, including reinfection and reoperation, were significantly more likely to occur in the IVDUs, with reinfection more than four times as frequent in IVDUs (aggregate valve-related complications, 41% in IVDUs vs. 10% in non-IVDUs; P = 0.001).
Despite the additional morbidity seen in IVDU-associated endocarditis, the 10-year survival rate was virtually identical between the two groups.
For many IE patients, said Dr. Coselli, “the arguments against surgery have lost strength.” Active systemic infections are treatable, sicker patients can be operated on earlier, and surgeons will gain experience with this sometimes technically challenging surgery, he said. Finally, Dr. Coselli said, even though the best available data support early surgical intervention in select IE patients, “final cure of IE is always the result of antimicrobial treatment and the patient’s own defense.”
[email protected]
On Twitter @karioakes
CHICAGO - Turning to surgery earlier in infective endocarditis may hold the key to a cure for some patients. Upcoming guidelines for surgical treatment of infective endocarditis lend evidence-based support to early surgical intervention in this high-mortality condition.
“Infective endocarditis is the most severe and potentially devastating complication for heart valve disease,” said Joseph Coselli, MD, in a presentation that reviewed current trends in incidence of infective endocarditis (IE) and laid out a rationale and strategy for early surgical intervention in some patients.
“Untreated infective endocarditis is universally fatal,” said Dr. Coselli. Even with current treatments, however, overall mortality for infective endocarditis is 20%-25%, he said.
Speaking at the joint AATS-ACC Heart Valve Summit, Dr. Coselli, chief of the division of cardiothoracic surgery at Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, reviewed the key points in the upcoming guideline and the evidence that backs up the guidelines.
Dr. Coselli served on the writing committee for the 2016 AATS consensus guidelines for the surgical treatment of infective endocarditis; the guidelines are currently in press.
The guidelines propose that “at the time of surgery, the patient should be on an effective antimicrobial regimen to which the causative agent is sensitive,” he said. This is a level I recommendation, as is the recommendation that the surgeon should understand the pathology as well as possible before the procedure. Usually, say the guidelines, this is obtained by means of a transesophageal echocardiogram (TEE), assigning level I status to this recommendation as well.
According to the guidelines, patients with IE who may be surgical candidates during their hospitalization, regardless of whether their antimicrobial course is complete, include those who present with valve dysfunction that results in symptoms of heart failure. Surgery should also be considered in patients with left-sided IE with S. aureus, fungi, or other highly resistant organisms as the causative pathogen. If heart block, an aortic or annular abscess, or destructive penetrating lesions are present, surgery is also indicated. Finally, the guidelines recommend considering surgery if patients have persistent bacteremia or fevers at 5 to 7 days after initiation of appropriate antimicrobial therapy. All of these are class I indications in the upcoming guidelines, he said.
The patient who has relapsing infection, defined by the guidelines as recurrent bacteremia “after a complete course of appropriate antibiotics and subsequently negative blood culture,” who has no other identifiable source of infection, may also be a candidate.
Given the dearth of randomized trials in the area, no recommendation for intervention is backed by a level of evidence greater than B, said Dr. Coselli. And knowledge gaps persist in many areas, such as the appropriate timing of surgery in IE when there are neurological complications. Also, he said, “embolism risk needs to be better understood.” Imaging improvements would help guide decision-making, as would better data about contemporary rates of IE relapse and recurrence, said Dr. Coselli.
Though these surgeries should be done at centers that can field a complete team, and by experience valve surgeons, early intervention may be a key to success: “Operate before a devastating complication occurs,” said Dr. Coselli. “Understand what you see; don’t be afraid of radical debridement, and master alternative options to reconstruction” depending on the heart’s appearance in the OR, he said.
Surgeons can run into trouble in IE cases if they wait too long. “A patient who’s already had an embolic stroke may be too sick,” said Dr. Coselli. Insensitive organisms and ineffective antimicrobial therapy set the patient up for recurrent IE or treatment failure as well.
Having guidance for surgical intervention is important because cardiologists and surgeons will be seeing more infective endocarditis patients as heroin and other illicit intravenous drug use continues to rise, said Dr. Coselli. IE in intravenous drug users now accounts for up to 30% of all patients who seek treatment for IE, he said, citing a study that tracked characteristics of endocarditis patients undergoing surgery at a single institution from 2002-2014 (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016 Sep;152:832-41). Incidence in intravenous drug users can range to 2,000 cases per 100,000 patient-years, he said.
The study, conducted by Joon Bum Kim, MD, PhD, and his colleagues at Massachusetts General and Brigham and Women’s hospitals, both in Boston, followed 436 patients with IE, 78 of whom were intravenous drug users (IVDUs) at the time of diagnosis. Overall, the IVDUs were younger (mean age, 36 plus or minus 10 years) when compared with the non-IVDU group (mean age, 58 plus or minus 14 years; P less than 0.001). The non-IVDU cohort were also significantly more likely to have hypertension and diabetes, but less likely to smoke. However, IVDUs were more likely to have embolic events, and to have right-sided valve involvement.
Though early mortality was better in the IVDU group post-surgically, late complications, including reinfection and reoperation, were significantly more likely to occur in the IVDUs, with reinfection more than four times as frequent in IVDUs (aggregate valve-related complications, 41% in IVDUs vs. 10% in non-IVDUs; P = 0.001).
Despite the additional morbidity seen in IVDU-associated endocarditis, the 10-year survival rate was virtually identical between the two groups.
For many IE patients, said Dr. Coselli, “the arguments against surgery have lost strength.” Active systemic infections are treatable, sicker patients can be operated on earlier, and surgeons will gain experience with this sometimes technically challenging surgery, he said. Finally, Dr. Coselli said, even though the best available data support early surgical intervention in select IE patients, “final cure of IE is always the result of antimicrobial treatment and the patient’s own defense.”
[email protected]
On Twitter @karioakes
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM THE HEART VALVE SUMMIT 2016
Mitral valve disease often missed in pulmonary hypertension
LOS ANGELES – Dyspnea in pulmonary hypertension is caused by mitral valve disease until proven otherwise, according to Paul Forfia, MD, director of pulmonary hypertension, right heart failure, and pulmonary thromboendarterectomy at Temple University, Philadelphia.
Although mitral valve disease is a well-recognized cause of pulmonary hypertension, its significance is often underestimated in practice.
“Whether the valve is regurgitant or stenotic makes absolutely no difference. When you delay” repair or replacement, “the patient keeps getting sicker,” he said. In time, “everyone is standing around wringing their hands going, ‘Oh my god, what are we going to do? Are you serious? Fix the valve.’ We see this type of patient a couple times a month,” Dr. Forfia said at the American College of Chest Physicians annual meeting.
“I have seen lifesaving mitral valve surgery put off for many years in patients with pulmonary hypertension, when all they needed was to have their valve fixed,” he said.
Whatever the case, pulmonologists who want the valve fixed often end up playing patient ping pong with cardiologists who want the hypertension controlled beforehand, but “if I treat the pulmonary circulation first, all I am going to do is unmask the left heart failure. There will be no functional improvement whatsoever,” Dr. Forfia said.
Surgery is the best solution as long as patients are well enough to recover. “With pulmonary hypertension in the setting of severe mitral valve regurgitation or stenosis, whether the pulmonary hypertension is related to passive left heart congestion or associated with pulmonary arteriopathy, the only sensible option is to correct the underlying valvular abnormality,” he said. The surgery should be done at an institution capable of managing postop pulmonary arteriopathy, if present.
The ping pong solution is to send patients to an expert pulmonology center; the mitral valve problem will be spotted right away.
“There is no pulmonary pressure cutoff that should prohibit surgery” in patients able to recover. “There is no such thing as a pulmonary artery pressure too high to be explained by mitral valve disease. The pulmonary pressure can be as high as it wants to be. You will get nowhere by thinking the pressure is too high to address the valve,” Dr. Forfia said.
Often “you hear, ‘I’m afraid the person is going to die on the table.’ I always say ‘if the patient is not going to die on the table, they are going to die in their living room of progressive heart failure because you [didn’t] fix their valve. I have never had a patient with pulmonary hypertension not separate from cardiopulmonary bypass. It’s a myth,” he said.
When there’s a “question if the dyspnea is coming from the mitral valve, we routinely use exercise right heart catheterization to probe the situation. We have a recumbent bike in the cath lab. You’ll often provoke significant left heart congestion with a low workload. It’s very revealing to the significance of mitral valve disease,” he said.
Aortic valve disease is also missed in pulmonary hypertension. “It’s not [a] similar” problem; “it’s the same” problem, Dr. Forfia said.
Dr. Forfia is a consultant for Bayer, Actelion, and United Therapeutics.
LOS ANGELES – Dyspnea in pulmonary hypertension is caused by mitral valve disease until proven otherwise, according to Paul Forfia, MD, director of pulmonary hypertension, right heart failure, and pulmonary thromboendarterectomy at Temple University, Philadelphia.
Although mitral valve disease is a well-recognized cause of pulmonary hypertension, its significance is often underestimated in practice.
“Whether the valve is regurgitant or stenotic makes absolutely no difference. When you delay” repair or replacement, “the patient keeps getting sicker,” he said. In time, “everyone is standing around wringing their hands going, ‘Oh my god, what are we going to do? Are you serious? Fix the valve.’ We see this type of patient a couple times a month,” Dr. Forfia said at the American College of Chest Physicians annual meeting.
“I have seen lifesaving mitral valve surgery put off for many years in patients with pulmonary hypertension, when all they needed was to have their valve fixed,” he said.
Whatever the case, pulmonologists who want the valve fixed often end up playing patient ping pong with cardiologists who want the hypertension controlled beforehand, but “if I treat the pulmonary circulation first, all I am going to do is unmask the left heart failure. There will be no functional improvement whatsoever,” Dr. Forfia said.
Surgery is the best solution as long as patients are well enough to recover. “With pulmonary hypertension in the setting of severe mitral valve regurgitation or stenosis, whether the pulmonary hypertension is related to passive left heart congestion or associated with pulmonary arteriopathy, the only sensible option is to correct the underlying valvular abnormality,” he said. The surgery should be done at an institution capable of managing postop pulmonary arteriopathy, if present.
The ping pong solution is to send patients to an expert pulmonology center; the mitral valve problem will be spotted right away.
“There is no pulmonary pressure cutoff that should prohibit surgery” in patients able to recover. “There is no such thing as a pulmonary artery pressure too high to be explained by mitral valve disease. The pulmonary pressure can be as high as it wants to be. You will get nowhere by thinking the pressure is too high to address the valve,” Dr. Forfia said.
Often “you hear, ‘I’m afraid the person is going to die on the table.’ I always say ‘if the patient is not going to die on the table, they are going to die in their living room of progressive heart failure because you [didn’t] fix their valve. I have never had a patient with pulmonary hypertension not separate from cardiopulmonary bypass. It’s a myth,” he said.
When there’s a “question if the dyspnea is coming from the mitral valve, we routinely use exercise right heart catheterization to probe the situation. We have a recumbent bike in the cath lab. You’ll often provoke significant left heart congestion with a low workload. It’s very revealing to the significance of mitral valve disease,” he said.
Aortic valve disease is also missed in pulmonary hypertension. “It’s not [a] similar” problem; “it’s the same” problem, Dr. Forfia said.
Dr. Forfia is a consultant for Bayer, Actelion, and United Therapeutics.
LOS ANGELES – Dyspnea in pulmonary hypertension is caused by mitral valve disease until proven otherwise, according to Paul Forfia, MD, director of pulmonary hypertension, right heart failure, and pulmonary thromboendarterectomy at Temple University, Philadelphia.
Although mitral valve disease is a well-recognized cause of pulmonary hypertension, its significance is often underestimated in practice.
“Whether the valve is regurgitant or stenotic makes absolutely no difference. When you delay” repair or replacement, “the patient keeps getting sicker,” he said. In time, “everyone is standing around wringing their hands going, ‘Oh my god, what are we going to do? Are you serious? Fix the valve.’ We see this type of patient a couple times a month,” Dr. Forfia said at the American College of Chest Physicians annual meeting.
“I have seen lifesaving mitral valve surgery put off for many years in patients with pulmonary hypertension, when all they needed was to have their valve fixed,” he said.
Whatever the case, pulmonologists who want the valve fixed often end up playing patient ping pong with cardiologists who want the hypertension controlled beforehand, but “if I treat the pulmonary circulation first, all I am going to do is unmask the left heart failure. There will be no functional improvement whatsoever,” Dr. Forfia said.
Surgery is the best solution as long as patients are well enough to recover. “With pulmonary hypertension in the setting of severe mitral valve regurgitation or stenosis, whether the pulmonary hypertension is related to passive left heart congestion or associated with pulmonary arteriopathy, the only sensible option is to correct the underlying valvular abnormality,” he said. The surgery should be done at an institution capable of managing postop pulmonary arteriopathy, if present.
The ping pong solution is to send patients to an expert pulmonology center; the mitral valve problem will be spotted right away.
“There is no pulmonary pressure cutoff that should prohibit surgery” in patients able to recover. “There is no such thing as a pulmonary artery pressure too high to be explained by mitral valve disease. The pulmonary pressure can be as high as it wants to be. You will get nowhere by thinking the pressure is too high to address the valve,” Dr. Forfia said.
Often “you hear, ‘I’m afraid the person is going to die on the table.’ I always say ‘if the patient is not going to die on the table, they are going to die in their living room of progressive heart failure because you [didn’t] fix their valve. I have never had a patient with pulmonary hypertension not separate from cardiopulmonary bypass. It’s a myth,” he said.
When there’s a “question if the dyspnea is coming from the mitral valve, we routinely use exercise right heart catheterization to probe the situation. We have a recumbent bike in the cath lab. You’ll often provoke significant left heart congestion with a low workload. It’s very revealing to the significance of mitral valve disease,” he said.
Aortic valve disease is also missed in pulmonary hypertension. “It’s not [a] similar” problem; “it’s the same” problem, Dr. Forfia said.
Dr. Forfia is a consultant for Bayer, Actelion, and United Therapeutics.
EXPERT ANALYSIS FROM CHEST 2016
‘Excellent’ real-world experience with LAA closure device
A device that closes the left atrial appendage to prevent stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation showed a 95.6% procedural success rate in a study of real-world experience since it was approved by the FDA in 2015, according to a report presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting and published simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The study was based on data collected by Boston Scientific, the manufacturer of the Watchman device, regarding 3,822 consecutive patients who underwent the implantation during a 14-month period. The “excellent” procedural success rate, together with low short-term complication rates, are especially “remarkable” because 71% of the interventional cardiologists and electrophysiologists who performed these procedures had no experience with the device prior to FDA approval, said Vivek Y. Reddy, MD, of Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.
For this study, the implantations were done by 382 physicians at 169 U.S. medical centers. A total of 3,653 procedures were successful. The median duration of the implantation was “an acceptable” 50 minutes (range, 10-210 minutes), and an average of 1.38 devices (range, 1-6) were required per patient. In 23% of cases, a “partial recapture” of a device was necessary to reposition it (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.010).
The rates of major complications within 1 week – pericardial tamponade (<1%), procedure-related stroke (0.08%), and mortality (0.08%) – were characterized as “favorable.”
The most common complication was pericardial effusion requiring intervention, which developed in 39 patients (1.02%). The effusions were drained percutaneously in most (24) of these patients. Another 11 patients (0.29%) developed mild pericardial effusions requiring only conservative management.
Three strokes, two ischemic and one hemorrhagic, were deemed related to the procedure, though the hemorrhagic bleed may have resulted chiefly from anticoagulation medications. Three deaths were judged to be related to the procedure: All were secondary to pericardial tamponade associated with perforation by the device.
“It is worth comparing [this] cardiac tamponade rate with [that of] another left atrial cardiovascular procedure, catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation,” Dr. Reddy noted.
A worldwide survey of more than 20,000 catheter ablations reported a pericardial tamponade rate of 1.31%, and another study of more than 93,000 ablation procedures performed during a 1-year period reported a rate of 1.52%, he said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
Other short-term complications in this study included nine cases of device embolization (0.24%). Six of these required surgical removal of the device, while three were retrieved percutaneously.
No sponsor was cited for this study. Boston Scientific, maker of the Watchman left atrial appendage closure device, collected the data on all implantations of the device in the United States following FDA approval. Dr. Reddy and his associates reported ties to Boston Scientific, Coherex, SentreHeart, Abbott Vascular, and St. Jude Medical.
The results reported by Dr. Reddy and his colleagues are remarkably favorable for the earliest phase of widespread dissemination of this technology, especially in the context of the much higher rates of medication-related adverse events that occur with long-term oral anticoagulation. These findings should reassure us that left atrial appendage device closure has been safely introduced into clinical practice in the United States.
The study design, however, raises some concerns, and clinicians should be aware that complications may have been underreported. The manufacturer’s employees collected the data regarding complications in a somewhat informal manner, so this was not an objective study meeting the rigorous standards of clinical trials or postmarketing registries. These “clinical specialists” only included complications that developed within 1 week of the procedure, which fails to address possible delayed complications such as device-related thrombus. And they also didn’t track some important complications such as vascular events and bleeding events.
Jacqueline Saw, MD, of Vancouver General Hospital, and Matthew J. Price, MD, of Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif., made these remarks in an editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.019) accompanying Dr. Reddy’s report. Dr. Saw reported ties to Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, Abbott Vascular, St. Jude Medical, Servier, Bayer, and Sunovion. Dr. Price reported ties to Boston Scientific, St. Jude Medical, W.L. Gore, Medtronic, AstraZeneca, Abbott Vascular, and Terumo.
The results reported by Dr. Reddy and his colleagues are remarkably favorable for the earliest phase of widespread dissemination of this technology, especially in the context of the much higher rates of medication-related adverse events that occur with long-term oral anticoagulation. These findings should reassure us that left atrial appendage device closure has been safely introduced into clinical practice in the United States.
The study design, however, raises some concerns, and clinicians should be aware that complications may have been underreported. The manufacturer’s employees collected the data regarding complications in a somewhat informal manner, so this was not an objective study meeting the rigorous standards of clinical trials or postmarketing registries. These “clinical specialists” only included complications that developed within 1 week of the procedure, which fails to address possible delayed complications such as device-related thrombus. And they also didn’t track some important complications such as vascular events and bleeding events.
Jacqueline Saw, MD, of Vancouver General Hospital, and Matthew J. Price, MD, of Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif., made these remarks in an editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.019) accompanying Dr. Reddy’s report. Dr. Saw reported ties to Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, Abbott Vascular, St. Jude Medical, Servier, Bayer, and Sunovion. Dr. Price reported ties to Boston Scientific, St. Jude Medical, W.L. Gore, Medtronic, AstraZeneca, Abbott Vascular, and Terumo.
The results reported by Dr. Reddy and his colleagues are remarkably favorable for the earliest phase of widespread dissemination of this technology, especially in the context of the much higher rates of medication-related adverse events that occur with long-term oral anticoagulation. These findings should reassure us that left atrial appendage device closure has been safely introduced into clinical practice in the United States.
The study design, however, raises some concerns, and clinicians should be aware that complications may have been underreported. The manufacturer’s employees collected the data regarding complications in a somewhat informal manner, so this was not an objective study meeting the rigorous standards of clinical trials or postmarketing registries. These “clinical specialists” only included complications that developed within 1 week of the procedure, which fails to address possible delayed complications such as device-related thrombus. And they also didn’t track some important complications such as vascular events and bleeding events.
Jacqueline Saw, MD, of Vancouver General Hospital, and Matthew J. Price, MD, of Scripps Clinic in La Jolla, Calif., made these remarks in an editorial (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.019) accompanying Dr. Reddy’s report. Dr. Saw reported ties to Boston Scientific, AstraZeneca, Abbott Vascular, St. Jude Medical, Servier, Bayer, and Sunovion. Dr. Price reported ties to Boston Scientific, St. Jude Medical, W.L. Gore, Medtronic, AstraZeneca, Abbott Vascular, and Terumo.
A device that closes the left atrial appendage to prevent stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation showed a 95.6% procedural success rate in a study of real-world experience since it was approved by the FDA in 2015, according to a report presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting and published simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The study was based on data collected by Boston Scientific, the manufacturer of the Watchman device, regarding 3,822 consecutive patients who underwent the implantation during a 14-month period. The “excellent” procedural success rate, together with low short-term complication rates, are especially “remarkable” because 71% of the interventional cardiologists and electrophysiologists who performed these procedures had no experience with the device prior to FDA approval, said Vivek Y. Reddy, MD, of Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.
For this study, the implantations were done by 382 physicians at 169 U.S. medical centers. A total of 3,653 procedures were successful. The median duration of the implantation was “an acceptable” 50 minutes (range, 10-210 minutes), and an average of 1.38 devices (range, 1-6) were required per patient. In 23% of cases, a “partial recapture” of a device was necessary to reposition it (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.010).
The rates of major complications within 1 week – pericardial tamponade (<1%), procedure-related stroke (0.08%), and mortality (0.08%) – were characterized as “favorable.”
The most common complication was pericardial effusion requiring intervention, which developed in 39 patients (1.02%). The effusions were drained percutaneously in most (24) of these patients. Another 11 patients (0.29%) developed mild pericardial effusions requiring only conservative management.
Three strokes, two ischemic and one hemorrhagic, were deemed related to the procedure, though the hemorrhagic bleed may have resulted chiefly from anticoagulation medications. Three deaths were judged to be related to the procedure: All were secondary to pericardial tamponade associated with perforation by the device.
“It is worth comparing [this] cardiac tamponade rate with [that of] another left atrial cardiovascular procedure, catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation,” Dr. Reddy noted.
A worldwide survey of more than 20,000 catheter ablations reported a pericardial tamponade rate of 1.31%, and another study of more than 93,000 ablation procedures performed during a 1-year period reported a rate of 1.52%, he said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
Other short-term complications in this study included nine cases of device embolization (0.24%). Six of these required surgical removal of the device, while three were retrieved percutaneously.
No sponsor was cited for this study. Boston Scientific, maker of the Watchman left atrial appendage closure device, collected the data on all implantations of the device in the United States following FDA approval. Dr. Reddy and his associates reported ties to Boston Scientific, Coherex, SentreHeart, Abbott Vascular, and St. Jude Medical.
A device that closes the left atrial appendage to prevent stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation showed a 95.6% procedural success rate in a study of real-world experience since it was approved by the FDA in 2015, according to a report presented at the Transcatheter Cardiovascular Therapeutics annual meeting and published simultaneously in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology.
The study was based on data collected by Boston Scientific, the manufacturer of the Watchman device, regarding 3,822 consecutive patients who underwent the implantation during a 14-month period. The “excellent” procedural success rate, together with low short-term complication rates, are especially “remarkable” because 71% of the interventional cardiologists and electrophysiologists who performed these procedures had no experience with the device prior to FDA approval, said Vivek Y. Reddy, MD, of Mount Sinai Medical Center, New York.
For this study, the implantations were done by 382 physicians at 169 U.S. medical centers. A total of 3,653 procedures were successful. The median duration of the implantation was “an acceptable” 50 minutes (range, 10-210 minutes), and an average of 1.38 devices (range, 1-6) were required per patient. In 23% of cases, a “partial recapture” of a device was necessary to reposition it (J Am Coll Cardiol. 2016 Nov. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2016.10.010).
The rates of major complications within 1 week – pericardial tamponade (<1%), procedure-related stroke (0.08%), and mortality (0.08%) – were characterized as “favorable.”
The most common complication was pericardial effusion requiring intervention, which developed in 39 patients (1.02%). The effusions were drained percutaneously in most (24) of these patients. Another 11 patients (0.29%) developed mild pericardial effusions requiring only conservative management.
Three strokes, two ischemic and one hemorrhagic, were deemed related to the procedure, though the hemorrhagic bleed may have resulted chiefly from anticoagulation medications. Three deaths were judged to be related to the procedure: All were secondary to pericardial tamponade associated with perforation by the device.
“It is worth comparing [this] cardiac tamponade rate with [that of] another left atrial cardiovascular procedure, catheter ablation of atrial fibrillation,” Dr. Reddy noted.
A worldwide survey of more than 20,000 catheter ablations reported a pericardial tamponade rate of 1.31%, and another study of more than 93,000 ablation procedures performed during a 1-year period reported a rate of 1.52%, he said at the meeting, which was sponsored by the Cardiovascular Research Foundation.
Other short-term complications in this study included nine cases of device embolization (0.24%). Six of these required surgical removal of the device, while three were retrieved percutaneously.
No sponsor was cited for this study. Boston Scientific, maker of the Watchman left atrial appendage closure device, collected the data on all implantations of the device in the United States following FDA approval. Dr. Reddy and his associates reported ties to Boston Scientific, Coherex, SentreHeart, Abbott Vascular, and St. Jude Medical.
FROM TCT 2016
Key clinical point: A left atrial appendage closure device to prevent stroke in patients with nonvalvular atrial fibrillation showed a 95.6% procedural success rate.
Major finding: Of 3,822 implantations, 3,653 (95.6%) were successful, and 1-week complication rates were low, with <1% pericardial tamponade, 0.08% procedure-related stroke, and 0.08% mortality.
Data source: An analysis of manufacturer-collected data on all 3,822 consecutive device implantations at 169 medical centers from March 2015 to May 2016.
Disclosures: No sponsor was cited for this study. Boston Scientific, maker of the Watchman left atrial appendage closure device, collected the data on all implantations of the device in the United States following FDA approval. Dr. Reddy and his associates reported ties to Boston Scientific, Coherex, SentreHeart, Abbott Vascular, and St. Jude Medical.
Using CHIMPS for type A dissection in a high-risk patient
Traditional open repair for type A aortic dissection in patients with Marfan syndrome and a previous cardiovascular surgery carries a high risk of morbidity and mortality, but a team of surgeons from China have reported on a hybrid technique that combines open and endovascular approaches to repair type A dissection in a patient with Marfan syndrome.
In the October issue of the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (2016;152:1191-3), Hong-wei Zhang, MD, and colleagues from West China Hospital of Sichuan University, explained their technique using chimney and sandwich grafts to repair a type A dissection in the patient late after Bentall surgery. “With great advancements in recent thoracic endovascular aortic repair technology, innovative hybrid operations combining open and endovascular techniques hold promising potential to expand treatment options,” Dr. Zhang and coauthors said.
They reported on a 33-year-old male with Marfan syndrome (MFS) who had elective aortic root and mechanical valve replacement 10 years earlier. Three days of persistent chest and back pain caused the patient to go to the emergency department, where computed tomography angiography (CTA) confirmed a type A aortic dissection from the distal ascending aorta to the iliac arteries and involving the proximal innominate artery and left common carotid artery (LCCA).
Because the patient refused another open surgery, Dr. Zhang and colleagues executed their hybrid approach, the first step of which was to create an LCCA-left axillar artery bypass with a 6-mm Gore-Tex graft (W.L. Gore & Associates). After they led the graft through the costoclavicular passage, they introduced the first (distal) thoracic stent (Valiant Captivia, Medtronic) from the right femoral artery and deployed it at the proximal descending aorta. They then inserted the second (proximal) thoracic stent graft into the previous ascending synthetic graft.
Next, they delivered the chimney grafts, two Fluency Plus covered stents (Bard Peripheral Vascular), from the right brachial and innominate artery into the ascending graft. Then they delivered two more Fluency grafts from the LCCA into the endolumen of the first (distal) thoracic stent graft.
After they deployed the second (proximal) thoracic stent graft, they deployed the precisely positioned stent grafts from the innominate artery and the LCCA, sandwiching the covered stents for the LCCA between the two thoracic stent grafts. They then occluded the left subclavian artery with a 10-mm double-disk vascular occlude.
Upon angiography at completion, Dr. Zhang and coauthors found an endoleak from the overlap zones between the two thoracic stent grafts.
However, the patient’s postoperative course was uneventful, and CTA 5 days after surgery showed complete sealing of the primary entry tear with patent chimney and sandwich grafts. The patient remained symptom-free at 30 days, when CTA again confirmed patency of the supra-arch grafts.
Dr. Zhang and coauthors acknowledge that carotid-to-carotid bypass could have been an alternative in order to use fewer stent grafts and to reduce the risk of endoleaks in this case, but they opted for this approach because of the dissection of the proximal innominate artery and LCCA and their concern of the long-term patency of a carotid-to-carotid bypass. “To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of a hybrid treatment for new-onset, type A aortic dissection in patients with MFS with a previous Bentall procedure,” Dr. Zhang and coauthors said. “Although further staged repairs are required in our case, this endovascular technique could be an effective and life-saving treatment option for the high-risk repeated surgical patients with MFS.”
Dr. Zhang and coauthors had no financial relationships to disclose.
In their invited commentary, Lars Svensson, MD, PhD, Matthew Eagleton, MD, and Eric Roselli, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said the approach Dr. Zhang and colleagues reported on is one of the “novel” endovascular CHIMPS methods for aortic arch repair – CHIMPS meaning chimneys, periscopes, snorkels, and sandwiches (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;152:958-9). But they noted that one of the ongoing challenges with these types of parallel grafts is the gutter leaks that occur between the sandwich grafts.
The commentators noted that CHIMPS procedures are easier alternatives to using spiral branch graft stents for the thoracoabdominal aorta or direct-connecting branch stems from an aortic stent in the arch, but they added, “An important caveat is that the blood supply maintenance and long-term durability may not be adequate.”
The patient Dr. Zhang and colleagues reported on “is young and will need a durable operation,” Dr. Svensson, Dr. Eagleton, and Dr. Roselli said. “Unfortunately, in our experience over time we have observed that these CHIMPS procedures tend to break down and leak into the arch, including the arch actually rupturing,” they said. These patients will need “intensive” monitoring. What’s more, patients with Marfan syndrome are prone to aneurysm formation “and are not good candidates for stenting,” the commentators said.
“Nevertheless, further engineering iterations of CHIMPS may address the problem with gutter leaks and become an alternative to the elephant trunk procedure for those patients who are at particularly high risk,” the commentators said.
Dr. Svensson disclosed he holds a patent with potential royalties for an aortic valve and aortic root stent graft with connecting branch grafts to the coronary ostia. Dr. Roselli is a consultant and investigator for Bolton, Gore, and Medtronic. Dr. Eagleton has no relationships to disclose.
In their invited commentary, Lars Svensson, MD, PhD, Matthew Eagleton, MD, and Eric Roselli, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said the approach Dr. Zhang and colleagues reported on is one of the “novel” endovascular CHIMPS methods for aortic arch repair – CHIMPS meaning chimneys, periscopes, snorkels, and sandwiches (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;152:958-9). But they noted that one of the ongoing challenges with these types of parallel grafts is the gutter leaks that occur between the sandwich grafts.
The commentators noted that CHIMPS procedures are easier alternatives to using spiral branch graft stents for the thoracoabdominal aorta or direct-connecting branch stems from an aortic stent in the arch, but they added, “An important caveat is that the blood supply maintenance and long-term durability may not be adequate.”
The patient Dr. Zhang and colleagues reported on “is young and will need a durable operation,” Dr. Svensson, Dr. Eagleton, and Dr. Roselli said. “Unfortunately, in our experience over time we have observed that these CHIMPS procedures tend to break down and leak into the arch, including the arch actually rupturing,” they said. These patients will need “intensive” monitoring. What’s more, patients with Marfan syndrome are prone to aneurysm formation “and are not good candidates for stenting,” the commentators said.
“Nevertheless, further engineering iterations of CHIMPS may address the problem with gutter leaks and become an alternative to the elephant trunk procedure for those patients who are at particularly high risk,” the commentators said.
Dr. Svensson disclosed he holds a patent with potential royalties for an aortic valve and aortic root stent graft with connecting branch grafts to the coronary ostia. Dr. Roselli is a consultant and investigator for Bolton, Gore, and Medtronic. Dr. Eagleton has no relationships to disclose.
In their invited commentary, Lars Svensson, MD, PhD, Matthew Eagleton, MD, and Eric Roselli, MD, of the Cleveland Clinic, said the approach Dr. Zhang and colleagues reported on is one of the “novel” endovascular CHIMPS methods for aortic arch repair – CHIMPS meaning chimneys, periscopes, snorkels, and sandwiches (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;152:958-9). But they noted that one of the ongoing challenges with these types of parallel grafts is the gutter leaks that occur between the sandwich grafts.
The commentators noted that CHIMPS procedures are easier alternatives to using spiral branch graft stents for the thoracoabdominal aorta or direct-connecting branch stems from an aortic stent in the arch, but they added, “An important caveat is that the blood supply maintenance and long-term durability may not be adequate.”
The patient Dr. Zhang and colleagues reported on “is young and will need a durable operation,” Dr. Svensson, Dr. Eagleton, and Dr. Roselli said. “Unfortunately, in our experience over time we have observed that these CHIMPS procedures tend to break down and leak into the arch, including the arch actually rupturing,” they said. These patients will need “intensive” monitoring. What’s more, patients with Marfan syndrome are prone to aneurysm formation “and are not good candidates for stenting,” the commentators said.
“Nevertheless, further engineering iterations of CHIMPS may address the problem with gutter leaks and become an alternative to the elephant trunk procedure for those patients who are at particularly high risk,” the commentators said.
Dr. Svensson disclosed he holds a patent with potential royalties for an aortic valve and aortic root stent graft with connecting branch grafts to the coronary ostia. Dr. Roselli is a consultant and investigator for Bolton, Gore, and Medtronic. Dr. Eagleton has no relationships to disclose.
Traditional open repair for type A aortic dissection in patients with Marfan syndrome and a previous cardiovascular surgery carries a high risk of morbidity and mortality, but a team of surgeons from China have reported on a hybrid technique that combines open and endovascular approaches to repair type A dissection in a patient with Marfan syndrome.
In the October issue of the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (2016;152:1191-3), Hong-wei Zhang, MD, and colleagues from West China Hospital of Sichuan University, explained their technique using chimney and sandwich grafts to repair a type A dissection in the patient late after Bentall surgery. “With great advancements in recent thoracic endovascular aortic repair technology, innovative hybrid operations combining open and endovascular techniques hold promising potential to expand treatment options,” Dr. Zhang and coauthors said.
They reported on a 33-year-old male with Marfan syndrome (MFS) who had elective aortic root and mechanical valve replacement 10 years earlier. Three days of persistent chest and back pain caused the patient to go to the emergency department, where computed tomography angiography (CTA) confirmed a type A aortic dissection from the distal ascending aorta to the iliac arteries and involving the proximal innominate artery and left common carotid artery (LCCA).
Because the patient refused another open surgery, Dr. Zhang and colleagues executed their hybrid approach, the first step of which was to create an LCCA-left axillar artery bypass with a 6-mm Gore-Tex graft (W.L. Gore & Associates). After they led the graft through the costoclavicular passage, they introduced the first (distal) thoracic stent (Valiant Captivia, Medtronic) from the right femoral artery and deployed it at the proximal descending aorta. They then inserted the second (proximal) thoracic stent graft into the previous ascending synthetic graft.
Next, they delivered the chimney grafts, two Fluency Plus covered stents (Bard Peripheral Vascular), from the right brachial and innominate artery into the ascending graft. Then they delivered two more Fluency grafts from the LCCA into the endolumen of the first (distal) thoracic stent graft.
After they deployed the second (proximal) thoracic stent graft, they deployed the precisely positioned stent grafts from the innominate artery and the LCCA, sandwiching the covered stents for the LCCA between the two thoracic stent grafts. They then occluded the left subclavian artery with a 10-mm double-disk vascular occlude.
Upon angiography at completion, Dr. Zhang and coauthors found an endoleak from the overlap zones between the two thoracic stent grafts.
However, the patient’s postoperative course was uneventful, and CTA 5 days after surgery showed complete sealing of the primary entry tear with patent chimney and sandwich grafts. The patient remained symptom-free at 30 days, when CTA again confirmed patency of the supra-arch grafts.
Dr. Zhang and coauthors acknowledge that carotid-to-carotid bypass could have been an alternative in order to use fewer stent grafts and to reduce the risk of endoleaks in this case, but they opted for this approach because of the dissection of the proximal innominate artery and LCCA and their concern of the long-term patency of a carotid-to-carotid bypass. “To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of a hybrid treatment for new-onset, type A aortic dissection in patients with MFS with a previous Bentall procedure,” Dr. Zhang and coauthors said. “Although further staged repairs are required in our case, this endovascular technique could be an effective and life-saving treatment option for the high-risk repeated surgical patients with MFS.”
Dr. Zhang and coauthors had no financial relationships to disclose.
Traditional open repair for type A aortic dissection in patients with Marfan syndrome and a previous cardiovascular surgery carries a high risk of morbidity and mortality, but a team of surgeons from China have reported on a hybrid technique that combines open and endovascular approaches to repair type A dissection in a patient with Marfan syndrome.
In the October issue of the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (2016;152:1191-3), Hong-wei Zhang, MD, and colleagues from West China Hospital of Sichuan University, explained their technique using chimney and sandwich grafts to repair a type A dissection in the patient late after Bentall surgery. “With great advancements in recent thoracic endovascular aortic repair technology, innovative hybrid operations combining open and endovascular techniques hold promising potential to expand treatment options,” Dr. Zhang and coauthors said.
They reported on a 33-year-old male with Marfan syndrome (MFS) who had elective aortic root and mechanical valve replacement 10 years earlier. Three days of persistent chest and back pain caused the patient to go to the emergency department, where computed tomography angiography (CTA) confirmed a type A aortic dissection from the distal ascending aorta to the iliac arteries and involving the proximal innominate artery and left common carotid artery (LCCA).
Because the patient refused another open surgery, Dr. Zhang and colleagues executed their hybrid approach, the first step of which was to create an LCCA-left axillar artery bypass with a 6-mm Gore-Tex graft (W.L. Gore & Associates). After they led the graft through the costoclavicular passage, they introduced the first (distal) thoracic stent (Valiant Captivia, Medtronic) from the right femoral artery and deployed it at the proximal descending aorta. They then inserted the second (proximal) thoracic stent graft into the previous ascending synthetic graft.
Next, they delivered the chimney grafts, two Fluency Plus covered stents (Bard Peripheral Vascular), from the right brachial and innominate artery into the ascending graft. Then they delivered two more Fluency grafts from the LCCA into the endolumen of the first (distal) thoracic stent graft.
After they deployed the second (proximal) thoracic stent graft, they deployed the precisely positioned stent grafts from the innominate artery and the LCCA, sandwiching the covered stents for the LCCA between the two thoracic stent grafts. They then occluded the left subclavian artery with a 10-mm double-disk vascular occlude.
Upon angiography at completion, Dr. Zhang and coauthors found an endoleak from the overlap zones between the two thoracic stent grafts.
However, the patient’s postoperative course was uneventful, and CTA 5 days after surgery showed complete sealing of the primary entry tear with patent chimney and sandwich grafts. The patient remained symptom-free at 30 days, when CTA again confirmed patency of the supra-arch grafts.
Dr. Zhang and coauthors acknowledge that carotid-to-carotid bypass could have been an alternative in order to use fewer stent grafts and to reduce the risk of endoleaks in this case, but they opted for this approach because of the dissection of the proximal innominate artery and LCCA and their concern of the long-term patency of a carotid-to-carotid bypass. “To our knowledge, this is the first reported case of a hybrid treatment for new-onset, type A aortic dissection in patients with MFS with a previous Bentall procedure,” Dr. Zhang and coauthors said. “Although further staged repairs are required in our case, this endovascular technique could be an effective and life-saving treatment option for the high-risk repeated surgical patients with MFS.”
Dr. Zhang and coauthors had no financial relationships to disclose.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY
Key clinical point: Chimney and sandwich grafts facilitate hybrid repair of type A aortic dissection for a Marfan syndrome patient after Bentall surgery.
Major finding: A 33-year-old male with Marfan syndrome and a history of cardiac surgery was asymptomatic 30 days after hybrid repair for type A aortic dissection.
Data source: Case report of single patient at an academic medical center.
Disclosures: Dr. Zhang and coauthors reported having no financial disclosures.
Newborns with CHD have reduced cerebral oxygen delivery
Using a newer form of MRI to investigate oxygen levels in newborns with congenital heart disease, researchers in Canada reported that these patients may have impaired brain growth and development in the first weeks of life because of significantly lower cerebral oxygen delivery levels.
These findings suggest that oxygen delivery may impact brain growth, particularly in newborns with single-ventricle physiology, reported Jessie Mei Lim, BSc, of the University of Toronto, and her colleagues from McGill University, Montreal, and the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto. The findings were published in the October issue of the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (2016;152:1095-103). Ms. Lim and her colleagues used cine phase-contrast (PC) MRI to measure cerebral blood flow in newborns with congenital heard disease (CHD). Previous studies used optical measures of tissue oxygenation and MRI arterial spin labeling to suggests that newborns with severe CHD have impaired CBF and cerebral oxygen delivery (CDO2) and CBF.
This single-center study involved 63 newborns from June 2013 to April 2015 at the Hospital for Sick Children. These subjects received an MRI of the head before surgery at an average of age 7.5 days. The scans were done without sedation or contrast while the infants were asleep. The study compared 31 age-matched controls with 32 subjects with various forms of CHD – 12 were managed surgically along a single-ventricle pathway (SVP), 4 had coarctation of the aorta, 13 had transposition of the great arteries (TGA), and 3 had other forms of CHD.
The researchers validated their method by reporting similarities between flows in the basilar and vertebral arteries in 14 controls, “suggesting good consistency and accuracy of our method for measuring CBF,” Ms. Lim and her coauthors noted. A comparison of CBF measured with an unpaired Student t test revealed no significant differences between the CHD group and controls. The average net CBF in CHD patients was 103.5 mL/min vs. 119.7 mL/min in controls.
However, when evaluating CDO2 using a Student t test, the researchers found significantly lower levels in the CHD group – an average of 1,1881 mLO2/min. vs. 2,712 mL O2/min in controls (P less than .0001). And when the researchers indexed CDO2 to brain volume yielding indexed oxygen delivery, the difference between the two groups was still significant: an average of 523.1 mL O2/min-1 .100 g-1 in the CHD group and 685.6 mL O2/min-1.100 g-1 in controls (P = .0006).
Among the CHD group, those with SVP and TGA had significantly lower CDO2 than that of controls. Brain volumes were also lower in those with CHD (mean of 338.5 mL vs. 377.7 mL in controls, P = .002).
The MRI findings were telling in the study population, Ms. Lim and her coauthors said. Five subjects in the CHD group had a combination of diffuse excessive high-signal intensity (DEHSI) and white-matter injury (WMI), 10 had an isolated finding of DEHSI, two had WMI alone and five others had other minor brain abnormalities. But the control group had no abnormal findings on conventional brain MRI.
The researchers acknowledged that, while the impact of reduced cerebral oxygen delivery is unknown, “theoretical reasons for thinking it might adversely impact ongoing brain growth and development during this period of rapid brain growth are considered.”
Cardiovascular surgeons should consider these findings when deciding on when to operate on newborns with CHD, the researchers said. “Further support for the concept that such a mechanism could lead to irreversible deficits in brain growth and development might result in attempts to expedite surgical repair of congenital cardiac lesions, which have conventionally not been addressed in the neonatal period,” they wrote.
Ms. Lim and her coauthors had no financial relationships to disclose.
Congenital heart disease (CHD) is heterogeneous and different types of lesions may cause different hemodynamics, Caitlin K. Rollins, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School said in her invited commentary (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;152-960-1).
Ms. Lim and her colleagues in this study confirmed that premise with their finding that newborns with CHD and controls had similar cerebral blood flow, but that those with CHD had reduced oxygen delivery. “These differences were most apparent in the neonates with single-ventricle physiology and transposition of the great arteries,” Dr. Rollins said. The study authors’ finding of an association between reduced oxygen delivery and impaired brain development, along with this group’s previous reports (Circulation 2015;131:1313-23) suggesting preserved cerebral blood flow in the late prenatal period, differ from other studies using traditional methods to show reduced cerebral blood flow in obstructive left-sided lesions, Dr. Rollins said. “Although technical differences may in part account for the discrepancy, the contrasting results also reflect that the relative contributions of abnormal cerebral blood flow and oxygenation differ among forms of CHD,” Dr. Rollins said.
Congenital heart disease (CHD) is heterogeneous and different types of lesions may cause different hemodynamics, Caitlin K. Rollins, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School said in her invited commentary (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;152-960-1).
Ms. Lim and her colleagues in this study confirmed that premise with their finding that newborns with CHD and controls had similar cerebral blood flow, but that those with CHD had reduced oxygen delivery. “These differences were most apparent in the neonates with single-ventricle physiology and transposition of the great arteries,” Dr. Rollins said. The study authors’ finding of an association between reduced oxygen delivery and impaired brain development, along with this group’s previous reports (Circulation 2015;131:1313-23) suggesting preserved cerebral blood flow in the late prenatal period, differ from other studies using traditional methods to show reduced cerebral blood flow in obstructive left-sided lesions, Dr. Rollins said. “Although technical differences may in part account for the discrepancy, the contrasting results also reflect that the relative contributions of abnormal cerebral blood flow and oxygenation differ among forms of CHD,” Dr. Rollins said.
Congenital heart disease (CHD) is heterogeneous and different types of lesions may cause different hemodynamics, Caitlin K. Rollins, MD, of Boston Children’s Hospital and Harvard Medical School said in her invited commentary (J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2016;152-960-1).
Ms. Lim and her colleagues in this study confirmed that premise with their finding that newborns with CHD and controls had similar cerebral blood flow, but that those with CHD had reduced oxygen delivery. “These differences were most apparent in the neonates with single-ventricle physiology and transposition of the great arteries,” Dr. Rollins said. The study authors’ finding of an association between reduced oxygen delivery and impaired brain development, along with this group’s previous reports (Circulation 2015;131:1313-23) suggesting preserved cerebral blood flow in the late prenatal period, differ from other studies using traditional methods to show reduced cerebral blood flow in obstructive left-sided lesions, Dr. Rollins said. “Although technical differences may in part account for the discrepancy, the contrasting results also reflect that the relative contributions of abnormal cerebral blood flow and oxygenation differ among forms of CHD,” Dr. Rollins said.
Using a newer form of MRI to investigate oxygen levels in newborns with congenital heart disease, researchers in Canada reported that these patients may have impaired brain growth and development in the first weeks of life because of significantly lower cerebral oxygen delivery levels.
These findings suggest that oxygen delivery may impact brain growth, particularly in newborns with single-ventricle physiology, reported Jessie Mei Lim, BSc, of the University of Toronto, and her colleagues from McGill University, Montreal, and the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto. The findings were published in the October issue of the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (2016;152:1095-103). Ms. Lim and her colleagues used cine phase-contrast (PC) MRI to measure cerebral blood flow in newborns with congenital heard disease (CHD). Previous studies used optical measures of tissue oxygenation and MRI arterial spin labeling to suggests that newborns with severe CHD have impaired CBF and cerebral oxygen delivery (CDO2) and CBF.
This single-center study involved 63 newborns from June 2013 to April 2015 at the Hospital for Sick Children. These subjects received an MRI of the head before surgery at an average of age 7.5 days. The scans were done without sedation or contrast while the infants were asleep. The study compared 31 age-matched controls with 32 subjects with various forms of CHD – 12 were managed surgically along a single-ventricle pathway (SVP), 4 had coarctation of the aorta, 13 had transposition of the great arteries (TGA), and 3 had other forms of CHD.
The researchers validated their method by reporting similarities between flows in the basilar and vertebral arteries in 14 controls, “suggesting good consistency and accuracy of our method for measuring CBF,” Ms. Lim and her coauthors noted. A comparison of CBF measured with an unpaired Student t test revealed no significant differences between the CHD group and controls. The average net CBF in CHD patients was 103.5 mL/min vs. 119.7 mL/min in controls.
However, when evaluating CDO2 using a Student t test, the researchers found significantly lower levels in the CHD group – an average of 1,1881 mLO2/min. vs. 2,712 mL O2/min in controls (P less than .0001). And when the researchers indexed CDO2 to brain volume yielding indexed oxygen delivery, the difference between the two groups was still significant: an average of 523.1 mL O2/min-1 .100 g-1 in the CHD group and 685.6 mL O2/min-1.100 g-1 in controls (P = .0006).
Among the CHD group, those with SVP and TGA had significantly lower CDO2 than that of controls. Brain volumes were also lower in those with CHD (mean of 338.5 mL vs. 377.7 mL in controls, P = .002).
The MRI findings were telling in the study population, Ms. Lim and her coauthors said. Five subjects in the CHD group had a combination of diffuse excessive high-signal intensity (DEHSI) and white-matter injury (WMI), 10 had an isolated finding of DEHSI, two had WMI alone and five others had other minor brain abnormalities. But the control group had no abnormal findings on conventional brain MRI.
The researchers acknowledged that, while the impact of reduced cerebral oxygen delivery is unknown, “theoretical reasons for thinking it might adversely impact ongoing brain growth and development during this period of rapid brain growth are considered.”
Cardiovascular surgeons should consider these findings when deciding on when to operate on newborns with CHD, the researchers said. “Further support for the concept that such a mechanism could lead to irreversible deficits in brain growth and development might result in attempts to expedite surgical repair of congenital cardiac lesions, which have conventionally not been addressed in the neonatal period,” they wrote.
Ms. Lim and her coauthors had no financial relationships to disclose.
Using a newer form of MRI to investigate oxygen levels in newborns with congenital heart disease, researchers in Canada reported that these patients may have impaired brain growth and development in the first weeks of life because of significantly lower cerebral oxygen delivery levels.
These findings suggest that oxygen delivery may impact brain growth, particularly in newborns with single-ventricle physiology, reported Jessie Mei Lim, BSc, of the University of Toronto, and her colleagues from McGill University, Montreal, and the Hospital for Sick Children, Toronto. The findings were published in the October issue of the Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery (2016;152:1095-103). Ms. Lim and her colleagues used cine phase-contrast (PC) MRI to measure cerebral blood flow in newborns with congenital heard disease (CHD). Previous studies used optical measures of tissue oxygenation and MRI arterial spin labeling to suggests that newborns with severe CHD have impaired CBF and cerebral oxygen delivery (CDO2) and CBF.
This single-center study involved 63 newborns from June 2013 to April 2015 at the Hospital for Sick Children. These subjects received an MRI of the head before surgery at an average of age 7.5 days. The scans were done without sedation or contrast while the infants were asleep. The study compared 31 age-matched controls with 32 subjects with various forms of CHD – 12 were managed surgically along a single-ventricle pathway (SVP), 4 had coarctation of the aorta, 13 had transposition of the great arteries (TGA), and 3 had other forms of CHD.
The researchers validated their method by reporting similarities between flows in the basilar and vertebral arteries in 14 controls, “suggesting good consistency and accuracy of our method for measuring CBF,” Ms. Lim and her coauthors noted. A comparison of CBF measured with an unpaired Student t test revealed no significant differences between the CHD group and controls. The average net CBF in CHD patients was 103.5 mL/min vs. 119.7 mL/min in controls.
However, when evaluating CDO2 using a Student t test, the researchers found significantly lower levels in the CHD group – an average of 1,1881 mLO2/min. vs. 2,712 mL O2/min in controls (P less than .0001). And when the researchers indexed CDO2 to brain volume yielding indexed oxygen delivery, the difference between the two groups was still significant: an average of 523.1 mL O2/min-1 .100 g-1 in the CHD group and 685.6 mL O2/min-1.100 g-1 in controls (P = .0006).
Among the CHD group, those with SVP and TGA had significantly lower CDO2 than that of controls. Brain volumes were also lower in those with CHD (mean of 338.5 mL vs. 377.7 mL in controls, P = .002).
The MRI findings were telling in the study population, Ms. Lim and her coauthors said. Five subjects in the CHD group had a combination of diffuse excessive high-signal intensity (DEHSI) and white-matter injury (WMI), 10 had an isolated finding of DEHSI, two had WMI alone and five others had other minor brain abnormalities. But the control group had no abnormal findings on conventional brain MRI.
The researchers acknowledged that, while the impact of reduced cerebral oxygen delivery is unknown, “theoretical reasons for thinking it might adversely impact ongoing brain growth and development during this period of rapid brain growth are considered.”
Cardiovascular surgeons should consider these findings when deciding on when to operate on newborns with CHD, the researchers said. “Further support for the concept that such a mechanism could lead to irreversible deficits in brain growth and development might result in attempts to expedite surgical repair of congenital cardiac lesions, which have conventionally not been addressed in the neonatal period,” they wrote.
Ms. Lim and her coauthors had no financial relationships to disclose.
FROM THE JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY
Key clinical point: Cerebral blood flow is maintained but cerebral oxygen delivery is decreased in preoperative newborns with cyanotic congenital heart disease (CHD).
Major finding: Average cerebral oxygen delivery measured 1,1881 mLO2/min in the CHD group when measured with Student t testing vs. 2,712 mLO2/min in controls (P less than .0001).
Data source: Single-center study of 32 neonates with various forms of CHD 31 age-matched controls.
Disclosures: Ms. Lim and coauthors have no financial relationships to disclose.