Is emergency and salvage coronary artery bypass grafting justified? The Nordic Emergency/Salvage coronary artery bypass grafting study

This study was designed to determine: 1) whether a routine invasive (RI) strategy reduces the long-term frequency of cardiovascular death or nonfatal myocardial infarction (MI) using a meta-analysis of individual patient data from all randomized studies with 5-year outcomes; and 2) whether the results are influenced by baseline risk. Pooled analyses of randomized trials show early benefit of routine intervention, but long-term results are inconsistent. The differences may reflect differing trial design, adjunctive therapies, and/or limited power. This meta-analysis (n = 5,467 patients) is designed to determine whether outcomes are improved despite trial differences. Individual patient data, with 5-year outcomes, were obtained from FRISC-II (Fragmin and Fast Revascularization during Instability in Coronary Artery Disease), ICTUS (Invasive Versus Conservative Treatment in Unstable Coronary Syndromes), and RITA-3 (Randomized Trial of a Conservative Treatment Strategy Versus an Interventional Treatment Strategy in Patients with Unstable Angina) trials for a collaborative meta-analysis. A Cox regression analysis was used for a multivariable risk model, and a simplified integer model was derived. Over 5 years, 14.7% (389 of 2,721) of patients randomized to an RI strategy experienced cardiovascular death or nonfatal MI versus 17.9% (475 of 2,746) in the selective invasive (SI) strategy (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.71 to 0.93; p = 0.002). The most marked treatment effect was on MI (10.0% RI strategy vs. 12.9% SI strategy), and there were consistent trends for cardiovascular deaths (HR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.68 to 1.01; p = 0.068) and all deaths (HR: 0.90, 95% CI: 0.77 to 1.05). There were 2.0% to 3.8% absolute reductions in cardiovascular death or MI in the low- and intermediate-risk groups and an 11.1% absolute risk reduction in highest-risk patients. An RI strategy reduces long-term rates of cardiovascular death or MI and the largest absolute effect in seen in higher-risk patients.

Patients with unstable angina or non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI) can be cared for with a routine invasive strategy involving coronary angiography and revascularization or more conservatively with a selective invasive strategy in which only those with recurrent or inducible ischemia are referred for acute intervention. To conduct a meta-analysis that compares benefits and risks of routine invasive vs selective invasive strategies. Randomized controlled trials identified through search of MEDLINE and the Cochrane databases (1970 through June 2004) and hand searching of cross-references from original articles and reviews. Trials were included that involved patients with unstable angina or NSTEMI who received a routine invasive or a selective invasive strategy. Major outcomes of death and myocardial infarction (MI) occurring from initial hospitalization to the end of follow-up were extracted from published results of eligible trials. A total of 7 trials (N = 9212 patients) were eligible. Overall, death or MI was reduced from 663 (14.4%) of 4604 patients in the selective invasive group to 561 (12.2%) of 4608 patients in the routine invasive group (odds ratio [OR], 0.82; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72-0.93; P = .001). There was a nonsignificant trend toward fewer deaths (6.0% vs 5.5%; OR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.77-1.09; P = .33) and a significant reduction in MI alone (9.4% vs 7.3%; OR, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.65-0.88; P<.001). Higher-risk patients with elevated cardiac biomarker levels at baseline benefited more from routine intervention, with no significant benefit observed in lower-risk patients with negative baseline marker levels. During the initial hospitalization, a routine invasive strategy was associated with a significantly higher early mortality (1.1% vs 1.8% for selective vs routine, respectively; OR, 1.60; 95% CI, 1.14-2.25; P = .007) and the composite of death or MI (3.8% vs 5.2%; OR, 1.36; 95% CI, 1.12-1.66; P = .002). But after discharge, the routine invasive strategy was associated with fewer subsequent deaths (4.9% vs 3.8%; OR, 0.76; 95% CI, 0.62-0.94; P = .01) and the composite of death or MI (11.0% vs 7.4%; OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.56-0.75; P<.001). At the end of follow-up, there was a 33% reduction in severe angina (14.0% vs 11.2%; OR, 0.77; 95% CI, 0.68-0.87; P<.001) and a 34% reduction in rehospitalization (41.3% vs 32.5%; OR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.60-0.72; P<.001) with a routine invasive strategy. A routine invasive strategy exceeded a selective invasive strategy in reducing MI, severe angina, and rehospitalization over a mean follow-up of 17 months. But routine intervention was associated with a higher early mortality hazard and a trend toward a mortality reduction at follow-up. Future strategies should explore ways to minimize the early hazard and enhance later benefits by focusing on higher-risk patients and optimizing timing of intervention and use of proven therapies.

We aimed to identify risk factors for reexploration for bleeding after surgical revascularization in our practice. We also looked at the impact of resternotomy and the effect of time delay on mortality and other in-hospital outcomes. In all, 2,898 consecutive patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting between April 1999 and March 2002 were retrospectively analyzed from our cardiac surgery registry. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was used to identify risk factors for reexploration for bleeding. To assess the effect of preoperative aspirin and heparin, reexploration patients were propensity matched with unique patients not requiring reexploration. We carried out a casenote review to ascertain the timing and causes for bleeding in patients undergoing resternotomy. Eighty-nine patients (3.1%) underwent reexploration for bleeding. Multivariate analysis revealed smaller body mass index (p = 0.003), nonelective surgery (p = 0.022), 5 or more distal anastomoses (p = 0.035), and increased age (p = 0.041) to have increased risks. Propensity-matched analysis showed that preoperative use of aspirin (p = 0.004) and heparin (p = 0.001) were associated with increased risk in the on-pump coronary surgery group only. Patients requiring resternotomy had a significantly greater need for inotropic agents (p < 0.001), and longer intensive care unit stay (p < 0.001) and postoperative stay (p < 0.001) than their propensity-matched controls. However, there was no significant difference in the mortality rate. Adverse outcomes were significantly higher when patients waited more than 12 hours after return to the intensive care unit for resternotomy. Risk factors for reexploration for bleeding after coronary artery bypass grafting include older age, smaller body mass index, nonelective cases, and 5 or more distal anastomoses. Preoperative aspirin and heparin were risk factors for the on-pump coronary artery surgery group. Patients needing reexploration are at higher risk of complications if the time to reexploration is prolonged. Policies that promote early return to the operating theater for reexploration should be encouraged.