Graft failure occurs in a sizeable proportion of coronary artery bypass conduits. We herein review relevant current evidence to give an overview of the incidence, pathophysiology, and clinical consequences of this multifactorial phenomenon. Thrombosis, endothelial dysfunction, vasospasm, and oxidative stress are different mechanisms associated with graft failure. Intrinsic morphological and functional features of the bypass conduits play a role in determining failure. Similarly, characteristics of the target coronary vessel, such as the severity of stenosis, the diameter, the extent of atherosclerotic burden, and previous endovascular interventions, are important determinants of graft outcome and must be taken into consideration at the time of surgery. Technical factors, such as the method used to harvest the conduits, the vasodilatory protocol, the storage solution, and the anastomotic technique, also play a major role in determining graft success. Furthermore, systemic atherosclerotic risk factors, such as age, sex, diabetes mellitus, hypertension, and dyslipidemia, have been variably associated with graft failure. The failure of a coronary graft is not always correlated with adverse clinical events, which vary according to the type, location, and reason for failed graft. Intraoperative flow verification and secondary prevention using antiplatelet and lipid-lowering agents can help reducing the incidence of graft failure.

Key Points Question Can the individual risk estimation for early allograft failure (EAF) be improved in view of liver retransplant? Findings In this multicenter cohort study investigating the association between donor-recipient factors and EAF, a novel Early Allograft Failure Simplified Estimation (EASE) score was developed. The score includes Model for End-stage Liver Disease score, transfused packed red blood cells, and hepatic vessel early thrombosis as well as transaminases, platelet, and bilirubin kinetics as variables on day 10 after transplant. The EASE score outperformed previous model scores, estimating EAF risk with 87% accuracy on day 90 after transplant; EASE was developed on a multicenter Italian database (1609 recipients) and validated on an external UK database (538 recipients). Meaning In this study, the EASE score rated the EAF risk (0%-100%) and identified cases at unsustainable risk to be listed for retransplant.

Background: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of immediate prosthetic breast reconstruction (IPBR) using traditional submuscular (SM) positioning of implants versus prepectoral (PP) positioning of micropolyurethane-foam-coated implants (microthane) without further coverage. Methods: We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of breast cancer patients treated by nipple-sparing mastectomy (NSM) and IPBR in our institution during the two-year period from January 2018 to December 2019. Patients were divided into two groups based on the plane of implant placement: SM versus PP. Results: 177 patients who received IPBR after NSM were included in the study; implants were positioned in a SM plane in 95 patients and in a PP plane in 82 patients. The two cohorts were similar for mean age (44 years and 47 years in the SM and PP groups, respectively) and follow-up (20 months and 16 months, respectively). The mean operative time was 70 min shorter in the PP group. No significant differences were observed in length of hospital stay or overall major complication rates. Statistically significant advantages were observed in the PP group in terms of aesthetic results, chronic pain, shoulder dysfunction, and skin sensibility (p < 0.05), as well as a trend of better outcomes for sports activity and sexual/relationship life. Cost analysis revealed that PP-IPBR was also economically advantageous over SM-IPBR. Conclusions: Our preliminary experience seems to confirm that PP positioning of a polyurethane-coated implant is a safe, reliable and effective method to perform IPBR after NSM.

No abstract