Chordal replacement may be associated with greater freedom from reoperation and may lead to improved postoperative left ventricular function compared with leaflet resection. However, these conclusions are supported primarily by data from unadjusted observational studies, and high-quality RCTs of chordal replacement versus leaflet resection are needed.

Background: Observational studies have shown better survival in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with 2 arterial grafts compared with 1. However, whether a third arterial graft is associated with incremental benefit remains uncertain. We sought to analyze the outcomes of 3 versus 2 arterial grafts during CABG. As a secondary objective, we compared CABG with 2 or 3 arterial grafts (multiple arterial grafts [MAG]) with CABG using a single arterial graft (SAG). Methods: Retrospective cohort analyses of all patients undergoing primary isolated CABG in Ontario, Canada, from October 2008 to March 2016. Propensity score matching was performed between patients with 3 arterial grafts (3Art group) versus 2 (2Art group). The primary outcome was time to first event of a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, and repeat revascularization (major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events). Additional analyses were performed to evaluate the association between MAG versus SAG and long-term outcomes using propensity score matching. Results: Fifty thousand, two hundred thirty patients underwent isolated CABG during our study period; 3044 (6.1%) and 8253 (16.4%) patients had 3 and 2 arterial grafts, respectively, resulting in 2789 propensity score matching pairs for the primary analyses. Mean and maximum follow-up was 4.2 and 8.5 years, respectively. Radial artery grafting was more common in the 3Art versus 2Art group (79.3% versus 65.6%, P <0.01). In-hospital outcomes were not significantly different, including death (3Art 0.8% versus 2Art 0.5%, P =0.26). Up to 8 years, there were no differences in major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (3Art 27%, 95% confidence interval [CI], 24% to 30% versus 2Art 25%, 95% CI, 22% to 28%; hazard ratio [HR], 1.08, 95% CI, 0.94–1.25), death (HR, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.90–1.29), myocardial infarction (HR, 1.15; 95% CI, 0.87–1.51), stroke (HR, 1.39; 95% CI, 0.95–2.06), or repeat revascularization (HR, 1.04; 95% CI, 0.82–1.32). When evaluating MAG versus SAG, 8629 patient pairs were formed using propensity score matching. At 8 years, cumulative incidences of major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (HR, 0.82, 95% CI, 0.77–0.88), survival (HR, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.73–0.88), repeat revascularization (HR, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.69–0.90), and myocardial infarction (HR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.72–0.97) were superior in the MAG group. Conclusions: CABG with 3 arterial grafts was not associated with increased in-hospital death nor with better clinical outcomes at 8-year follow-up, compared with CABG with 2 arterial grafts. MAG was associated with superior outcomes compared with SAG.

No abstract

Developments in artificial intelligence (AI) have led to an explosion of studies exploring its application to cardiovascular medicine. Due to the need for training and expertise, one area where AI could be impactful would be in the diagnosis and management of valvular heart disease. This is because AI can be applied to the multitude of data generated from clinical assessments, imaging and biochemical testing during the care of the patient. In the area of valvular heart disease, the focus of AI has been on the echocardiographic assessment and phenotyping of patient populations to identify high-risk groups. AI can assist image acquisition, view identification for review, and segmentation of valve and cardiac structures for automated analysis. Using image recognition algorithms, aortic and mitral valve disease states have been directly detected from the images themselves. Measurements obtained during echocardiographic valvular assessment have been integrated with other clinical data to identify novel aortic valve disease subgroups and describe new predictors of aortic valve disease progression. In the future, AI could integrate echocardiographic parameters with other clinical data for precision medical management of patients with valvular heart disease.

No abstract

Web-based interventions are associated with significant improvements in caregiver knowledge about fever and high caregiver satisfaction. These interventions should be used to educate caregivers pending the demonstration of improved patient-centered outcomes.

Mixed aortic stenosis (AS) and aortic regurgitation (AR) is the most frequent concomitant valve disease worldwide and represents a heterogeneous population ranging from mild AS with severe AR to mild AR with severe AS. About 6.8% of patients with at least moderate AS will also have moderate or greater AR, and 17.9% of patients with at least moderate AR will suffer from moderate or greater AS. Interest in mixed AS/AR has increased, with studies demonstrating that patients with moderate mixed AS/AR have similar outcomes to those with isolated severe AS. The diagnosis and quantification of mixed AS/AR severity are predominantly echocardiography-based, but the combined lesions lead to significant limitations in the assessment. Aortic valve peak velocity is the best parameter to evaluate the combined haemodynamic impact of both lesions, with a peak velocity greater than 4.0 m/s suggesting severe mixed AS/AR. Moreover, symptoms, increased left ventricular wall thickness and filling pressures, and abnormal left ventricular global longitudinal strain likely identify high-risk patients who may benefit from closer follow-up. Although guidelines recommend interventions based on the predominant lesion, some patients could potentially benefit from earlier intervention. Once a patient is deemed to require intervention, for patients receiving transcatheter valves, the presence of mixed AS/AR could confer benefit to those at high risk of paravalvular leak. Overall, the current approach of managing patients based on the dominant lesion might be too reductionist and a more holistic approach including biomarkers and multimodality imaging cardiac remodelling and inflammation data might be more appropriate.

Off-pump coronary artery bypass graft (OPCAB) is currently performed routinely in a minority of specialized centers and in many more centers, utilized only when a porcelain aorta mandates a no-touch aortic technique. The OPCAB literature can be summarized as follows: (I) large-scale randomized trials in relatively low risk patients that include surgeons with a range of experience demonstrating no consistent beneficial differences in major cardiovascular and cerebrovascular outcomes but lower transfusion rates and shorter length of stay, tempered by some reports of higher rates of incomplete revascularization and lower rates of long term graft patency; (II) smaller randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from highly specialized programs demonstrating equivalent or superior outcomes with OPCAB and similar completeness of revascularization and graft patency; and (III) observational data from large databases demonstrating a consistent benefit of OPCAB, especially in higher-risk patient subsets. Our rationale for OPCAB remains that if complete and precise revascularization can be safely and routinely accomplished, then the patient should benefit by avoiding the morbidities that can be attributed to aortic cannulation/clamping, cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), hemodilution, hypothermia and global myocardial ischemia/cardioplegia.We further believe that OPCAB procedures should emphasize the use of arterial grafts to optimize long term patency and minimize aortic manipulation to limit the risk of stroke. Moving forward, the off-pump surgical community and specialty societies must address the challenge of training surgeons and their teams to master this technically demanding procedure. Furthermore, OPCAB opens the door to minimally-invasive surgical revascularization via hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR). A large NIH-funded RCT is currently underway to determine whether hybrid revascularization can offer a superior alternative to multi-vessel percutaneous coronary intervention for patients with low SYNTAX score and proximal LAD disease.