Brendan M. Carr

Resident versus attending surgeon graft patency and clinical outcomes in on- versus off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery

OBJECTIVE Controversy exists regarding ideal approaches in teaching residents complex and/or new surgical techniques in part because consequences on patient outcomes are largely unknown. This study compared patient outcomes for cases in which residents (rather than attending surgeons) performed most of the distal anastomoses as primary surgeons, during on- and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODS This preapproved substudy of the Randomized On/Off Bypass (ROOBY) trial compared clinical outcomes and 1-year graft patency for cases in which residents versus attending surgeons were the primary operator. Comparisons were made between on-pump and off-pump techniques. RESULTS From July 2003 through May 2007, a total of 1272 ROOBY nonemergent CABG patients were randomized at 16 Veterans Affairs centers where residents were active participants. Residents were the primary surgeon (ie, performed ≥50% of the distal anastomoses) more frequently in on-pump (77.9%) than in off-pump (67.4%) cases. Between these 2 techniques, no differences were found [corrected] in baseline patient characteristics; short-term and 1-year morbidity and mortality rates were no different for residents versus attendings in CABG cases. FitzGibbon A graft patency rates were similar for resident versus attendings completed distal anastomoses for on-pump (83.0% vs 82.4%) compared with off-pump (77.2% vs 76.6%) procedures. CONCLUSIONS In the ROOBY trial, short-term and 1-year patient outcomes and graft patency rates did not differ between resident and attending surgeons, demonstrating that with appropriate patient selection and resident supervision, residents can perform advanced, novel surgical techniques with outcomes similar to those of attending surgeons.

Long‐Term Post‐CABG Survival: Performance of Clinical Risk Models Versus Actuarial Predictions

Clinical risk models are commonly used to predict short‐term coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) mortality but are less commonly used to predict long‐term mortality. The added value of long‐term mortality clinical risk models over traditional actuarial models has not been evaluated. To address this, the predictive performance of a long‐term clinical risk model was compared with that of an actuarial model to identify the clinical variable(s) most responsible for any differences observed.

Concordance between administrative data and clinical review for mortality in the randomized on/off bypass follow-up study (ROOBY-FS)

The optimal methodology to identify cardiac versus non‐cardiac cause of death following cardiac surgery has not been determined.

Laparoscopic versus open surgery: a systematic review evaluating Cochrane systematic reviews

BackgroundLaparoscopic surgical procedures (LSP) have grown in popularity due to their purported benefits of improved effectiveness and efficiency. This study summarizes the Cochrane systematic reviews’ (CSRs’) evidence comparing the use of LSP versus open procedures used for surgical patient management and comparing the CSRs’ quality and consistency of LSP evidence reported across time and different surgical specialties.MethodsThe Cochrane Database was searched to identify CSRs comparing LSP versus open procedures; 36 CSRs and 15 CSR protocols were found as of February 16, 2016. Each CSR’s clinical outcomes and major conclusions were evaluated; CSR’s quality and completeness were assessed using PRISMA and AMSTAR criteria. Overall, CSRs’ reporting variations across specialties and trends over time were summarized.ResultsA weighted analysis across all 36 CSRs found improved outcomes with LSP (odds ratio 0.90; 95% confidence interval 0.88, 0.92). Substantial CSR variation was found in the patient inclusion/exclusion criteria and clinical endpoints used. Individually, most CSR analyses showed no significant difference (65.4%) between LSP versus open procedures; 25.8% showed a LSP benefit versus 8.9% an open benefit. As a major conclusion, a positive LSP impact was documented by 8/36 (22.2%) CSRs; but only half of these CSRs decisively concluded that there was a LSP advantage. Undeclared conflicts of interest were identified in 9/36 CSRs (25.0%), raising the potential for a reporting bias. Both CSR variabilities (i.e., missing population, intervention, comparison, outcome, study design statements) and PRISMA-related deficiencies were documented.ConclusionsOverall, CSR evidence supports a LSP advantage; however, clinical decisions must be driven by CSR procedure-specific evidence. Variations and inconsistencies in CSR design and reporting identified future opportunities to improve CSR quality by increasing the methodological transparency, standardizing CSR reporting, and documenting comprehensively any non-financial conflicts of interest (i.e., ongoing research and historical publications) for all CSR team members.

Comparison of Outcomes and Costs Associated with Aspirin +/- Clopidogrel after Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

Optimal antiplatelet therapy after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery remains controversial. This study evaluated the role of dual antiplatelet therapy using aspirin and clopidogrel (DAPT) versus antiplatelet therapy using aspirin only (ASA) on post-CABG clinical outcomes and costs. In the Department of Veterans Affairs Randomized On/Off Bypass (ROOBY) trial, clopidogrel use after CABG was prospectively collected beginning in year 2 of this study to include 1,525 of the 2,203 original ROOBY patients who received aspirin after CABG. Discretionarily, surgeons after CABG administered either DAPT or ASA treatments. The ROOBY trials primary 30-day composite (mortality or perioperative morbidity), 1-year composite (all-cause death, repeat revascularization, or nonfatal myocardial infarction), and costs were compared for these 2 strategies. Of the 1,525 subjects, 511 received DAPT and 1,014 received ASA. DAPT subjects, compared with ASA subjects, had lower rates of preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction of ≥45% (78.8% vs 85.7%, p <0.001), on-pump CABG (36.6% vs 57.1%, p = 0.001), and endoscopic vein harvesting (30.0% vs 42.8%, p <0.001). ASA patients were more likely to have earlier aspirin administration and receive 325 versus 81 mg dosages. The 30-day composite outcome rate was significantly lower for DAPT patients compared with ASA patients (3.3% vs 7.1%, p = 0.003), but the 1-year composite outcome was equal between the 2 groups (12.0% vs12.0%, p = 1.0). At 1 year, there were no cost differences between the 2 groups. Propensity analyses did not significantly alter the results. In conclusion, DAPT appeared safe and was associated with fewer 30-day adverse outcomes than aspirin only and with no 1-year outcome or cost differences.

PATIENT-REPORTED SYMPTOMS AND REVASCULARIZATION STATUS AFTER CORONARY ARTERY BYPASS GRAFT SURGERY IN DIABETICS AND NON-DIABETICS

In patients with multivessel coronary artery disease, bypass surgery improves long-term angina symptoms compared to percutaneous coronary intervention, presumably by providing a more complete revascularization (CR). However, data correlating patient-reported symptoms and CR post-bypass are lacking