Richard P. Whitlock

Off-Pump or On-Pump Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting at 30 Days

BACKGROUND The relative benefits and risks of performing coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) with a beating-heart technique (off-pump CABG), as compared with cardiopulmonary bypass (on-pump CABG), are not clearly established. METHODS At 79 centers in 19 countries, we randomly assigned 4752 patients in whom CABG was planned to undergo the procedure off-pump or on-pump. The first coprimary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or new renal failure requiring dialysis at 30 days after randomization. RESULTS There was no significant difference in the rate of the primary composite outcome between off-pump and on-pump CABG (9.8% vs. 10.3%; hazard ratio for the off-pump group, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.14; P=0.59) or in any of its individual components. The use of off-pump CABG, as compared with on-pump CABG, significantly reduced the rates of blood-product transfusion (50.7% vs. 63.3%; relative risk, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.85; P<0.001), reoperation for perioperative bleeding (1.4% vs. 2.4%; relative risk, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.93; P=0.02), acute kidney injury (28.0% vs. 32.1%; relative risk, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.96; P=0.01), and respiratory complications (5.9% vs. 7.5%; relative risk, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.98; P=0.03) but increased the rate of early repeat revascularizations (0.7% vs. 0.2%; hazard ratio, 4.01; 95% CI, 1.34 to 12.0; P=0.01). CONCLUSIONS There was no significant difference between off-pump and on-pump CABG with respect to the 30-day rate of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or renal failure requiring dialysis. The use of off-pump CABG resulted in reduced rates of transfusion, reoperation for perioperative bleeding, respiratory complications, and acute kidney injury but also resulted in an increased risk of early revascularization. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; CORONARY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00463294.).

Aspirin in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery

BACKGROUND There is substantial variability in the perioperative administration of aspirin in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, both among patients who are already on an aspirin regimen and among those who are not. METHODS Using a 2-by-2 factorial trial design, we randomly assigned 10,010 patients who were preparing to undergo noncardiac surgery and were at risk for vascular complications to receive aspirin or placebo and clonidine or placebo. The results of the aspirin trial are reported here. The patients were stratified according to whether they had not been taking aspirin before the study (initiation stratum, with 5628 patients) or they were already on an aspirin regimen (continuation stratum, with 4382 patients). Patients started taking aspirin (at a dose of 200 mg) or placebo just before surgery and continued it daily (at a dose of 100 mg) for 30 days in the initiation stratum and for 7 days in the continuation stratum, after which patients resumed their regular aspirin regimen. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction at 30 days. RESULTS The primary outcome occurred in 351 of 4998 patients (7.0%) in the aspirin group and in 355 of 5012 patients (7.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the aspirin group, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86 to 1.15; P=0.92). Major bleeding was more common in the aspirin group than in the placebo group (230 patients [4.6%] vs. 188 patients [3.8%]; hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.01, to 1.49; P=0.04). The primary and secondary outcome results were similar in the two aspirin strata. CONCLUSIONS Administration of aspirin before surgery and throughout the early postsurgical period had no significant effect on the rate of a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction but increased the risk of major bleeding. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; POISE-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01082874.).

Effects of Off-Pump and On-Pump Coronary-Artery Bypass Grafting at 1 Year

BACKGROUND Previously, we reported that there was no significant difference at 30 days in the rate of a primary composite outcome of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new renal failure requiring dialysis between patients who underwent coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) performed with a beating-heart technique (off-pump) and those who underwent CABG performed with cardiopulmonary bypass (on-pump). We now report results on quality of life and cognitive function and on clinical outcomes at 1 year. METHODS We enrolled 4752 patients with coronary artery disease who were scheduled to undergo CABG and randomly assigned them to undergo the procedure off-pump or on-pump. Patients were enrolled at 79 centers in 19 countries. We assessed quality of life and cognitive function at discharge, at 30 days, and at 1 year and clinical outcomes at 1 year. RESULTS At 1 year, there was no significant difference in the rate of the primary composite outcome between off-pump and on-pump CABG (12.1% and 13.3%, respectively; hazard ratio with off-pump CABG, 0.91; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.77 to 1.07; P=0.24). The rate of the primary outcome was also similar in the two groups in the period between 31 days and 1 year (hazard ratio, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.55 to 1.13; P=0.19). The rate of repeat coronary revascularization at 1 year was 1.4% in the off-pump group and 0.8% in the on-pump group (hazard ratio, 1.66; 95% CI, 0.95 to 2.89; P=0.07). There were no significant differences between the two groups at 1 year in measures of quality of life or neurocognitive function. CONCLUSIONS At 1 year after CABG, there was no significant difference between off-pump and on-pump CABG with respect to the primary composite outcome, the rate of repeat coronary revascularization, quality of life, or neurocognitive function. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; CORONARY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00463294.).

Antithrombotic and Thrombolytic Therapy for Valvular Disease: Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines

BACKGROUND Antithrombotic therapy in valvular disease is important to mitigate thromboembolism, but the hemorrhagic risk imposed must be considered. METHODS The methods of this guideline follow those described in Methodology for the Development of Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis Guidelines. Antithrombotic Therapy and Prevention of Thrombosis, 9th ed: American College of Chest Physicians Evidence-Based Clinical Practice Guidelines in this supplement. RESULTS In rheumatic mitral disease, we recommend vitamin K antagonist (VKA) therapy when the left atrial diameter is > 55 mm (Grade 2C) or when complicated by left atrial thrombus (Grade 1A). In candidates for percutaneous mitral valvotomy with left atrial thrombus, we recommend VKA therapy until thrombus resolution, and we recommend abandoning valvotomy if the thrombus fails to resolve (Grade 1A). In patients with patent foramen ovale (PFO) and stroke or transient ischemic attack, we recommend initial aspirin therapy (Grade 1B) and suggest substitution of VKA if recurrence (Grade 2C). In patients with cryptogenic stroke and DVT and a PFO, we recommend VKA therapy for 3 months (Grade 1B) and consideration of PFO closure (Grade 2C). We recommend against the use of anticoagulant (Grade 1C) and antiplatelet therapy (Grade 1B) for native valve endocarditis. We suggest holding VKA therapy until the patient is stabilized without neurologic complications for infective endocarditis of a prosthetic valve (Grade 2C). In the first 3 months after bioprosthetic valve implantation, we recommend aspirin for aortic valves (Grade 2C), the addition of clopidogrel to aspirin if the aortic valve is transcatheter (Grade 2C), and VKA therapy with a target international normalized ratio (INR) of 2.5 for mitral valves (Grade 2C). After 3 months, we suggest aspirin therapy (Grade 2C). We recommend early bridging of mechanical valve patients to VKA therapy with unfractionated heparin (DVT dosing) or low-molecular-weight heparin (Grade 2C). We recommend long-term VKA therapy for all mechanical valves (Grade 1B): target INR 2.5 for aortic (Grade 1B) and 3.0 for mitral or double valve (Grade 2C). In patients with mechanical valves at low bleeding risk, we suggest the addition of low-dose aspirin (50-100 mg/d) (Grade 1B). In valve repair patients, we suggest aspirin therapy (Grade 2C). In patients with thrombosed prosthetic valve, we recommend fibrinolysis for right-sided valves and left-sided valves with thrombus area < 0.8 cm(2) (Grade 2C). For patients with left-sided prosthetic valve thrombosis and thrombus area ≥ 0.8 cm(2), we recommend early surgery (Grade 2C). CONCLUSIONS These antithrombotic guidelines provide recommendations based on the optimal balance of thrombotic and hemorrhagic risk.

Clonidine in Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND Marked activation of the sympathetic nervous system occurs during and after noncardiac surgery. Low-dose clonidine, which blunts central sympathetic outflow, may prevent perioperative myocardial infarction and death without inducing hemodynamic instability. METHODS We performed a blinded, randomized trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design to allow separate evaluation of low-dose clonidine versus placebo and low-dose aspirin versus placebo in patients with, or at risk for, atherosclerotic disease who were undergoing noncardiac surgery. A total of 10,010 patients at 135 centers in 23 countries were enrolled. For the comparison of clonidine with placebo, patients were randomly assigned to receive clonidine (0.2 mg per day) or placebo just before surgery, with the study drug continued until 72 hours after surgery. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction at 30 days. RESULTS Clonidine, as compared with placebo, did not reduce the number of primary-outcome events (367 and 339, respectively; hazard ratio with clonidine, 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 1.26; P=0.29). Myocardial infarction occurred in 329 patients (6.6%) assigned to clonidine and in 295 patients (5.9%) assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.30; P=0.18). Significantly more patients in the clonidine group than in the placebo group had clinically important hypotension (2385 patients [47.6%] vs. 1854 patients [37.1%]; hazard ratio 1.32; 95% CI, 1.24 to 1.40; P<0.001). Clonidine, as compared with placebo, was associated with an increased rate of nonfatal cardiac arrest (0.3% [16 patients] vs. 0.1% [5 patients]; hazard ratio, 3.20; 95% CI, 1.17 to 8.73; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS Administration of low-dose clonidine in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery did not reduce the rate of the composite outcome of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction; it did, however, increase the risk of clinically important hypotension and nonfatal cardiac arrest. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; POISE-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01082874.).

Clinical benefit of steroid use in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass: a meta-analysis of randomized trials

We sought to establish the efficacy and safety of prophylactic steroids in adult patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). We performed a meta-analysis of randomized trials reporting the effects of prophylactic steroids on clinical outcomes after CPB. Outcomes examined were mortality, myocardial infarction, neurological events, new onset atrial fibrillation, transfusion requirements, postoperative bleeding, duration of ventilation, intensive care unit (ICU) stay, hospital stay, wound complications, gastrointestinal complications, and infectious complications. We included 44 trials randomizing 3205 patients. Steroids reduced new onset atrial fibrillation [relative risk (RR) 0.71, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.59 to 0.87], postoperative bleeding [weighted mean difference (WMD) -99.6 mL, 95% CI -149.8 to -49.3], and duration of ICU stay (WMD -0.23 days, 95% CI -0.40 to -0.07). Length of hospital stay was also reduced (WMD -0.59 days, 95% CI -1.17 to -0.02), but this result was less robust. A trend towards reduction in mortality was observed (RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.18). Randomized trials suggest that perioperative steroids have significant clinical benefit in CPB patients by decreasing the risk of new onset atrial fibrillation, while results are encouraging for reducing bleeding, length of stay, and mortality. These data do not raise major safety concerns, however, a sufficiently powered trial is warranted to confirm or refute these findings.

The effect of pre-operative aspirin on bleeding, transfusion, myocardial infarction, and mortality in coronary artery bypass surgery: a systematic review of randomized and observational studies

AIMS To obtain estimates of the efficacy and safety of pre-operative aspirin in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODS AND RESULTS Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies of patients undergoing CABG, comparing pre-operative aspirin with no aspirin/placebo, and reporting at least one of our primary outcomes. In eight RCTs (n = 805), pre-operative aspirin increased post-operative bleeding [Mean difference (MD), 104.9 mL; 95% confidence interval (CI), 19.2-190.6; P = 0.016] and reoperation [odds ratio (OR), 2.52; 95% CI, 1.18-5.38; P = 0.017), but not transfusion requirements (MD, 0.62 units; 95% CI, -0.06-1.30; P = 0.072). Subgroup analysis suggested that bleeding was increased with aspirin doses > or =325 mg/day, but not with lower doses. In 14 observational studies (n = 4485), pre-operative aspirin increased post-operative bleeding (MD, 113.6 mL; 95% CI, 45.2-182.0; P = 0.001) and transfusion requirements (MD, 0.34; 95% CI, 0.12-0.56 units; P = 0.002), but not reoperation (OR, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.69-1.83; P = 0.647). Neither analysis detected a significant effect on myocardial infarction or death. CONCLUSION Pre-operative aspirin increases post-operative bleeding, but this may be avoided by the use of aspirin doses <325 mg/day. Most of the RCTs are old and the meta-analysis was underpowered for efficacy outcomes. A large randomized trial is necessary to determine the safety and efficacy of pre-operative aspirin in the setting of contemporary cardiac surgical practice.

Methylprednisolone in patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass (SIRS): a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial

BACKGROUND Cardiopulmonary bypass initiates a systemic inflammatory response syndrome that is associated with postoperative morbidity and mortality. Steroids suppress inflammatory responses and might improve outcomes in patients at high risk of morbidity and mortality undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass. We aimed to assess the effects of steroids in patients at high risk of morbidity and mortality undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass. METHODS The Steroids In caRdiac Surgery (SIRS) study is a double-blind, randomised, controlled trial. We used a central computerised phone or interactive web system to randomly assign (1:1) patients at high risk of morbidity and mortality from 80 hospital or cardiac surgery centres in 18 countries undergoing cardiac surgery with the use of cardiopulmonary bypass to receive either methylprednisolone (250 mg at anaesthetic induction and 250 mg at initiation of cardiopulmonary bypass) or placebo. Patients were assigned with block randomisation with random block sizes of 2, 4, or 6 and stratified by centre. Patients aged 18 years or older were eligible if they had a European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation of at least 6. Patients were excluded if they were taking or expected to receive systemic steroids in the immediate postoperative period or had a history of bacterial or fungal infection in the preceding 30 days. Patients, caregivers, and those assessing outcomes were masked to allocation. The primary outcomes were 30-day mortality and a composite of death and major morbidity (ie, myocardial injury, stroke, renal failure, or respiratory failure) within 30 days, both analysed by intention to treat. Safety outcomes were also analysed by intention to treat. This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT00427388. FINDINGS Patients were recruited between June 21, 2007, and Dec 19, 2013. Complete 30-day data was available for all 7507 patients randomly assigned to methylprednisolone (n=3755) and to placebo (n=3752). Methylprednisolone, compared with placebo, did not reduce the risk of death at 30 days (154 [4%] vs 177 [5%] patients; relative risk [RR] 0·87, 95% CI 0·70-1·07, p=0·19) or the risk of death or major morbidity (909 [24%] vs 885 [24%]; RR 1·03, 95% CI 0·95-1·11, p=0·52). The most common safety outcomes in the methylprednisolone and placebo group were infection (465 [12%] vs 493 [13%]), surgical site infection (151 [4%] vs 151 [4%]), and delirium (295 [8%] vs 289 [8%]). INTERPRETATION Methylprednisolone did not have a significant effect on mortality or major morbidity after cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. The SIRS trial does not support the routine use of methylprednisolone for patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass. FUNDING Canadian Institutes of Health Research.

Kidney Function After Off-Pump or On-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery A Randomized Clinical Trial

IMPORTANCE Most acute kidney injury observed in the hospital is defined by sudden mild or moderate increases in the serum creatinine concentration, which may persist for several days. Such acute kidney injury is associated with lower long-term kidney function. However, it has not been demonstrated that an intervention that reduces the risk of such acute kidney injury better preserves long-term kidney function. OBJECTIVES To characterize the risk of acute kidney injury with an intervention in a randomized clinical trial and to determine if there is a difference between the 2 treatment groups in kidney function 1 year later. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS The Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Surgery Off- or On-pump Revascularisation Study (CORONARY) enrolled 4752 patients undergoing first isolated coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery at 79 sites in 19 countries. Patients were randomized to receive CABG surgery either with a beating-heart technique (off-pump) or with cardiopulmonary bypass (on-pump). From January 2010 to November 2011, 2932 patients (from 63 sites in 16 countries) from CORONARY were enrolled into a kidney function substudy to record serum creatinine concentrations during the postoperative period and at 1 year. The last 1-year serum creatinine concentration was recorded on January 18, 2013. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Acute kidney injury within 30 days of surgery (≥50% increase in serum creatinine concentration from prerandomization concentration) and loss of kidney function at 1 year (≥20% loss in estimated glomerular filtration rate from prerandomization level). RESULTS Off-pump (n = 1472) vs on-pump (n = 1460) CABG surgery reduced the risk of acute kidney injury (17.5% vs 20.8%, respectively; relative risk, 0.83 [95% CI, 0.72-0.97], P = .01); however, there was no significant difference between the 2 groups in the loss of kidney function at 1 year (17.1% vs 15.3%, respectively; relative risk, 1.10 [95% CI, 0.95-1.29], P = .23). Results were consistent with multiple alternate continuous and categorical definitions of acute kidney injury or kidney function loss, and in the subgroup with baseline chronic kidney disease. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Use of off-pump compared with on-pump CABG surgery reduced the risk of postoperative acute kidney injury, without evidence of better preserved kidney function with off-pump CABG surgery at 1 year. In this setting, an intervention that reduced the risk of mild to moderate acute kidney injury did not alter longer-term kidney function. TRIAL REGISTRATION clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT00463294.

Preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump in patients undergoing coronary bypass surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

Abstract  Objectives: To assess the effectiveness of preoperative intra‐aortic balloon pump (IABP) placement in high‐risk patients undergoing coronary bypass surgery (CABG). The primary outcome was hospital mortality and secondary outcomes were IABP‐related complications (bleeding, leg ischemia, aortic dissection). Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cochrane registry of Controlled Trials, and reference lists of relevant articles were searched. We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs), and cohort studies that fulfilled our a priori inclusion criteria. Eligibility decisions, relevance, study validity, and data extraction were performed in duplicate using pre‐specified criteria. Meta‐analysis was conducted using a random effects model. Results: Ten publications fulfilled our eligibility criteria, of which four were RCTs and six were cohort studies with controls. There were statistical as well as clinical heterogeneity among included studies. A total of 1034 patients received preoperative IABP and 1329 did not receive preoperative IABP. The pooled odds ratio (OR) for hospital mortality in patients treated with preoperative IABP was 0.41 (95% CI, 0.21–0.82, p = 0.01). The number needed to treat was 17. The pooled OR for hospital mortality from randomized trials was 0.18 (95% CI, 0.06–0.57, p = 0.003) and from cohort studies was 0.54 (95% CI, 0.24–1.2, p = 0.13). Overall, 3.7% (13 of 349) of patients who received preoperative IABP developed either limb ischemia or haematoma at the IABP insertion site, and most of these complications improved after discontinuation of IABP. Conclusion: Evidence from this meta‐analysis support the use of preoperative IABP in high‐risk patients to reduce hospital mortality.