scholarly journals Cardiology providers’ recommendations for treatments and use of patient decision aids for multivessel coronary artery disease

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Elizabeth L. Nichols ◽  
Glyn Elwyn ◽  
Anthony DiScipio ◽  
Mandeep S. Sidhu ◽  
A. James O’Malley ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Decision Aid ◽  
Artery Bypass ◽  
Treatment Options ◽  
Patient Decision Aid ◽  
Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Patient Decision ◽  
Appropriate Treatment ◽  
Artery Disease

Abstract Background Rates of recommending percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) vary across clinicians. Whether clinicians agree on preferred treatment options for multivessel coronary artery disease patients has not been well studied. Methods and results We distributed a survey to 104 clinicians from the Northern New England Cardiovascular Study Group through email and at a regional meeting with 88 (84.6%) responses. The survey described three clinical vignettes of multivessel coronary artery disease patients. For each patient vignette participants selected appropriate treatment options and whether they would use a patient decision aid. The likelihood of choosing PCI only or PCI/CABG over CABG only was modeled using a multinomial regression. Across all vignettes, participants selected CABG only as an appropriate treatment option 24.2% of the time, PCI only 25.4% of the time, and both CABG or PCI as appropriate treatment options 50.4% of the time. Surgeons were less likely to choose PCI over CABG (RR 0.14, 95% CI 0.03, 0.59) or both treatments over CABG only (RR 0.10, 95% CI 0.03, 0.34) relative to cardiologists. Overall, 65% of participants responded they would use a patient decision aid with each vignette. Conclusions There is a lack of consensus on the appropriate treatment options across cardiologists and surgeons for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. Treatment choice is influenced by both patient characteristics and clinician specialty.

18F-sodium fluoride coronary uptake in patients with coronary artery bypass grafts

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
J Kwiecinski ◽  
E Tzolos ◽  
S Cadet ◽  
P.D Adamson ◽  
N Joshi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Myocardial Infarction ◽  
Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Artery Bypass ◽  
Coronary Artery Bypass Grafts ◽  
Bypass Grafts ◽  
Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Artery Disease ◽  
Cabg Patients

Abstract   18F-Sodium fluoride (18F-NaF) positron emission tomography (PET) provides an assessment of active calcification (microcalcification) across a wide range of cardiovascular conditions including coronary artery disease, carotid and penile atherosclerosis, aortic and mitral valve disease, and abdominal aortic aneurysms. To date the significance of 18F-NaF uptake in patients with coronary artery bypass grafts (CABG) is unknown. We aimed to characterize 18F-NaF activity in CABG patients. We performed 18F-NaF PET (30-min long single bed position acquisition 1h after a 250mB injection of 18F-NaF) and coronary CT angiography in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and followed them for fatal or non-fatal myocardial infarction over 42 [31,49] months. On motion-corrected datasets we quantified the whole-vessel coronary 18F-NaF PET uptake (the coronary microcalcification activity (CMA)) by measuring the activity of voxels above the background (right atrium activity) + 2 * standard deviations threshold. All study subjects underwent a comprehensive baseline clinical assessment including evaluation of their cardiovascular risk factor profile with the SMART [Secondary Manifestations of Arterial Disease] risk score calculated, and the coronary calcium burden assessed with calcium scoring (CCS). Among 293 study participants (65±9 years; 84% male), 48 (16%) had a history of CABG. Although the majority 124/128 (97%) of coronary bypass grafts showed no uptake, 4 saphenous vein grafts presented with a CMA>0 (range: 2.5–11.5, Figure). While a similar proportion of patients with and without prior CABG showed increased coronary 18F-NaF uptake (CMA>0) (58.3% versus 71.4%, p=0.11) overall prior-CABG subjects had higher CMA (2.0 [0.3, 6.6] versus 0.6 [0, 2.7], p=0.001) and CCS (1135 [631, 2120] versus 225 [59, 542], p<0.001), respectively. In line with the differences in the calcification activity and the coronary calcium burden, the SMART risk scores were higher in CABG patients (23 [17, 28] versus 17 [12, 24], p=0.01), and these patients were also older (68±8 versus 64±8, p=0.01). Despite the aforementioned differences the incidence of myocardial infarction 5/48 (9%) versus 15/245 (6%) and MACE 6/48 (12%) versus 34/245 (14%) during follow-up between subjects with and without prior CABG was similar (p=0.44 and p=0.80, respectively). CABG patients have a higher coronary microcalcification activity on 18F-NaF PET than multivessel coronary artery disease patients without prior CABG. Despite evidence of higher 18F-NaF uptake there is no difference in outcome between these two groups. Figure 1. 18F-NaF uptake in CABG patients. (A) 63-year old male with prominent uptake in stented saphenous vein bypass grafts and native coronary arteries who experienced a non-fatal non ST elevation myocardial infarction during follow-up. (B) 70-year old male with evident uptake in native coronary arteries and only little 18F-NaF activity within coronary bypasses. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Other. Main funding source(s): National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute/National Institute of Health (NHLBI/NIH), British Heart Foundation

scholarly journals Comparison of Early Outcome of Off-pump and Conventional Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery in Patients with Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease and Left Ventricular Dysfunction

2020 ◽  
Vol 35 (1) ◽  
pp. 20-27
Author(s):  
Sanjay Kumar Raha ◽  
Md Sorower Hossain ◽  
Smriti Kana Biswas ◽  
Salahuddin Rahaman ◽  
Manzil Ahmad ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Left Ventricular Dysfunction ◽  
Ventricular Dysfunction ◽  
Artery Bypass ◽  
Left Ventricular ◽  
Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Off Pump ◽  
Opcab Group ◽  
Artery Disease

Introduction: Left ventricular dysfunction is an important predictor of in-hospital mortality. Due to the theoretical and practical advantages to avoid the harmful effects of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB), many cardiac surgeons are using Off-pump Coronary Artery Bypass (OPCAB)as an effective alternative to conventional CABG (CCAB) even in patients with reduced left ventricular (LV)ejection fraction. Objectives: This study performed in the National Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases (NICVD) evaluated the early outcomes of OPCAB in terms of mortality and major post-operative morbidities and compared them with that of CCAB in patients with multivessel coronary artery diseases and reduced left ventricular (LV) function. Methods: Total 120 patients with multivessel coronary artery disease with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (d”50%)were allocated into two groups: a) 60 patients who underwent OPCAB and b) another 60 patients who underwent conventional CABG between January 2013 and December 2015. Pre-operative, peroperative and early post-operative variables were recorded, compiled and compared. Results: All risk factors and co-morbidities were homogenously distributed between the two groups. Majority of the patients had triple vessel disease. Nearly three-quarter (73.3%) of patients in OPCAB group and 80% in CCAB group received 3 grafts (p=0.470). The mean total operative time (268.5 ± 33.5vs. 296.3 ± 34.8minutes, p < 0.001), intubation times(8.6±0.3 vs. 12.3±0.5 hours, p<0.001), blood losses (377.8378 ± 45 ml vs. 602 ± 60 ml, p < 0.001); requirements for blood and blood products (689.7±21.1 vs. 1199.3±34.5ml, p < 0.0010),intensive care unit stays (31.7±0.9 hours versus 41.6±1.5 hours; p<0.001) and hospital stays (8.2 ± 0.2days vs.10.3 ± 0.3days, p < 0.001)were all significantly lower in the OPCAB group. Conclusion: OPCAB is a safe and effective operative revascularization procedure for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease and left ventricular dysfunction and is associated with reduced morbidity. However, a larger and omized trial with long-term followup may show the real benefits of OPCAB. Bangladesh Heart Journal 2020; 35(1) : 20-27

scholarly journals Is Complete Revascularisation Mandated for all Patients with Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease?

2017 ◽  
Vol 13 (01) ◽  
pp. 45 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carlo De Innocentiis ◽  
Marco Zimarino ◽  
Raffaele De Caterina ◽  
◽  
◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Artery Bypass ◽  
Multivessel Coronary Artery Disease ◽  
Left Main ◽  
Left Main Disease ◽  
Vessel Disease ◽  
Myocardial Revascularisation ◽  
Artery Disease ◽  
Complete Revascularisation

In multivessel coronary artery disease (MVCAD), myocardial revascularisation can be achieved by percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), with complete revascularisation on all diseased coronary segments or with incomplete revascularisation on selectively targeted lesions. Complete revascularisation confers a long-term prognostic benefit, but is associated with a higher rate of periprocedural events compared with incomplete revascularisation. In most patients with MVCAD, the main advantage of CABG over PCI is conferred by the achievement of more extensive revascularisation. According to current international guidelines, PCI is generally preferred in single-vessel disease, low-risk MVCAD or isolated left main disease; whereas CABG is usually recommended in patients with complex two-vessel disease, most patients with three-vessel disease and/or non-isolated left main disease. In patients with MVCAD, the choice on revascularisation modality should depend on a multifactorial evaluation, taking into account not only coronary anatomy, the ischaemic burden, myocardial function, age and the presence of comorbidities, but also the adequacy of myocardial revascularisation.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document