The optimal choice of graft material in patients >= 70 years of age undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting remains unknown. A systematic review of literature was conducted by searching... Show moreThe optimal choice of graft material in patients >= 70 years of age undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting remains unknown. A systematic review of literature was conducted by searching PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases for original publications that compared bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) grafting with single internal thoracic artery grafting in patients >= 70 years of age. Data were extracted by 2 independent investigators and meta-analyzed with the use of random effects. A total of 10 studies, including 11,185 patients, met the inclusion criteria. No differences in early mortality and morbidity, with the exemption of sternal wound complications which were more frequently observed in the BITA group (odds ratio 1.72, 95% 1.00 to 2.96 confidence interval [CI], p = 0.05; propensity score-matched population odds ratio 1.58, 95% CI 1.09 to 2.29, p = 0.02), were observed. Overall survival was superior in the overall patient popu-lation (hazard ratio [HR] 0.76, 95% CI 0.66 to 0.86, p < 0.001), after applying a blanking period of 3 months to the overall patient population (HR 0.77, 95% CI 0.64 to 0.92, p = 0.005) as well as in the matched population (HR 0.72, 95% CI 0.58 to 0.89, p = 0.002); in all cases, a benefit was readily seen within a few years after surgery. The difference in freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events failed to reach statistical significance (overall patient population HR 0.55, 95% CI 0.27 to 1.13, p = 0.10; matched population HR 0.52, 95% CI 0.23 to 1.16, p = 0.11). In conclusion, BITA grafting can be safely performed in patients >= 70 years of age as late clinical benefits are expected to mani-fest themselves readily within a few years after surgery. (C) 2022 The Author(s). Published by Elsevier Inc. Show less
Background In response to an increased need for patient information in congenital heart disease, we previously developed an online, evidence-based information portal for patients with congenital... Show moreBackground In response to an increased need for patient information in congenital heart disease, we previously developed an online, evidence-based information portal for patients with congenital aortic and pulmonary valve disease. To assess its effectiveness, a stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial was conducted. Methods Adult patients and caregivers of paediatric patients with congenital aortic and/or pulmonary valve disease and/or tetralogy of Fallot who visited the outpatient clinic at any of the four participating centres in the Netherlands between 1 March 2016-1 July 2017 were prospectively included. The intervention (information portal) was introduced in the outpatient clinic according to a stepped-wedge randomised design. One month after outpatient clinic visit, each participant completed a questionnaire on disease-specific knowledge, anxiety, depression, mental quality of life, involvement and opinion/attitude concerning patient information and involvement. Results 343 participants were included (221 control, 122 intervention). Cardiac diagnosis (p=0.873), educational level (p=0.153) and sex (p=0.603) were comparable between the two groups. All outcomes were comparable between groups in the intention-to-treat analyses. However, only 51.6% of subjects in the intervention group (n=63) reported actually visiting the portal. Among these subjects (as-treated), disease-specific knowledge (p=0.041) and mental health (p=0.039) were significantly better than in control subjects, while other baseline and outcome variables were comparable. Conclusion Even after being invited by their cardiologists, only half of the participants actually visited the information portal. Only in those participants that actually visited the portal, knowledge of disease and mental health were significantly better. This underlines the importance of effective implementation of online evidence-based patient information portals in clinical practice. Show less
Objective The hemodynamic effect and early and late survival impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after mitral valve replacement remains insufficiently explored. Methods Pubmed, Embase, Web... Show moreObjective The hemodynamic effect and early and late survival impact of prosthesis-patient mismatch (PPM) after mitral valve replacement remains insufficiently explored. Methods Pubmed, Embase, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library databases were searched for English language original publications. The search yielded 791 potentially relevant studies. The final review and analysis included 19 studies compromising 11,675 patients. Results Prosthetic effective orifice area was calculated with the continuity equation method in 7 (37%), pressure half-time method in 2 (10%), and partially or fully obtained from referenced values in 10 (53%) studies. Risk factors for PPM included gender (male), diabetes mellitus, chronic renal disease, and the use of bioprostheses. When pooling unadjusted data, PPM was associated with higher perioperative (odds ratio [OR]: 1.66; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.32-2.10;p < .001) and late mortality (hazard ratio [HR]: 1.46; 95% CI: 1.21-1.77;p < .001). Moreover, PPM was associated with higher late mortality when Cox proportional-hazards regression (HR: 1.97; 95% CI: 1.57-2.47;p < .001) and propensity score (HR: 1.99; 95% CI: 1.34-2.95;p < .001) adjusted data were pooled. Contrarily, moderate (HR: 1.01; 95% CI: 0.84-1.22;p = .88) or severe (HR: 1.19; 95% CI: 0.89-1.58;p = .24) PPM were not related to higher late mortality when adjusted data were pooled individually. PPM was associated with higher systolic pulmonary pressures (mean difference: 7.88 mmHg; 95% CI: 4.72-11.05;p < .001) and less pulmonary hypertension regression (OR: 5.78; 95% CI: 3.33-10.05;p < .001) late after surgery. Conclusions Mitral valve PPM is associated with higher postoperative pulmonary artery pressure and might impair perioperative and overall survival. The relation should be further assessed in properly designed studies. Show less
