Dried blood for immunofluorescent test--a modified method of smearing and extraction.

A. Orjih

Abstract:

What problem does this paper attempt to address?

Myocardial Revascularization in Heart Failure: A State-of-the-Art Review

Manasi Tannu,Adam J Nelson,Jennifer A Rymer,W Schuyler Jones

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cardfail.2024.08.002

Abstract:Patients with heart failure (HF) and underlying coronary artery disease (CAD) have a substantially higher risk of mortality compared with those with HF from other causes. However, identifying individuals with HF for whom revascularization is likely to improve prognosis is a complex clinical decision. Revascularization is likely beneficial for patients with CAD-predominant symptoms, such as those with acute myocardial infarction or stable ischemic heart disease with refractory angina. However, for patients with HF-predominant symptoms, characterized by dyspnea without acute myocardial infarction or refractory angina, the benefits of revascularization are less clear. This state-of-the-art review summarizes the outcomes, clinical trials, and therapeutic approaches for patients with both CAD and HF, and proposes a therapeutic algorithm to guide the diagnosis and comprehensive workup of these complex patients.
Current Landscape and Future Directions of Coronary Revascularization in Ischemic Systolic Heart Failure: A Review

Katherine Lee Chuy,Eric J Velazquez,Alexandra J Lansky,Yasser Jamil,Yousif Ahmad

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jscai.2023.101197

2023-12-04

Abstract:Ischemic heart disease is the largest cause of death worldwide and the most common cause of heart failure (HF). The incidence and prevalence of HF are increasing owing to an aging population and improvements in the acute cardiac care of previously fatal conditions such as myocardial infarction. Strategies to improve outcomes in patients with ischemic systolic HF are urgently needed. There is systematic underutilization of testing for coronary artery disease in patients with HF, and revascularization is performed in an even smaller minority despite evidence for reduced mortality with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) over medical therapy in the Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure Extension Study. Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) is a less-invasive approach to coronary revascularization; however, the recent Revascularization for Ischemic Ventricular Dysfunction (REVIVED)-British Cardiovascular Intervention Society (BCIS2) trial failed to demonstrate a benefit of PCI compared with that of medical therapy in patients with ischemic systolic HF. The comparative effectiveness of PCI and CABG for patients with ischemic systolic HF remains unknown, particularly in the era of contemporary medical therapy. In this review, we discuss the benefit of CABG in ischemic systolic HF, its underutilization, and the unmet clinical need. We also review the recent REVIVED-BCIS2 trial comparing PCI to medical therapy, as well as upcoming randomized controlled trials of PCI for ischemic systolic HF and persistent evidence gaps that will exist despite anticipated data from ongoing trials. There remains a need for an adequately powered randomized controlled trials to establish the comparative clinical effectiveness of PCI vs CABG in ischemic systolic HF in the era of contemporary revascularization approaches and medical therapy, as well as trials of coronary revascularization in patients with HF with preserved ejection fraction or less severe forms of left ventricular systolic dysfunction.
Coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with ventricular dysfunction

Andrea Garatti,Serenella Castelvecchio,Alessandro Parolari,Lorenzo Menicanti

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1093/med/9780198758785.003.0072

2021-01-01

Abstract:Ischaemic chronic heart failure represents one of the cardiovascular diseases with the worst degree of morbidity and mortality in the Western world, along with the highest healthcare costs. Despite several retrospective studies demonstrating that surgical revascularization (coronary artery bypass grafting), especially in the presence of viable myocardium, improves heart function and therefore survival in this subgroup of patients, the matter remains unclear and controversial. This chapter discusses the available evidence in the literature, from observational studies to randomized trials, including operative techniques and controversial issues, in order to clarify the role of coronary artery bypass grafting in the current management of patients with ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction.
Hybrid Coronary Revascularization in Multivessel Disease: The Ideal Strategy for Challenging Scenarios

Antonella Tommasino,Emiliano Marco Navarra,Federico Dell'Aquila,Camilla Ciani,Vincenzo Fiorentini,Simone Amicizia,Andrea Berni,Emanuele Barbato,Giovanni Melina

DOI: https://doi.org/10.59958/hsf.7369

IF: 0.699

2024-06-26

The Heart Surgery Forum

Abstract:The treatment of coronary artery disease (CAD) has considerably evolved over the last three decades thanks to innovations in percutaneous and surgical revascularization techniques. The demographic shift towards an aging population with complex coronary anatomy and multiple comorbidities necessitates a personalized approach. A primary challenge for Heart Teams is to integrate new strategies into their decision-making process. Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) combines the long-term benefits of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to treat complex coronary artery disease. Selection of the ideal candidate for HCR requires careful evaluation of anatomic challenges and risk profiles. Although recent evidence demonstrates the safety and efficacy of HCR and makes it a viable alternative to conventional methods, further large-scale randomized controlled trials (RCTs) are needed to establish its role in routine practice. In this manuscript, we have provided an overview of the major advances in both percutaneous and surgical techniques. In addition, we have addressed the innovative implications of robotic-assisted minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (RA-MIDCAB) and described the surgical procedure and postoperative care in detail. Finally, we have outlined the key principles that guide our clinical practice in selecting the appropriate approach for hybrid coronary revascularization.

surgery,cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Revascularization and outcomes in ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction after heart failure admission: The RevascHeart study

Carlos Moliner‐Abós,Maria Calvo‐Barceló,Eduard Solé‐Gonzalez,Andrea Borrellas Martín,Paula Fluvià‐Brugués,Jesús Sánchez‐Vega,Joan Vime‐Jubany,Maria Ferré Vallverdú,Manel Taurón Ferrer,Pablo E. Tobias‐Castillo,Juan Carlos de la Fuente Mancera,Pau Vilardell‐Rigau,Rosa Vila‐Olives,Carles Diez‐López,Antoni Bayés‐Genís,Dabit Arzamendi Aizpurua,Ignacio Ferreira‐Gonzalez,Sònia Mirabet Pérez

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/ejhf.3463

2024-10-04

European Journal of Heart Failure

Abstract:The RevascHeart study. AHF, acute heart failure; CABG, coronary artery bypass graft; CI, confidence interval; CV, cardiovascular; GDMT, guideline‐directed medical therapy; LVEDD, left ventricular end‐diastolic diameter; LVEF, left ventricular ejection fraction; OR, odds ratio; PCI, percutaneous coronary intervention. Aims Despite numerous trials on revascularization in patients with heart failure (HF) and ischaemic left ventricular (LV) dysfunction, its role remains unsettled. Guideline‐directed medical therapy (GDMT) for HF has shown benefits on outcomes. This multicentre study aims to compare long‐term mortality between revascularization and GDMT in patients with ischaemic LV dysfunction following admission for HF. Methods and results Between 2012 and 2023, 408 patients admitted for HF with a LV ejection fraction (LVEF) of 40% or less and documented coronary artery disease (CAD) were included. Patients were categorized into two groups based on their initial treatment decision: revascularization (percutaneous coronary intervention [PCI] or coronary artery bypass graft [CABG]) or GDMT. The primary outcome was rate of all‐cause or cardiovascular mortality, and secondary outcomes included type of revascularization (PCI vs. CABG) and LV reverse remodelling. After a median 44.6‐month follow‐up, 100 patients (33%) died in the revascularization group, compared to 44 (43%) in the GDMT group. Multivariate analysis showed no significant benefit of revascularization on all‐cause mortality (hazard ratio [HR] 0.81, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.48–1.39, p = 0.45) or cardiovascular mortality (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.62–1.52, p = 0.90) compared to GDMT. Neither CABG (HR 0.74, 95% CI 0.51–1.08, p = 0.13) nor PCI (HR 0.98, 95% CI 0.62–1.55, p = 0.93) demonstrated a mortality reduction compared to GDMT. Both groups experienced significant reductions in LV size and improvements in LVEF, greater in the revascularization group. Conclusion Revascularization did not outperform GDMT in ischaemic LV dysfunction following HF admission in this retrospective analysis. Larger prospective studies are needed to clarify the potential role of revascularization in improving outcomes.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Current Practice of State-of-the-Art Coronary Revascularization in Patients with Heart Failure

Sérgio Costa Rayol,Michel Pompeu Barros Oliveira Sá,Luiz Rafael Pereira Cavalcanti,Felipe Augusto Santos Saragiotto,Roberto Gouvea Silva Diniz,Frederico Browne Correia de Araújo e Sá,Alexandre Motta de Menezes,Ricardo Carvalho Lima

DOI: https://doi.org/10.21470/1678-9741-2018-0335

2019-01-01

Brazilian Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery

Abstract:The best treatment for patients with ischemic heart failure (HF) is still on debate. There is growing evidence that coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) benefits these patients. The current recommendations for revascularization in this context are that CABG is reasonable when it comes to decreasing morbidity and mortality rates for patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction (ejection fraction <35%), and significant coronary artery disease (CAD) and should be considered in patients with operable coronary anatomy, regardless whether or not there is a viable myocardium (class IIb). Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) does not have enough data to allow the panels to reach a conclusion. The Korean Acute Heart Failure registry (KorAHF) had its data released recently, showing that patients with acute HF who underwent CABG had lower death rates, more complete revascularization and less adverse outcomes compared with patients treated with PCI. Recent ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularization clearly recommended CABG as the first choice of revascularization strategy in patients with multivessel disease and acceptable surgical risk to improve prognosis in this scenario of left ventricular dysfunction. However, a high peri-procedural risk must be compared with the benefit of late mortality, and pros and cons of each strategy (either PCI or CABG) must be weighed in the decision-making process. Spurred on by the publication of the above-mentioned article and the release of new guidelines, we went on to write an overview of the current practice of state-of-the-art coronary revascularization options in patients with HF.

surgery,cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Current indications and surgical strategies for myocardial revascularization in patients with left ventricular dysfunction: a scoping review

Alejandro Moreno-Angarita,Diego Peña,Juan David Lopez-Ponce de León,Mayra Estacio,Lidy Paola Vila,Maria Isabel Muñoz,Eduardo Cadavid-Alvear

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13019-024-02844-2

2024-07-29

Journal of Cardiothoracic Surgery

Abstract:Ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) accounts for more than 60% of congestive heart failure cases and is associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. Myocardial revascularization in patients with left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) and a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤35% aims to improve survival and quality of life and reduce complications associated with heart failure and coronary artery disease. The majority of randomized clinical trials have consistently excluded those patients, resulting in evidence primarily derived from observational studies.

surgery,cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Role of physiology in the management of multivessel disease among patients with acute coronary syndrome

Nandine Ganzorig,Graziella Pompei,Kenny Jenkins,Wanqi Wang,Francesca Rubino,Kieran Gill,Vijay Kunadian

DOI: https://doi.org/10.4244/AIJ-D-24-00051

2024-09-27

AsiaIntervention

Abstract:Multivessel coronary artery disease (CAD), defined as ≥50% stenosis in 2 or more epicardial arteries, is associated with a high burden of morbidity and mortality in acute coronary syndrome (ACS) patients. A salient challenge for managing this cohort is selecting the optimal revascularisation strategy, for which the use of coronary physiology has been increasingly recognised. Fractional flow reserve (FFR) is an invasive, pressure wire-based, physiological index measuring the functional significance of coronary lesions. Understanding this can help practitioners evaluate which lesions could induce myocardial ischaemia and, thus, decide which vessels require urgent revascularisation. Non-hyperaemic physiology-based indices, such as instantaneous wave-free ratio (iFR), provide valid alternatives to FFR. While FFR and iFR are recommended by international guidelines in stable CAD, there is ongoing discussion regarding the role of physiology in patients with ACS and multivessel disease (MVD); growing evidence supports FFR use in the latter. Compelling findings show FFR-guided complete percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) can reduce adverse cardiovascular events, mortality, and repeat revascularisations in ACS and MVD patients compared to angiography-based PCI. However, FFR is limited in identifying non-flow-limiting vulnerable plaques, which can disadvantage high-risk patients. Here, integrating coronary physiology assessment with intracoronary imaging in decision-making can improve outcomes and quality of life. Further research into novel physiology-based tools in ACS and MVD is needed. This review aims to highlight the key evidence surrounding the role of FFR and other functional indices in guiding PCI strategy in ACS and MVD patients.
Authors' reply: Resection margin involvement and tumour origin in pancreatic head cancer (Br J Surg 2012 99 1036–1049)

Caroline S. Verbeke,I. Gladhaug

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/bjs.9016

2013-01-01

Abstract:Sir The current guidelines on adjuvant chemotherapy and radiotherapy after resection of pancreatic and periampullary cancers are based on the results of only a few large randomized trials1. Interestingly, periampullary cancers were included intentionally in only two trials2,3. There is no mention or definition of periampullary cancer, or for that matter pancreatic head cancer located near the ampulla in other trials. The correct classification of periampullary tumours may be compromised by the lack of central pathology control in almost all multicentre studies. After reading this paper one can imagine the difficulties in determination and consequent exclusion of non-pancreatic ‘periampullary’ tumours, especially when larger tumours are involved. As a result it is inevitable that periampullary tumours have been included as pancreatic cancers and vice versa. It would be better to avoid the terms ‘periampullary’ or ‘pancreatic head’ in research as these describe only the gross location of the tumour and not the exact origin. Although it would be prudent to classify some tumours as of ‘uncertain’ or ‘unknown’ origin, in clinical practice most will probably be classified as ‘pancreatic head tumour’. This is an understandable pragmatic solution as radical resection used to be the only proven treatment modality, and subtyping was less relevant. However, in the current era of (neo)adjuvant therapy and even for palliative therapy, determination of the origin of a pancreatic head tumour is of increasing importance. J. Erdmann and C. H. J. van Eijck Department of Surgery, Erasmus MC, Rotterdam, The Netherlands (e-mail: j.erdmann@erasmusmc.nl) DOI: 10.1002/bjs.9011
Concepts and Misconceptions

Beatriz Nogueira-Garcia,Marta Vilela,Catarina Oliveira,Daniel Caldeira,Ana Margarida Martins,Miguel Nobre Menezes

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/jpm14050506

IF: 3.5083

2024-05-12

Journal of Personalized Medicine

Abstract:Ischemic heart disease represents a significant global burden of morbidity and mortality. While revascularization strategies are well defined in acute settings, there are uncertainties regarding chronic coronary artery disease treatment. Recent trials have raised doubts about the necessity of revascularization for "stable", chronic coronary syndromes or disease, leading to a shift towards a more conservative approach. However, the issue remains far from settled. In this narrative review, we offer a summary of the most pertinent evidence regarding revascularization for chronic coronary disease, while reflecting on less-often-discussed details of major clinical trials. The cumulative evidence available indicates that there can be a prognostic benefit from revascularization in chronic coronary syndrome patients, provided there is significant ischemia, as demonstrated by either imaging or coronary physiology. Trials that have effectively met this criterion consistently demonstrate a reduction in rates of spontaneous myocardial infarction, which holds both prognostic and clinical significance. The prognostic benefit of revascularization in patients with heart failure with reduced ejection fraction remains especially problematic, with a single contemporary trial favouring surgical revascularization. The very recent publication of a trial focused on revascularizing non-flow-limiting "vulnerable" plaques adds further complexity to the field. The ongoing debates surrounding revascularization in chronic coronary syndromes emphasize the importance of personalized strategies. Revascularization, added to the foundational pillar of medical therapy, should be considered, taking into account symptoms, patient preferences, coronary anatomy and physiology, ischemia tests and intra-coronary imaging.

medicine, general & internal,health care sciences & services
The Current State of Coronary Revascularization: Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Versus Percutaneous Coronary Interventions

Chayakrit Krittanawong,Affan Rizwan,Muzamil Khawaja,Noah Newman,Johao Escobar,Hafeez Ul Hassan Virk,Mahboob Alam,Fu'ad Al-Azzam,Celina M Yong,Hani Jneid

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11886-024-02090-x

2024-07-10

Abstract:Purpose of review: The optimal revascularization strategy for coronary artery disease depends on various factors, such as disease complexity, patient characteristics, and preferences. Including a heart team in complex cases is crucial to ensure optimal outcomes. Decision-making between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting must consider each patient's clinical profile and coronary anatomy. While current practice guidelines offer some insight into the optimal revascularization approach for the various phenotypes of coronary artery disease, the evidence to support either strategy continues to evolve and grow. Given the large amount of contemporary data on revascularization, this review aims to comprehensively summarize the literature on coronary artery bypass grafting and percutaneous coronary intervention in patients across the spectrum of coronary artery disease phenotypes. Recent findings: Contemporary evidence suggests that for patients with triple vessel disease, coronary artery bypass grafting is preferred over percutaneous coronary intervention due to better long-term outcomes, including lower rates of death, myocardial infarction, and target vessel revascularization. Similarly, for patients with left main coronary artery disease, both percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting can be considered, as they have shown similar efficacy in terms of major adverse cardiac events, but there may be a slightly higher risk of death with percutaneous coronary intervention. For proximal left anterior descending artery disease, both percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting are viable options, but coronary artery bypass grafting has shown lower rates of repeat revascularization and better relief from angina. The Synergy Between PCI with Taxus and Cardiac Surgery score can help in decision-making by predicting the risk of adverse events and guiding the choice between percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass grafting. European and American guidelines both agree with including a heart team that can develop and lay out individualized, optimal treatment options with respect for patient preferences. The debate between coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention in multiple different scenarios will continue to develop as technology and techniques improve for both procedures. Risk factors, pre, peri, and post-procedural complications involved in both revascularization strategies will continue to be mitigated to optimize outcomes for those patients for which coronary artery bypass grafting or percutaneous coronary intervention provide ultimate benefit. Methods to avoid unnecessary revascularization continue to develop as well as percutaneous technology that may allow patients to avoid surgical intervention when possible. With such changes, revascularization guidelines for specific patient populations may change in the coming years, which can serve as a limitation of this time-dated review.
Do the Few Dictate Care for the Many? Revascularisation Considerations That Go Beyond the Guidelines

Dominique Vervoort,Maneesh Sud,Tessa M Zeis,Alice A Haouzi,Kevin R An,Rodolfo Rocha,Rachel Eikelboom,Stephen E Fremes,Jacqueline E Tamis-Holland,Tessa M. Zeis,Alice A. Haouzi,Kevin R. An,Stephen E. Fremes,Jacqueline E. Tamis-Holland

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cjca.2023.11.007

IF: 6.614

2024-02-01

Canadian Journal of Cardiology

Abstract:The burden of coronary artery disease (CAD) is large and growing, commonly presenting with comorbidities and older age. Patients may benefit from coronary revascularisation with percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), yet half of patients with CAD who would benefit from revascularisation fall outside the eligibility criteria of trials to date. As such, the choice of revascularisation procedures varies depending on the CAD anatomy and complexity, surgical risk and comorbidities, the patient's preferences and values, and the treating team's expertise. The recent American guidelines on coronary revascularisation are comprehensive in describing recommendations for PCI, CABG, or conservative management in patients with CAD. However, individual challenging patient presentations cannot be fully captured in guidelines. The aim of this narrative review is to summarise common clinical scenarios that are not sufficiently described by contemporary clinical guidelines and trials in order to inform heart team members and trainees about the nuanced considerations and available evidence to manage such cases. We discuss clinical cases that fall beyond the current guidelines and summarise the relevant evidence evaluating coronary revascularisation for these patients. In addition, we highlight gaps in knowledge based on a lack of research (eg, ineligibility of certain patient populations), underrepresentation in research (eg, underenrollment of female and non-White patients), and the surge in newer minimally invasive and hybrid techniques. We argue that ultimately, evidence-based medicine, patient preference, shared decision making, and effective heart team communications are necessary to best manage complex CAD presentations potentially benefitting from revascularisation with CABG or PCI.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Revascularization for Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and Coronary Artery Disease

Mingqiang Fu,Yanyan Wang,Xueting Han,Shuai Yuan,Yuan Liu,Juying Qian,Jingmin Zhou,Junbo Ge

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.amjcard.2023.07.175

IF: 3.133

2024-01-11

The American Journal of Cardiology

Abstract:Coronary artery disease (CAD) is one of the main causes of heart failure (HF) with preserved ejection fraction (HFpEF). The efficacy of revascularization therapy in patients with HFpEF and CAD, however, remains unclear. Patients who underwent coronary angiography from January 2017 to December 2019 were included in this retrospective study if they further satisfied the diagnosis of HFpEF (left ventricular ejection fraction ≥50% plus plasma N-terminal pro-BNP ≥125 pg/ml) and CAD (patients had a history of confirmed myocardial infarction or ≥50% stenosis in at least 1 epicardial coronary vessel). Clinical data, way of revascularization, and outcome events (unplanned repeated revascularization, HF readmission, cardiovascular death, readmission of cerebral hemorrhage/stroke or gastrointestinal bleeding , and all-cause death) were recorded and analyzed. A total of 1,111 patients were enrolled for the present analysis. Based on whether the revascularization was complete or not, the patients were divided into the complete revascularization group (n = 780) and the incomplete/no revascularization group (n = 331). All patients were followed up with a median of 355 days. The overall rates of unplanned repeated revascularization, HF readmission, and cardiovascular death were 6.6%, 5.0%, and 0.4%, respectively. Compared with incompletely/not revascularized patients, completely revascularized patients had a lower rate of unplanned repeated revascularization (10.9% vs 4.7%, p <0.001) and cardiovascular death (0.9% vs 0.1%, p = 0.048). However, HF readmission, readmission of cerebral hemorrhage/stroke or gastrointestinal bleeding, and noncardiac death were comparable between the 2 groups. The regression analysis showed that hyperlipidemia, previous myocardial infarction, in-stent restenosis, and way of revascularization were associated with the composite events of unplanned repeated revascularization, HF readmission, and cardiovascular death during the follow-up. Complete revascularization may reduce unplanned repeated revascularization and cardiovascular death for patients with HFpEF and CAD.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Myocardial Revascularization in Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: For Whom and How

Riccardo Liga,Andrea Colli,David P. Taggart,William E. Boden,and Raffaele De Caterina1Cardiology Division,Pisa University Hospital and Chair of CardiologyUniversity of PisaItaly2Nuffield Department of Surgical SciencesOxford University John Radcliffe HospitalOxford United Kingdom3VA Boston Healthcare SystemBoston University School of MedicineBoston MA4Fondazione VillaSerena per la Ricerca,Città Sant'AngeloItaly

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1161/JAHA.122.026943

2023-03-11

JAHA - Journal of the American Heart Association

Abstract:Journal of the American Heart Association, Ahead of Print. BackgroundMyocardial revascularization has been advocated to improve myocardial function and prognosis in ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM). We discuss the evidence for revascularization in patients with ICM and the role of ischemia and viability detection in guiding treatment.Methods and ResultsWe searched for randomized controlled trials evaluating the prognostic impact of revascularization in ICM and the value of viability imaging for patient management. Out of 1397 publications, 4 randomized controlled trials were included, enrolling 2480 patients. Three trials (HEART [Heart Failure Revascularisation Trial], STICH [Surgical Treatment for Ischemic Heart Failure], and REVIVED [REVascularization for Ischemic VEntricular Dysfunction]‐BCIS2) randomized patients to revascularization or optimal medical therapy. HEART was stopped prematurely without showing any significant difference between treatment strategies. STICH showed a 16% lower mortality with bypass surgery compared with optimal medical therapy at a median follow‐up of 9.8 years. However, neither the presence/extent of left ventricle viability nor ischemia interacted with treatment outcomes. REVIVED‐BCIS2 showed no difference in the primary end point between percutaneous revascularization or optimal medical therapy. PARR‐2 (Positron Emission Tomography and Recovery Following Revascularization) randomized patients to imaging‐guided revascularization versus standard care, with neutral results overall. Information regarding the consistency of patient management with viability testing results was available in ≈65% of patients (n=1623). No difference in survival was revealed according to adherence or no adherence to viability imaging.ConclusionsIn ICM, the largest randomized controlled trial, STICH, suggests thatsurgicalrevascularization improves patients' prognosis at long‐term follow‐up, whereas evidence supports no benefit of percutaneous coronary intervention. Data from randomized controlled trials do not support myocardial ischemia or viability testing for treatment guidance. We propose an algorithm for the workup of patients with ICM considering clinical presentation, imaging results, and surgical risk.
Physiology-guided myocardial revascularisation in complex multivessel coronary artery disease: beyond the 2014 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularisation

Jan J Piek,Bimmer E Claessen,Justin E Davies,Javier Escaned

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1136/openhrt-2015-000308

2015-10-01

Open Heart

Abstract:For patients with multivessel coronary artery disease there are two options for revascularisation: Percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery (CABG). In daily clinical practice, a heart team consisting of an interventional cardiologist and a cardiothoracic surgeon decide on the most appropriate mode of revascularization. The current European guidelines on myocardial revascularisation include updated recommendations for patients with multivessel coronary artery disease. In patients with stable angina, three-vessel disease and a SYNTAX score of 23-32 or >32 a class I level of evidence A recommendation for CABG was issued as compared to PCI which received a class III recommendation. Although the authors of this viewpoint greatly appreciate the efforts of the guideline committee, we believe that it was an oversight not to include recommendations on physiology-guided PCI in multivessel disease (MVD). In this viewpoint, it is argued that physiology-guided revascularization using current-generation drug-eluting stents is a reasonable alternative for complex multivessel disease.
Medical Decision-Making and Revascularization in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy

Alex J Chang,Yilin Liang,Steven A Hamilton,Andrew P Ambrosy

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.mcna.2023.11.007

Abstract:Ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM) is the most common underlying etiology of heart failure in the United States and is a significant contributor to deaths due to cardiovascular disease worldwide. The diagnosis and management of ICM has advanced significantly over the past few decades, and the evidence for medical therapy in ICM is both compelling and robust. This contrasts with evidence for coronary revascularization, which is more controversial and favors surgical approaches. This review will examine landmark clinical trial results in detail as well as provide a comprehensive overview of the current epidemiology, diagnostic approaches, and management strategies of ICM.
[Myocardial viability: when and how to look for it, its prognostic impact and interaction with benefits of revascularization]

Leonardo Bolognese,Matteo Rocco Reccia

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1714/4282.42634

Abstract:Ischemic left ventricular dysfunction results from the combination of scar and areas of dysfunctional but viable myocardium that may improve contractile function with revascularization. The traditional paradigm states that an improvement in function after revascularization leads to improved health outcomes and that assessment of myocardial viability has a key role in predicting the benefit of revascularization and, therefore, is a prerequisite for the selection of patients to undergo this treatment option. A range of retrospective observational studies supported this "viability hypothesis". However, randomized prospective trials have not confirmed the interaction between myocardial viability and the treatment effect of revascularization, challenging the recovery of left ventricular function as the principal mechanism by which surgical revascularization improves prognosis. A conceptual shift from the traditional paradigm centered on the assessment of viability as a dichotomous variable to a more comprehensive approach founded on an alternative concept that the main goal of revascularization is to prevent further damage by protecting the residual viable myocardium from subsequent acute coronary events and ventricular arrhythmias is required.
Evidence for the ontogenic precedence of suppressor T cell functions in the human neonate

U. Andersson,S. Britton,M. de Ley,G. Bird

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1002/eji.1830130104

European Journal of Immunology

Abstract:The study was undertaken to elucidate some functional characteristics of T cell subsets in human cord blood. A comparison of the cellular interactions involved in the in vitro regulation of pokeweed (PWM) vs. Epstein‐Barr virus (EBV)‐driven B cell differentiation was done in vitro in short‐term cultures of lymphocytes from newborns or adults. T cell subsets were isolated using the monoclonal antibodies OKT4+ and OKT8+.
Real-World Outcomes of Revascularization Strategies in Patients With Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Three-Vessel Coronary Disease Stratified by Mitral Regurgitation

Qin Fan,Jun Liu,Yan Xu,Ruiqing Ni,Rui Xi,Fang Wang,Jian Hu,Hongyue Sun,Zhenkun Yang,Mi Zhou,Ruiyan Zhang,Qiang Zhao,Rong Tao

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2021.675722

IF: 3.6

2021-06-24

Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine

Abstract:Aims: Limited information exists regarding optimal revascularization options for patients with triple-vessel coronary artery disease (TVD), heart failure (HF), and different degrees of mitral regurgitation (MR). Thus, we aimed to compare the effect of percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery in the indicated patients. Methods and Results: In the real-world prospective study, 1190 patients with multi-vessel disease and decreased left ventricular systolic function but without severe MR, who underwent PCI or CABG, were enrolled and followed-up for 4.7 ± 1.8 years. The primary endpoint was a composite of cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization. Secondary endpoints were the individual components of the primary outcome. Risk of the primary endpoint was higher in the PCI than in the CABG group (HR = 1.38, 95%CI: 1.14–1.67, and P < 0.01), particularly in patients with moderate MR (HR = 1.85, 95%CI: 1.35–2.55, and P < 0.01). In patients with no-mild MR, the risk of the primary endpoint did not differ significantly between PCI and CABG ( P = 0.09). Treatment with PCI was associated with an increased risk for cardiovascular death and HF hospitalization in the moderate MR cohort, while PCI was comparable to CABG in the no-mild MR cohort. Conclusions: In this real-world study, for patients with HF and TVD, CABG was related to lower adverse outcome rates compared to PCI. Assessment of MR can aid in selecting optimal revascularization therapies and in risk stratification.

cardiac & cardiovascular systems
Left Ventricular Assist Device in Advanced Refractory Heart Failure: A Comprehensive Review of Patient Selection, Surgical Approaches, Complications and Future Perspectives

Antonio Al Hazzouri,Philippe Attieh,Christopher Sleiman,Righab Hamdan,Hilda E. Ghadieh,Bernard Harbieh

DOI: https://doi.org/10.3390/diagnostics14222480

IF: 3.6

2024-11-08

Diagnostics

Abstract:The management of advanced heart failure (HF) has long posed significant challenges due to its complex and chronic nature. Heart transplantation, while effective, is not always feasible due to the limited availability of donor organs. In this context, long term mechanical circulatory support and mainly left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) have emerged as a vital intervention to fill this gap. LVAD superiority compared to medical therapy for some patients in advanced heart failure has been demonstrated either as a bridge to transplantation or as destination therapy. This literature review provides a comprehensive overview of the effectiveness, challenges, and advancements in the use of LVADs for treating advanced heart failure. It evaluates clinical outcomes associated with LVAD therapy, focusing on survival rates and quality of life improvements. The review synthesizes findings from recent studies, highlighting both the benefits and complications of LVAD implantation, such as infectious risk, thromboembolic events, hemorrhage and device malfunction. Additionally, it explores the latest technological and biomedical advancements in LVAD design, including innovations in biocompatibility, miniaturization, and power management. By examining current research, this review aims to elucidate how LVADs are transforming heart failure treatment and to offer insights into future directions for clinical practice and research.

medicine, general & internal

Dried blood for immunofluorescent test--a modified method of smearing and extraction.

Myocardial Revascularization in Heart Failure: A State-of-the-Art Review

Current Landscape and Future Directions of Coronary Revascularization in Ischemic Systolic Heart Failure: A Review

Coronary artery bypass grafting in patients with ventricular dysfunction

Hybrid Coronary Revascularization in Multivessel Disease: The Ideal Strategy for Challenging Scenarios

Revascularization and outcomes in ischaemic left ventricular dysfunction after heart failure admission: The RevascHeart study

Current Practice of State-of-the-Art Coronary Revascularization in Patients with Heart Failure

Current indications and surgical strategies for myocardial revascularization in patients with left ventricular dysfunction: a scoping review

Role of physiology in the management of multivessel disease among patients with acute coronary syndrome

Authors' reply: Resection margin involvement and tumour origin in pancreatic head cancer (Br J Surg 2012 99 1036–1049)

Concepts and Misconceptions

The Current State of Coronary Revascularization: Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery Versus Percutaneous Coronary Interventions

Do the Few Dictate Care for the Many? Revascularisation Considerations That Go Beyond the Guidelines

Revascularization for Patients With Heart Failure With Preserved Ejection Fraction and Coronary Artery Disease

Myocardial Revascularization in Patients With Ischemic Cardiomyopathy: For Whom and How

Physiology-guided myocardial revascularisation in complex multivessel coronary artery disease: beyond the 2014 ESC/EACTS guidelines on myocardial revascularisation

Medical Decision-Making and Revascularization in Ischemic Cardiomyopathy

[Myocardial viability: when and how to look for it, its prognostic impact and interaction with benefits of revascularization]

Evidence for the ontogenic precedence of suppressor T cell functions in the human neonate

Real-World Outcomes of Revascularization Strategies in Patients With Left Ventricular Dysfunction and Three-Vessel Coronary Disease Stratified by Mitral Regurgitation

Left Ventricular Assist Device in Advanced Refractory Heart Failure: A Comprehensive Review of Patient Selection, Surgical Approaches, Complications and Future Perspectives