Toeg, Hadi

Objective Atrial fibrillation (AF) remains a highly prevalent arrhythmia with significant burden on morbidity and mortality. The impact of AF in the revascularised population remains incompletely described. Given the high prevalence of AF in the revascularised population, we sought to evaluate the incidence and prognosis in patients with pre-existing and new-onset AF following revascularisation. Methods We used the University of Ottawa Heart Institute Revascularisation Registry to identify patients who underwent revascularisation between August 2015 and March 2020, who were prospectively followed for an average of one year. We conducted a retrospective cohort study analysing the association between AF and clinical outcomes. The primary outcome of interest was 1-year major adverse cardiac events (MACE) defined as a composite of death, myocardial infarction, unplanned revascularisation and cerebrovascular accidents. Moreover, secondary outcomes include the individual components of MACE and bleeding. Results A total of 6704 patients underwent revascularisation and completed 1-year clinical follow-up. Median time to follow-up was 12.8 (IQR 11.2–15.9) months. One-year MACE occurred in 166 (21.8%) and 683 (11.5%) patients in AF and non-AF groups, respectively (adjusted HR, 1.61; 95% CI 1.29 to 2.01; p<0.0001). AF was independently predictive of 1-year mortality, myocardial infarction, unplanned revascularisation, cerebrovascular accident and bleeding. Within 1 year, 299 (4.5%) episodes of new-onset AF was observed. New-onset AF following revascularisation was also associated with 1-year MACE, mortality, myocardial infarction, cerebrovascular accident and unplanned revascularisation. Conclusions Preprocedural and new-onset AF following revascularisation remains highly predictive 1-year MACE. AF should be considered in addition to traditional risk factors for adverse outcomes following revascularisation.

Introduction There is emerging evidence supporting the use of the radial artery (RA) as a preferred secondary conduit for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) as it is associated with higher rates of graft patency at 5 years when compared with saphenous vein grafts (SVG). The modified Allen’s test (MAT) is traditionally regarded as the standard of care in the assessment of ulnar artery (UA) patency prior to RA harvesting. Unfortunately, due to high false-positive rates, a substantial number of pre-CABG patients are found to have an abnormal MAT despite normal UA patency, resulting in inappropriate exclusion from RA harvesting. The SVG is generally used in its place when this occurs, resulting in potentially lower rates of long-term graft patency. Methods and analysis The CAPITAL iRADIAL-CABG trial is currently enrolling participants 18 years of age or older undergoing CABG for whom the treating physician is considering the use of an RA conduit. Eligible patients will be randomised in a 1:1 fashion to MAT or smartphone-based photoplethysmography application assessment to assess collateral palmar circulation prior to RA harvesting. The primary outcome of the trial is the use of the RA as a conduit during CABG. The primary safety outcome is postoperative palmar ischaemia as determined by clinical assessment or requirement of vascular intervention. Secondary outcomes include vascular complications, early graft failure, need for rescue percutaneous coronary intervention during the index hospitalisation and a composite cardiovascular outcome of myocardial infarction, stroke and cardiovascular death prior to discharge from hospital. A total of 236 participants are planned to be recruited. Ethics and dissemination The study was approved by the Ottawa Heart Science Network Research Ethics Board (approval number 20180865-01H). The study results will be disseminated via conference presentations and peer-reviewed publications. Trial registration number NCT03810729.

Despite the growing acceptance of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) therapy to improve survival and quality of life in heart failure (HF) patients, uncertainties persist regarding the definition of a successful implant. We sought to define an innovative approach to assess success and subsequently compare preoperative variables affecting outcomes. From January 2007 to 2015, 278 patients underwent LVAD implantation. Median age at implant was 62 years and 81% patients were males. Indication for support was bridge-to-transplantation in 36% patients and the etiology of HF was ischemic in 49% patients. Based on clinically relevant and accepted standards, we defined successful LVAD implant as someone who was alive or transplanted at 2 years, had two or less readmissions in the first year, had no major adverse events in the first year, and had a New York Heart Association class of ≤ II at 6 months. Follow-up was obtained for a median of 1.7 years for a total of 605 patient-years-of-support. Based on our criteria, 81/278 (29%) patients were defined as having a successful implant. Univariate predictors of LVAD failure included destination therapy indication (hazard ratio [HR] = 2.11 [1.24, 3.58]), ischemic cardiomyopathy (HR = 1.73 [1.02, 2.94]), and a higher left ventricular ejection fraction (HR = 1.54 [1.07, 2.22]). After multivariable analysis, only destination therapy indication (HR = 2.2 [1.28, 3.78]) was found to be independently predictive of success failure. Despite an overall trend toward improved outcomes on device therapy, our criteria classified only one-third of patients as successful. Continued improvements in adverse event profiles, appropriate patient selection, and optimal time of implantation, together hold the key to improve outcomes after LVAD therapy.