Special Articles: 2011 ACCF/AHA Guideline for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: During the past 2 decades, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has increased dramatically compared with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for patients with coronary artery disease. However, although the evidence available to all practitioners is similar, the relative distribution of PCI and CABG appears to differ among hospitals and regions.
We reviewed the published data from the mandatory New York State Department of Health annual cardiac procedure reports issued from 1994 through 2008 to define trends in PCI and CABG utilization in New York and to compare the PCI/CABG ratios in the metropolitan area to the remainder of the State. During this 15-year interval, the procedure volume changes for CABG, for all cardiac surgeries, for non-CABG cardiac surgeries, and for PCI for New York State were -40%, -20%, +17.5%, and +253%, respectively; for the Manhattan programs, the changes were similar as follows: -61%, -23%, +14%, and +284%. The average PCI/CABG ratio in New York State increased from 1.12 in 1994 to 5.14 in 2008; however, in Manhattan, the average PCI/CABG ratio increased from 1.19 to 8.04 (2008 range: 3.78 to 16.2). The 2008 PCI/CABG ratios of the Manhattan programs were higher than the ratios for New York City programs outside Manhattan, in Long Island, in the northern counties contiguous to New York City, and in the rest of New York State; their averages were 5.84, 5.38, 3.31, and 3.24, respectively. In Manhattan, a patient had a 56% greater chance of receiving PCI than CABG as compared with the rest of New York State; in one Manhattan program, the likelihood was 215% higher.
There are substantial regional and statewide differences in the utilization of PCI versus CABG among cardiac centers in New York, possibly related to patient characteristics, physician biases, and hospital culture. Understanding these disparities may facilitate the selection of the most appropriate, effective, and evidence-based revascularization strategy. (J Am Heart Assoc. 2012;1:e001446 doi: 10.1161/JAHA.112.001446.).
Journal of the American Heart Association 04/2012; 1(2):e001446. DOI:10.1161/JAHA.112.001446 · 4.31 Impact Factor
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: STUDY OBJECTIVE: To examine the effect on morbidity and mortality of an established intraoperative insulin protocol in cardiac surgical patients. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Single-center, 782 bed, metropolitan academic hospital. PATIENTS: 1,616 adult patients undergoing cardiac surgical procedures with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). INTERVENTIONS: An intraoperative, intravenous (IV) insulin protocol designed to maintain blood glucose values less than 150 mg/dL was implemented. MEASUREMENTS: Blood glucose was evaluated on entry to the operating room, every 30 minutes during CPB, and at least once after discontinuation of CPB. Blood glucose values were followed postoperatively, as dictated by institutional policy. MAIN RESULTS: Intraoperative predictors of 30-day mortality using multivariate logistic regression included hyperglycemia on initiation of CPB (OR 1.0, P = 0.05). The strongest predictor of 30-day mortality was the development of postoperative renal failure requiring hemodialysis (OR 3.26, P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Implementation of an intraoperative IV insulin protocol, while associated with improved glycemic control, was not associated with improved outcomes. While improved glycemic control on initiating CPB was associated with decreased 30-day mortality, the effect was small. Implementation of our insulin protocol was highly associated with decreased renal failure postoperatively. Further prospective studies are warranted to better establish causality.
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.