Literature DB >> 14607448

From controlled trials to clinical practice: monitoring transmyocardial revascularization use and outcomes.

Eric D Peterson1, Padma Kaul, Ronald G Kaczmarek, Bradley G Hammill, Paul W Armstrong, Charles R Bridges, T Bruce Ferguson.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We sought to examine trends in the use and outcomes of transmyocardial revascularization (TMR) in community practice. We also identified important risk factors for TMR and compared outcomes of TMR combined with coronary artery bypass graft surgery (TMR + CABG) versus bypass alone in patients receiving incomplete revascularization.
BACKGROUND: Although it is approved for use as a stand-alone procedure, there are limited data on the outcomes of (TMR + CABG).
METHODS: We identified 3,717 patients receiving TMR at 173 U.S. hospitals participating in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) National Cardiac Database. Baseline characteristics and outcomes in these patients were compared with those from six published randomized TMR trials. Multivariable logistic regression was used to identify clinical risk factors for mortality with TMR. Risk-adjusted mortality was also compared for TMR + CABG relative to CABG only in patients not amenable to complete traditional revascularization.
RESULTS: Between January 1998 and December 2001, the number of STS hospitals performing TMR and total procedural counts increased markedly, driven predominately by more TMR + CABG cases. Overall mortality rates for TMR-alone and TMR + CABG were 6.4% and 4.2%, respectively. Operative risks were significantly higher in those patients with recent myocardial infarction, unstable angina, and depressed ventricular function. Among patients receiving incomplete revascularization, TMR + CABG was not associated with decreased mortality risk compared with CABG alone, adjusted odds ratio 1.11 (95% confidence interval 0.74 to 1.67).
CONCLUSIONS: The use of TMR, and in particular, TMR + CABG, is expanding in community practice. Although procedural risks are high, there is room for optimization through improved patient selection and timing of the procedure. Further studies of TMR + CABG are needed given its growing use and unclear benefits.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  2003        PMID: 14607448     DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2003.07.003

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Am Coll Cardiol        ISSN: 0735-1097            Impact factor:   24.094


  5 in total

Review 1.  Transmyocardial laser revascularization versus medical therapy for refractory angina.

Authors:  Eduardo Briones; Juan Ramon Lacalle; Ignacio Marin-Leon; José-Ramón Rueda
Journal:  Cochrane Database Syst Rev       Date:  2015-02-27

Review 2.  Transmyocardial laser revascularization.

Authors:  Keith A Horvath
Journal:  J Card Surg       Date:  2008 May-Jun       Impact factor: 1.620

3.  Transmyocardial laser revascularization as an adjunct to coronary artery bypass grafting: a randomized, multicenter study with 4-year follow-up.

Authors:  O H Frazier; Egemen Tuzun; Harald Eichstadt; Steven W Boyce; Allan M Lansing; Robert J March; Michele Sartori; Kamuran A Kadipasaoglu
Journal:  Tex Heart Inst J       Date:  2004

4.  Transmyocardial revascularization (TMR): current status and future directions.

Authors:  Keith B Allen; Amy Mahoney; Sanjeev Aggarwal; John Russell Davis; Eric Thompson; Alex F Pak; Jessica Heimes; A Michael Borkon
Journal:  Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2018-10-08

5.  IDEAL framework for surgical innovation 3: randomised controlled trials in the assessment stage and evaluations in the long term study stage.

Authors:  Jonathan A Cook; Peter McCulloch; Jane M Blazeby; David J Beard; Danica Marinac-Dabic; Art Sedrakyan
Journal:  BMJ       Date:  2013-06-18
  5 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.