Michael R Boswell1, Mark M Smith1, Ryan D Frank2, Michael J Brown1, Arnoley S Abcejo1, Todd M Kor1, Rajiv Gulati3, Bradford B Smith4. 1. From the Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine. 2. Division of Biomedical Statistics and Informatics. 3. Division of Cardiology, Department of Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. 4. Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Phoenix, Arizona.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Patients with existing coronary artery stents are at an increased risk for major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) when undergoing noncardiac surgery (NCS). Although the use of antifibrinolytic (AF) therapy in NCS has significantly increased in the past decade, the relationship between perioperative AF use and its association with MACEs among patients with existing coronary artery stents has yet to be assessed. In this study, we aim to evaluate the association of MACEs in patients with existing coronary artery stents who receive perioperative AF therapy during orthopedic surgery. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted in adult patients with existing coronary artery stents who underwent orthopedic surgery from 2008 to 2018. Two cohorts were established: patients with existing coronary artery stents who did not receive perioperative AF and patients with coronary artery stents who received perioperative AF. Associations between AF use and the primary outcome of MACEs within 30 days postoperatively and the secondary outcomes of thrombotic complications, excessive surgical bleeding, and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions were analyzed using logistic regression models. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to control for confounding. Secondary analyses examining the association between coronary stent type/timing and the outcomes of interest were performed using unadjusted logistic regression models. RESULTS: A total of 473 patients met study criteria, including 294 who did not receive AF and 179 patients who received AF. MACEs occurred in 15 (5.1%) patients who did not receive AF and 1 (0.6%) who received AF (P = .007). In weighted analyses, no significant difference was found in patients who received AF with regard to MACEs (odds ratio [OR] = 0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-1.74, P = .12), thrombotic complications (OR = 1.19, 95% CI, 0.53-2.68, P = .68), or excessive surgical bleeding (OR = 0.13, 95% CI, 0.01-2.23, P = .16) compared to patients who did not receive AF. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study are inconclusive whether an association exists between perioperative AF use in patients with coronary artery stents and the outcome of MACEs compared to patients who did not receive perioperative AF therapy. The authors acknowledge that the imprecise CI hinders the ability to definitively determine whether an association exists in the study population. Further large prospective studies, powered to detect differences in MACEs, are needed to assess the safety of perioperative AF in patients with existing coronary artery stents and to clarify the mechanism of perioperative MACEs in this high-risk population.
BACKGROUND: Patients with existing coronary artery stents are at an increased risk for major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) when undergoing noncardiac surgery (NCS). Although the use of antifibrinolytic (AF) therapy in NCS has significantly increased in the past decade, the relationship between perioperative AF use and its association with MACEs among patients with existing coronary artery stents has yet to be assessed. In this study, we aim to evaluate the association of MACEs in patients with existing coronary artery stents who receive perioperative AF therapy during orthopedic surgery. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted in adult patients with existing coronary artery stents who underwent orthopedic surgery from 2008 to 2018. Two cohorts were established: patients with existing coronary artery stents who did not receive perioperative AF and patients with coronary artery stents who received perioperative AF. Associations between AF use and the primary outcome of MACEs within 30 days postoperatively and the secondary outcomes of thrombotic complications, excessive surgical bleeding, and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions were analyzed using logistic regression models. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to control for confounding. Secondary analyses examining the association between coronary stent type/timing and the outcomes of interest were performed using unadjusted logistic regression models. RESULTS: A total of 473 patients met study criteria, including 294 who did not receive AF and 179 patients who received AF. MACEs occurred in 15 (5.1%) patients who did not receive AF and 1 (0.6%) who received AF (P = .007). In weighted analyses, no significant difference was found in patients who received AF with regard to MACEs (odds ratio [OR] = 0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-1.74, P = .12), thrombotic complications (OR = 1.19, 95% CI, 0.53-2.68, P = .68), or excessive surgical bleeding (OR = 0.13, 95% CI, 0.01-2.23, P = .16) compared to patients who did not receive AF. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study are inconclusive whether an association exists between perioperative AF use in patients with coronary artery stents and the outcome of MACEs compared to patients who did not receive perioperative AF therapy. The authors acknowledge that the imprecise CI hinders the ability to definitively determine whether an association exists in the study population. Further large prospective studies, powered to detect differences in MACEs, are needed to assess the safety of perioperative AF in patients with existing coronary artery stents and to clarify the mechanism of perioperative MACEs in this high-risk population.
Authors: Jeffrey L Carson; Gordon Guyatt; Nancy M Heddle; Brenda J Grossman; Claudia S Cohn; Mark K Fung; Terry Gernsheimer; John B Holcomb; Lewis J Kaplan; Louis M Katz; Nikki Peterson; Glenn Ramsey; Sunil V Rao; John D Roback; Aryeh Shander; Aaron A R Tobian Journal: JAMA Date: 2016-11-15 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Glenn N Levine; Eric R Bates; John A Bittl; Ralph G Brindis; Stephan D Fihn; Lee A Fleisher; Christopher B Granger; Richard A Lange; Michael J Mack; Laura Mauri; Roxana Mehran; Debabrata Mukherjee; L Kristin Newby; Patrick T O'Gara; Marc S Sabatine; Peter K Smith; Sidney C Smith Journal: Circulation Date: 2016-03-29 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: David A Henry; Paul A Carless; Annette J Moxey; Dianne O'Connell; Barrie J Stokes; Dean A Fergusson; Katharine Ker Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2011-03-16
Authors: Mahesh V Madhavan; Ajay J Kirtane; Björn Redfors; Philippe Généreux; Ori Ben-Yehuda; Tullio Palmerini; Umberto Benedetto; Giuseppe Biondi-Zoccai; Pieter C Smits; Clemens von Birgelen; Roxana Mehran; Thomas McAndrew; Patrick W Serruys; Martin B Leon; Stuart J Pocock; Gregg W Stone Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2020-02-18 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: Haleema Shakur; Ian Roberts; Raúl Bautista; José Caballero; Tim Coats; Yashbir Dewan; Hesham El-Sayed; Tamar Gogichaishvili; Sanjay Gupta; Jorge Herrera; Beverley Hunt; Pius Iribhogbe; Mario Izurieta; Hussein Khamis; Edward Komolafe; María-Acelia Marrero; Jorge Mejía-Mantilla; Jaime Miranda; Carlos Morales; Oluwole Olaomi; Fatos Olldashi; Pablo Perel; Richard Peto; P V Ramana; R R Ravi; Surakrant Yutthakasemsunt Journal: Lancet Date: 2010-06-14 Impact factor: 79.321
Authors: Daniel F McCaffrey; Beth Ann Griffin; Daniel Almirall; Mary Ellen Slaughter; Rajeev Ramchand; Lane F Burgette Journal: Stat Med Date: 2013-03-18 Impact factor: 2.373