Yanai Ben-Gal

Background/Objectives: Revascularization of the left anterior descending (LAD) artery can be achieved by either percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Minimally invasive direct CABG (MIDCAB) enables LAD revascularization via a small thoracotomy without sternotomy or cardiopulmonary bypass. To compare long-term survival following LAD revascularization by MIDCAB or following PCI using drug-eluting stents (DES), of the historic cohort we reported in 2006. Methods: Data were assessed of 272 patients who underwent LAD PCI with DES, and 104 patients who underwent MIDCAB using the left internal thoracic artery (LITA) to LAD, in two major centers, between May 2002 and December 2003. Matching for age, sex, and extent of coronary disease yielded two balanced groups of 83 patients each. Results: Baseline characteristics were similar with a mean age ± standardized difference (SD) of 64.70 ± 12.52 of the MIDCAB group vs. 63.59 ± 12.06 of the Cypher group and an identical male to female ratio of 66 to 83 (79.5%), except for a higher prevalence of EF < 35% in the MIDCAB group and prior PCI in the DES group. Thirty-day mortality was 1.1% after MIDCAB and 0% after DES-PCI (p = 0.11). At 2 years, the proportion of recurrent angina was lower after MIDCAB (8.4% vs. 35%; p < 0.001), as was the proportion of re-interventions (3.6% vs. 16.8%; p = 0.005). Over a mean follow-up of 16 years, 10-year survival was 77.1 ± 4.6% for the MIDCAB and 81.0 ± 4.3% for the DES group (p = 0.48). The rates of 20-year survival were 60.2 ± 5.4% and 56.1 ± 5.5%, respectively (p = 0.73). In multivariable analysis, advanced age and prior myocardial infarction independently predicted mortality while treatment with MIDCAB showed a trend toward improved survival (p = 0.053). Conclusions: Long-term survival rates after LAD revascularization with MIDCAB and after DES-PCI were comparable. MIDCAB demonstrated a non-significant trend toward lower mortality. Limitations include the retrospective design and lack of detailed late event adjudication.

Objective: To evaluate the outcome of single vs. bilateral internal thoracic artery (SITA vs. BITA) revascularization in patients with multivessel coronary disease referred for coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) while on chronic dialysis. Methods: This retrospective analysis included all the patients with multivessel disease on chronic dialysis who underwent isolated CABG in our center during 1996–2021, utilizing SITA or BITA revascularization. We further matched the groups according to patient age and EuroSCORE II ±0.5. Results: Of the 7547 patients with multivessel disease who underwent CABG, 77 were on chronic dialysis. Of these, 2 had incomplete follow-up data, 58 underwent SITA, and 17 BITA revascularization. Comparing the SITA group with the BITA, the mean age was higher (67.8 vs. 58.6 years, standardized mean difference 1.035); the median (interquartile range) EuroSCORE II was higher (3.73 (1.78–6.23) vs. 1.78 (1.38–3.50), standardized mean difference 0.934); and comorbidities were more prevalent. Early mortality did not differ between the BITA and SITA groups in the unmatched cohort (11.8% vs. 15.5%, p > 0.999) or in the matched cohort (12.5% vs. 6.3%, p = 0.999). Other early adverse events such as early stroke, myocardial infarction, and bleeding requiring re-exploration were also similar. The median survival was 1.22 ± 0.5 years for the SITA and 5.64 ± 1.50 years for the BITA group. The respective five-year survival rates were 22.5 ± 5.9% and 58.35 ± 13.80%, p = 0.005. For the matched cohort, comprising 16 patient pairs, the five-year survival did not differ between the groups (27.8 ± 11.7% vs. 54.7 ± 14.7%, p = 0.258). In multivariable analysis, adjusted to EuroSCORE II and age, the hazard ratio (95% confidence interval) for BITA revascularization was insignificant, 0.638 (95% CI 0.25–1.62), p = 0.343. The hazard ratios for age and EuroSCORE II were 1.061 (95% CI 1.023–1.101), p = 0.002 and 1.155 (95% CI 1.070–1.246), p < 0.001. Conclusions: Despite a trend in favor of BITA utilization, no clear long-term survival benefit was demonstrated for BITA revascularization in patients on chronic dialysis after CABG.

To compare two surgical strategies for myocardial revascularization: one by a minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) and the other by a conventional full sternotomy coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We reviewed the early outcomes and overall survival of all the patients treated in our center by the above strategies during 2000–2011. Of 1915 patients, 1752 underwent conventional CABG utilizing a single internal thoracic artery (ITA) graft and 163 underwent a MIDCAB procedure. In the former compared to the latter, the patients were older and the median EuroSCORE was higher. The prevalences were higher of diabetes mellitus, recent myocardial infarction, emergency procedures, the.usage of an intra-aortic balloon pump, redo operations, and peripheral vascular disease; and the prevalences lower of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease and chronic renal failure. The median follow-up was 20 years. Early mortality (30 day) was greater in the conventional CABG group (3.6% vs. 0.6%, p = 0.042); and 10-, 15- and 20-year survival rates were lower: 55.1% vs. 76.7%, 37.1% vs. 63.7%, and 23.1% vs. 53.4%, respectively, p < 0.001. In an analysis that compared two matched groups of 134 patients each, early outcomes were similar, but late survival was lower following conventional CABG compared to MIDCAB after 10, 15 and 20 years: 64.7% vs. 74.6%, 44.7% vs. 64.1%, and 28.4% vs. 53.6% respectively, p = 0.004. In multivariable and univariate analysis, MIDCAB strategy compared to conventional single ITA CABG was associated with better late survival; the hazard ratio was 0.429 (95%CI 0.321–0.574, p < 0.001) for the whole cohort and 0.559 (95%CI: 0.376–0.831, p = 0.004), for the matched cohort. Compared to conventional CABG utilizing a single ITA, the MIDCAB procedure demonstrated early safety and long-term effectiveness for surgical myocardial revascularization of the left anterior descending artery.

Background: as transcatheter technologies have advanced, the patient population that is referred to open heart surgeries has shifted. This study’s objective was to evaluate recent trends in the characteristics of patients undergo surgical valvular interventions and coronary revascularizations (CABG) in our center over a period of 14 years. Methods: this is a retrospective analysis of ecological trends in the age, sex, and risk profile (Charlson comorbidity index—CCI) of patients who, from January 2010 to December 2023, underwent CABG, aortic valve replacement (AVR), or mitral valve repair or replacement (with or without tricuspid valve intervention). The data were extracted from electronic clinical files using MD-Clone software. Results: for the CABG procedures, the respective data for 2010 and 2023 were: mean ages 68.0 and 64.6 years; 79.7% and 83.1% males; and mean CCI scores 3.16 and 2.51. The p-values for the cumulative differences over the study period were 0.001, 0.005, and 0.013, respectively. The respective data for isolated AVR were mean ages of 69.2 and 62.9 years; 64.1% and 59.1% males; mean CCI 3.64 and 2.32; p-values: p-values: 0.84, 0.422, and 0.318. Conclusions: over a 14-year period, changes were evident in the age, sex distribution, and CCI for operations performed in our center. These changes most likely resulted from accumulated data regarding the advantages and detriments of treatment strategies, mostly of CABG vs. percutaneous coronary intervention; major advancements in transcatheter technologies, mostly in transcatheter AVR; and clinical guidelines facilitating a more collaborative decision-making, open-minded, and personalized approach.

Objective: The optimal strategy for surgical revascularization in patients with impaired renal function is inconclusive. We compared early and late outcomes between bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) and single ITA (SITA) grafting in patients with renal dysfunction. Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of all the patients with multivessel disease and impaired renal function (estimated glomerular filtration rate 2) who underwent isolated coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) in our center during 1996–2011, utilizing either BITA or SITA revascularization. Results: Of the 5301 patients with multivessel disease who underwent surgical revascularization during the study period, 391 were with impaired renal function: 212 (54.2%) underwent BITA, 179 (45.8%) underwent SITA. Patients who underwent BITA were less likely to have comorbidities. Statistically significant differences were not observed between the BITA and SITA groups in 30-day mortality (5.6% vs. 9.0%, p = 0.2) and in rates of early stroke, myocardial infarction, and sternal infection (4.5% vs. 6.1%, p = 0.467; 1.7% vs. 2.8%, p = 0.517; and 2.2% vs. 5.7%, p = 0.088, respectively). Long-term survival of the BITA group was better: median 8.36 vs. 4.14 years, p<0.001. In multivariable analysis, BITA revascularization was associated with decreased late mortality (HR = 0.704, 95% CI: 0.556–0.89, p = 0.003). In analysis of a matched cohort (134 pairs), early outcomes did not differ between the groups; however, in multivariable analysis, BITA revascularization was associated with decreased late mortality ‎‎(HR = 0.35 (95%CI 0.18–0.68), p = 0.002)‎. Conclusions: BITA revascularization did not impact early outcome in patients with CRF, but demonstrated a significant protective effect on long-term survival ‎in the unmatched and matched cohorts.

Objectives: To assess valve surgery outcomes in antiphospholipid syndrome (APS). Methods: A retrospective study assessing complications and mortality rate and possible factors associated with adverse outcomes of APS patients undergoing valve surgery in two tertiary medical centers. Results: Twenty-six APS patients (median age at surgery 47.5 years) who underwent valve surgery were detected, of whom 11 (42.3%) had secondary APS. The mitral valve was most commonly involved (n = 15, 57.7%). A valve replacement was performed in 24 operations (92.3%), 16 of which (66.7%) were mechanical valves. Fourteen (53.8%) patients sustained severe complications, and four of them died. The presence of mitral regurgitation (MR) was associated with severe complications and mortality (odds ratio (95% confidence interval) 12.5 (1.85–84.442), p = 0.008, for complications. All deceased patients had MR (p = 0.033). The presence of Libman-Sacks endocarditis (LSE) (7.333 (1.272–42.294), p = 0.045), low C3 (6.667 (1.047–42.431), p = 0.05) and higher perioperative prednisone doses (15 ± 21.89 vs. 1.36 ± 3.23 mg/day, p = 0.046) were also associated with complications. A lower glomerular filtration rate (GFR) was associated with mortality (30.75 ± 19.47 vs. 70.68 ± 34.44 mL/min, p = 0.038). Conclusions: Significant morbidity and mortality were observed among APS patients undergoing valve surgery. MR was associated with mortality and complications. LSE, low complement and higher doses of corticosteroids were associated with complications, while a low GFR was associated with mortality.

Objective: The optimal surgical approach for critically ill patients with complex coronary disease remains uncertain. We compared outcomes of bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) versus single ITA (SITA) revascularization in critical patients. Methods: We evaluated 394 consecutive critical patients with multi-vessel disease who underwent CABG during 1996–2001. Outcomes measured were early mortality, strokes, myocardial-infarctions, sternal infections, revisions for bleeding, and late survival. The critical preoperative state was acknowledged concisely by one or more of the following: preoperative ventricular tachycardia/fibrillation, aborted sudden cardiac death, or the need for mechanical ventilation or for preoperative insertion of intra-aortic-balloon counter-pulsation. Results: During the study period, 193 of our patients who underwent SITA and 201 who underwent BITA were in critical condition. The SITA group was older (mean 68.0 vs. 63.3 years, p = 0.001) and higher proportions were females (28.5% vs. 18.9% p = 0.025), after recent-MI (69.9% vs. 57.2% p = 0.009) and with left-main disease (38.3% vs. 49.3% p = .029); the median logistic EuroSCORE was higher (0.2898 vs. 0.1597, p0.99, respectively). Long-term survival (median follow-up of 15 years, interquartile-range: 13.57–15) was better in the BITA group (median 14.39 vs. 9.31± 0.9 years, p = 0.001). Propensity-score matching (132 matched pairs) also yielded similar early outcomes and improved long-term survival (median follow-up of 15 years, interquartile-range: 13.56–15) for the BITA group (median 12.49±1.71 vs. 7.63±0.99 years, p = 0.002). In multivariable analysis, BITA revascularization was found to be a predictor for improved survival (hazard-ratio of 0.419, 95%CI 0.23–0.76, p = 0.004). Conclusions: This study demonstrated long-term survival benefit for BITA revascularization in patients in a critical pre-operative state who presented for surgical revascularization.

Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is the standard of care for the treatment of complex coronary artery disease. However, the optimal surgical treatment for patients with reduced left ventricular function with low ejection fraction (EF) is inconclusive. In our center, left-sided coronary grafting with bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) is generally the preferred method for surgical revascularization, also for patients with low EF. We compared early and long-term outcomes between BITA grafting and single internal thoracic artery (SITA) grafting in patients with low EF. We evaluated short- and long-term outcomes of all patients who underwent surgical revascularization in our center during 1996 to 2011, according to EF ≥30% and P = .55), sternal wound infection (2.7% vs 1.0%, P = .27), stroke (3.7% vs 6.3%, P = .24), and perioperative myocardial infarction (5.9% vs 2.9%, P = .15). Long-term survival (median follow up of 14 years, interquartile range, 11.2–18.9) was also similar between the groups. Propensity score matching (129 matched pairs) yielded similar early and long-term outcomes for the groups. This study did not demonstrate any clinical benefit for BITA compared with SITA revascularization in individuals with low EF.