BACKGROUND The role of coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) in the treatment of patients with coronary artery disease and heart failure has not been clearly established. METHODS Between July 2002 and May 2007, a total of 1212 patients with an ejection fraction of 35% or less and coronary artery disease amenable to CABG were randomly assigned to medical therapy alone (602 patients) or medical therapy plus CABG (610 patients). The primary outcome was the rate of death from any cause. Major secondary outcomes included the rates of death from cardiovascular causes and of death from any cause or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes. RESULTS The primary outcome occurred in 244 patients (41%) in the medical-therapy group and 218 (36%) in the CABG group (hazard ratio with CABG, 0.86; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.72 to 1.04; P = 0.12). A total of 201 patients (33%) in the medical-therapy group and 168 (28%) in the CABG group died from an adjudicated cardiovascular cause (hazard ratio with CABG, 0.81; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.00; P = 0.05). Death from any cause or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes occurred in 411 patients (68%) in the medical-therapy group and 351 (58%) in the CABG group (hazard ratio with CABG, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.85; P<0.001). By the end of the follow-up period (median, 56 months), 100 patients in the medical-therapy group (17%) underwent CABG, and 555 patients in the CABG group (91%) underwent CABG. CONCLUSIONS In this randomized trial, there was no significant difference between medical therapy alone and medical therapy plus CABG with respect to the primary end point of death from any cause. Patients assigned to CABG, as compared with those assigned to medical therapy alone, had lower rates of death from cardiovascular causes and of death from any cause or hospitalization for cardiovascular causes. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute and Abbott Laboratories; STICH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00023595.)

MD; for the COPPS-2 Investigators IMPORTANCE Postpericardiotomy syndrome, postoperative atrial fibrillation (AF), and postop-erative effusions may be responsible for increased morbidity and health care costs after cardiac surgery. Postoperative use of colchicine prevented these complications in a single trial. OBJECTIVE To determine the efficacy and safety of perioperative use of oral colchicine in reducing postpericardiotomy syndrome, postoperative AF, and postoperative pericardial or pleural effusions. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS Investigator-initiated, double-blind, placebo-controlled, randomized clinical trial among 360 consecutive candidates for cardiac surgery enrolled in 11 Italian centers between March 2012 and March 2014. At enrollment, mean age of the trial participants was 67.5 years (SD, 10.6 years), 69% were men, and 36% had planned valvular surgery. Main exclusion criteria were absence of sinus rhythm at enrollment, cardiac transplantation, and contraindications to colchicine. INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive placebo (n=180) or colchicine (0.5 mg twice daily in patients 70 kg or 0.5 mg once daily in patients <70 kg; n=180) starting between 48 and 72 hours before surgery and continued for 1 month after surgery. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES Occurrence of postpericardiotomy syndrome within 3 months; main secondary study end points were postoperative AF and pericardial or pleural effusion. RESULTS The primary end point of postpericardiotomy syndrome occurred in 35 patients (19.4%) assigned to colchicine and in 53 (29.4%) assigned to placebo (absolute difference, 10.0%; 95% CI, 1.1%-18.7%; number needed to treat = 10). There were no significant differences between the colchicine and placebo groups for the secondary end points of postoperative AF (colchicine, 61 patients [33.9%]; placebo, 75 patients [41.7%]; absolute difference, 7.8%; 95% CI, −2.2% to 17.6%) or postoperative pericardial/pleural effusion (colchicine, 103 patients [57.2%]; placebo, 106 patients [58.9%]; absolute difference, 1.7%; 95% CI, −8.5% to 11.7%), although there was a reduction in postoperative AF in the prespecified on-treatment analysis (placebo, 61/148 patients [41.2%]; colchicine, 38/141 patients [27.0%]; absolute difference, 14.2%; 95% CI, 3.3%-24.7%). Adverse events occurred in 21 patients (11.7%) in the placebo group vs 36 (20.0%) in the colchicine group (absolute difference, 8.3%; 95% CI; 0.76%-15.9%; number needed to harm = 12), but discontinuation rates were similar. No serious adverse events were observed. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE Among patients undergoing cardiac surgery, perioperative use of colchicine compared with placebo reduced the incidence of postpericardiotomy syndrome but not of postoperative AF or postoperative pericardial/pleural effusion. The increased risk of gastro-intestinal adverse effects reduced the potential benefits of colchicine in this setting.

Colchicine is safe and efficacious in the prevention of the PPS and its related complications and may halve the risk of developing the syndrome following cardiac surgery. ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00128427.

No abstract

The anatomy of the radial artery has yet to be systematically studied from the perspective of using it as a route for catheter access. We prospectively performed angiography of the arteries of the upper limb to delineate the anatomic features of the radial artery as a way to determine the feasibility of using it as a route for coronary intervention. We studied 2,211 consecutive patients submitted to transradial cardiac catheterization. In all patients, an angiography of the upper limb arteries was performed before and after procedure. Radial puncture was successful in 98.9% of patients. At angiography, anatomic variations of upper limb arteries were noted in 505 patients (22.8%) and included tortuous configurations (3.8%), stenosis (1.7%), hypoplasias (7.7%), radioulnar loop (0.8%), abnormal origin of the radial artery (8.3%), and lusoria subclavian artery (0.45%). Overall procedural success by transradial approach was 97.5%. Patients with anatomic variations of radial artery had a significantly lower puncture (96.2% vs 99.7%, P < 0.0001) and procedural (93.1% vs 98.8%, P < 0.0001) success. The procedure was successfully performed by radial approach in 98.8% of patients with tortuous configurations, 91.9% of radial stenosis, 93.9% of hypoplastic radial artery, 83.3% of radioulnar loop, 96.7% of radial axillary origin, and 60% of lusoria subclavian artery setting. Anatomic variations of the radial artery are not rare. However, they do not represent an important limitation in transradial approach if they are well documented previously.