Transatlantic analysis of patient profiles and mid-term survival after isolated coronary artery bypass grafting: a head-to-head comparison between the European DuraGraft Registry and the US STS Registry
Etem Caliskan, Martin Misfeld, Sigrid Sandner, Andreas Böning, Jose Aramendi, Sacha P. Salzberg, Yeong-Hoon Choi, Louis P. Perrault, Ilker Tekin, Gregorio P. Cuerpo, Jose Lopez-Menendez, Luca P. Weltert, Johannes Böhm, Markus Krane, José M. González-Santos, Juan-Carlos Tellez

TL;DR
This study compares patient outcomes after heart surgery in Europe and the US, finding better long-term survival in European patients.
Contribution
The study provides a large-scale transatlantic comparison of CABG patient outcomes using propensity score matching.
Findings
European patients had more left main disease and arterial grafts compared to US patients.
European patients showed significantly lower 3-year mortality compared to US patients.
Propensity score matching balanced baseline differences, allowing for a fair mortality comparison.
Abstract
Although cardiovascular surgery societies in Europe and the USA constantly strive for the exchange of knowledge and best practices in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), the available evidence on whether such efforts result in similar patient outcomes is limited. Therefore, in the present analysis, we sought to compare patient profiles and overall survival outcomes for up to 3 years between large European and US patient cohorts who underwent isolated CABG. Patients from the European DuraGraft Registry (n = 2,522) who underwent isolated CABG at 45 sites in eight different European countries between 2016 and 2019 were compared to randomly selected patients from the US STS database who were operated during the same period (n = 294,725). Free conduits (venous and arterial grafts) from the DuraGraft Registry patients were intraoperatively stored in DuraGraft, an endothelial damage…
Genes, proteins, chemicals, diseases, species, mutations and cell lines named across the full text — each resolved to its canonical identifier and authoritative record.
Click any figure to enlarge with its caption.
Figure 1
Figure 2Peer Reviews
No public reviews on file for this paper yet. If you reviewed it on a platform where reviews are public (OpenReview, ICLR, NeurIPS, ICML), you can paste yours below so the community can read it here.
Videos
No videos yet. Explain this paper in a talk, walkthrough, or lecture? Add one.
Taxonomy
TopicsCoronary Interventions and Diagnostics · Cardiac and Coronary Surgery Techniques · Cardiac, Anesthesia and Surgical Outcomes
