PURPOSE: Volatile anesthetics possess cardioprotective properties, but it is unknown if the cardioprotective effects extend equally to all members of the class. Although sevoflurane is a relatively newer anesthetic than isoflurane, its introduction into practice was not preceded by a head-to-head comparison with isoflurane in a trial focusing on clinically important outcomes. Our objective was to determine whether sevoflurane was non-inferior to isoflurane on a clinically important primary outcome in a heterogeneous group of adults undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS: This was a pragmatic randomized non-inferiority comparative effectiveness clinical trial in 464 adults having coronary artery bypass graft and/or single valve surgery during November 2011 to March 2014. The intervention was maintenance of anesthesia with sevoflurane (n = 231) or isoflurane (n = 233) administered at a dose of 0.5-2.0 MAC throughout the entire operation. All caregivers were blinded except for the anesthesiologist and perfusionist. The primary outcome was a composite of intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay ≥ 48 hr and all-cause 30-day mortality. We hypothesized that sevoflurane would be non-inferior to isoflurane (non-inferiority margin < 10% based on an expected event rate of 25%). Secondary outcomes included prolonged ICU stay, 30- and 365-day all-cause mortality, inotrope or vasopressor usage, new-onset hemodialysis or atrial fibrillation, stroke, and readmission to the ICU. RESULTS: No losses to follow-up occurred. The primary outcome occurred in 25% of sevoflurane patients and 30% of isoflurane patients (absolute difference, -5.4%; one-sided 95% confidence interval, 1.4), thus non-inferiority was declared. Sevoflurane was not superior to isoflurane for the primary outcome (P = 0.21) or for any secondary outcomes. CONCLUSION: Sevoflurane is non-inferior to isoflurane on a composite outcome of prolonged ICU stay and all-cause 30-day mortality. Sevoflurane is not superior to isoflurane on any other of the clinically important outcomes. This trial was registered at clinicaltrials.gov; NCT01477151.

Background Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) involves the integration of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention to treat multivessel coronary artery disease. Our objective was to perform a comparative analysis with long-term follow-up between HCR and conventional off-pump CABG. Methods and Results We compared all double off-pump CABG (n=216) and HCR (n=147; robotic-assisted minimally invasive direct CABG of the left internal thoracic artery to the left anterior descending artery and percutaneous coronary intervention to one of the non-left anterior descending vessels) performed at a single institution between March 2004 and November 2015. To adjust for the selection bias of receiving either off-pump CABG or HCR, we performed a propensity score analysis using inverse-probability weighting. Both groups had similar results in terms of re-exploration for bleeding, perioperative myocardial infarction, stroke, blood transfusion, in-hospital mortality, and intensive care unit length of stay. HCR was associated with a higher in-hospital reintervention rate (CABG 0% versus HCR 3.4%; P=0.03), lower prolonged mechanical ventilation (>24 hours) rate (4% versus 0.7%; P=0.02), and shorter hospital length of stay (8.1±5.8  versus 4.5±2.1 days; P<0.001). After a median follow-up of 81 (48-113) months for the off-pump CABG and 96 (53-115) months for HCR, the HCR group of patients had a trend toward improved survival (85% versus 96%; P=0.054). Freedom from any form of revascularization was similar between the 2 groups (92% versus 91%; P=0.80). Freedom from angina was better in the HCR group (73% versus 90%; P<0.001). Conclusions HCR seems to provide, in selected patients, a shorter postoperative recovery, with similar excellent short- and long-term outcomes when compared with standard off-pump CABG.