Background: Several randomized trials have compared the patency of coronary artery bypass conduits. All of the published studies, however, have performed pairwise comparisons and a comprehensive evaluation of the patency rates of all conduits has yet to be published. We set out to investigate the angiographic patency rates of all conduits used in coronary bypass surgery by performing a network meta‐analysis of the current available randomized evidence. Methods and Results: A systematic literature search was conducted for randomized controlled trials comparing the angiographic patency rate of the conventionally harvested saphenous vein, the no‐touch saphenous vein, the radial artery (RA), the right internal thoracic artery, or the gastroepiploic artery. The primary outcome was graft occlusion. A total of 4160 studies were retrieved of which 14 were included with 3651 grafts analyzed. The weighted mean angiographic follow‐up was 5.1 years. Compared with the conventionally harvested saphenous vein, both the RA (incidence rate ratio [IRR] 0.54; 95% CI, 0.35–0.82) and the no‐touch saphenous vein (IRR 0.55; 95% CI, 0.39–0.78) were associated with lower graft occlusion. The RA ranked as the best conduit (rank score for RA 0.87 versus 0.85 for no‐touch saphenous vein, 0.23 for right internal thoracic artery, 0.29 for gastroepiploic artery, and 0.25 for the conventionally harvested saphenous vein). Conclusions: Compared with the conventionally harvested saphenous vein, only the RA and no‐touch saphenous vein grafts are associated with significantly lower graft occlusion rates. The RA ranks as the best conduit. Registration: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero ; Unique identifier: CRD42020164492.

Summary: OBJECTIVES: The optimal revascularization strategy for patients with ischaemic left ventricular systolic dysfunction (iLVSD) remains controversial. We aimed to compare percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI), coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and medical therapy (MT) in a network meta-analysis. METHODS: All randomized controlled trials and observational studies comparing any combination of PCI, CABG and MT in patients with iLVSD were analysed in a frequentist network meta-analysis (generic inverse variance method). Primary outcome was mortality at longest available follow-up. Secondary outcomes were cardiac death, stroke, myocardial infarction (MI) and repeat revascularization (RR). RESULTS: Twenty-three studies were included (n = 23 633; 4 randomized controlled trials). Compared to CABG, PCI was associated with higher mortality [incidence rate ratio (IRR) 1.32, 95% confidence interval (CI) 1.13–1.53], cardiac death (IRR 1.65, 95% CI 1.18–2.33), MI (IRR 2.18, 95% CI 1.70–2.80) and RR (IRR 3.75, 95% CI 2.89–4.85). Compared to CABG, MT was associated with higher mortality (IRR 1.52, 95% CI 1.26–1.84), cardiac death (IRR 3.83, 95% CI 2.12–6.91), MI (IRR 3.22, 95% CI 1.52–6.79) and RR (IRR 3.37, 95% CI 1.67–6.79). Compared to MT, PCI was associated with lower cardiac death (IRR 0.43, 95% CI 0.24–0.78). CABG ranked as the best revascularization strategy for mortality, cardiac death, MI and RR; MT ranked as the strategy associated with the lowest incidence of stroke. Left ventricular ejection fraction, year of study, use of drug-eluting stents did not affect relative treatment effects. CONCLUSIONS: CABG appears to be the best therapy for iLVSD, although mainly based on observational data. Definitive randomized controlled trials comparing CABG and PCI in iLVSD are required. PROSPERO registration ID: 132414.

Background: Quality of the peer‐review process has been tested only in small studies. We describe and summarize the randomized trials that investigated interventions aimed at improving peer‐review process of biomedical manuscripts. Methods and Results: All randomized trials comparing different peer‐review interventions at author‐, reviewer‐, and/or editor‐level were included. Differences between traditional and intervention‐modified peer‐review processes were pooled as standardized mean difference (SMD) in quality based on the definitions used in the individual studies. Main outcomes assessed were quality and duration of the peer‐review process. Five‐hundred and seventy‐five studies were retrieved, eventually yielding 24 randomized trials. Eight studies evaluated the effect of interventions at author‐level, 16 at reviewer‐level, and 3 at editor‐level. Three studies investigated interventions at multiple levels. The effects of the interventions were reported as mean change in review quality, duration of the peer‐review process, acceptance/rejection rate, manuscript quality, and number of errors detected in 13, 11, 5, 4, and 3 studies, respectively. At network meta‐analysis, reviewer‐level interventions were associated with a significant improvement in review quality (SMD, 0.20 [0.06 to 0.33]), at the cost of increased duration of the review process (SMD, 0.15 [0.01 to 0.29]), except for reviewer blinding. Author‐ and editor‐level interventions did not significantly impact peer‐review quality and duration (respectively, SMD, 0.17 [−0.16 to 0.51] and SMD, 0.19 [−0.40 to 0.79] for quality, and SMD, 0.17 [−0.16 to 0.51] and SMD, 0.19 [−0.40 to 0.79] for duration). Conclusions: Modifications of the traditional peer‐review process at reviewer‐level are associated with improved quality, at the price of longer duration. Further studies are needed. Registration: URL: https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero ; Unique identifier: CRD42020187910.

In patients with atrial fibrillation, the left atrial appendage may serve as the site of thrombus formation due to stasis that occurs within the appendage because of its shape and trabeculations. Although thrombus formation can be reduced by using anticoagulants, this may be contraindicated in some patients. The need for a better alternative treatment prompted the study of left atrial appendage occlusion for thromboembolism prophylaxis. Due to this, procedures that excise or occlude the left atrial appendage have gained attention because of their ability to prevent thromboembolic events. This article provides a comprehensive review of the left atrial appendage and its associated procedures’ clinical utility.