Journals / Medicine Science / 2019 / Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 1

Reliability of multi-vessel off-pump coronary artery by-pass surgery in patients who have low risk profile

Pages
42–47
DOI
—
🏛️Bibliographic metadata and full text access for this article are provided via DergiPark.
DergiPark Record ↗
✨

AI Summary & Key Takeaways

AI Insight
⚡ TL;DR(Too Long; Didn't Read)

Multi-vessel off-pump coronary artery by-pass surgery seems as safe as 1 and 2 vessels despite small differences in terms of cardiac function alterations in patients who have low risk profile.

📌 3 Key Takeaways

🎯
Objective & Hypothesis:We investigated the reliability of multi-vessel off-pump coronary artery by-pass surgery in patients who have low risk profile.
📊
Key Findings & Data:This study included 53 patients who undergone off-pump coronary artery by-pass surgery.
💡
Conclusion & Impact:Multi-vessel off-pump coronary artery by-pass surgery seems as safe as 1 and 2 vessels despite small differences in terms of cardiac function alterations in patients who have low risk profile.
🔬Design:Research Article
📍Scope:Comprehensive Sample
⚙️Variables:Domain Parameters

Özet

We investigated the reliability of multi-vessel off-pump coronary artery by-pass surgery in patients who have low risk profile. This study included 53 patients who undergone off-pump coronary artery by-pass surgery. Patients have been allocated two groups in terms of graft count. 1 and 2 vessel patients were defined as Group A and 3,4,5 vessel patients as Group B. Baseline and serial post-operative CK-MB values were obtained. Ejection fraction (LVEF), mitral-myocardial systolic velocities (lateral S’ and septal S’), mean E’, left ventricle filling pressure index (E/E’ ratio) and tricuspid-S’ were calculated at pre and postoperative period. Intensive care unit stay time was moderately correlated with pre mean E’ (r = -0.32, p=0.020) and pre E/E’ ratio (r = 0.34, p=0.013). ∆ CK-MB values were similar between two groups (p=0.263). There are no differences between groups in terms of ∆ LVEF, ∆ mean E’, ∆ lateral S’ and ∆ tricuspid S’. ∆ E/ E’ ratio was mildly in favour of group A patients (-2.31 ± 2.70 vs. -0.29 ± 2.89, p=0.007). Furthermore, ∆ septal S’ was slightly in favour of group A patients (0.71 ± 2.39 cm/s vs. -0.66 ± 1.73 cm/s, p=0.017). Multi-vessel off-pump coronary artery by-pass surgery seems as safe as 1 and 2 vessels despite small differences in terms of cardiac function alterations in patients who have low risk profile.

🔖

Cite This Article

FOTBOLCU, H., KAYA, E. (2019). Reliability of multi-vessel off-pump coronary artery by-pass surgery in patients who have low risk profile. Medicine Science, Cilt: 8 - Sayı: 1, 42–47. https://ajindex.com/articles/276995

📄 Full Text PDF Viewer

📄

PDF görüntüleyici hazırlanıyor...

References (9)

  1. Angelini GD, Taylor FC, Reeves BC, et al. Early and midterm outcome after off-pump and on-pump surgery in beating heart against cardioplegic arrest studies (BHACAS 1 and 2): A pooled analysis of two randomised controlled trials. Lancet. 2002;359:1194-9.
  2. Calafiore AM, Di Mauro M, Contini M, et al. Myocardial revascularization with and without cardiopulmonary bypass in multivessel disease: Impact of the strategy on early outcome. Ann Thorac Surg. 2001; 72:456-62. Multicenter Study of Perioperative Ischemia (MCSPI) Research Group. Effects of acadesine on the incidence of myocardial infarction and adverse cardiac outcomes after coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Anesthesiology. 1995;83:658-73.
  3. Alwan K, Falcoz PE, Alwan J, et al. Beating versus arrested heart coronary revascularization: evaluation by cardiac troponin I release. Ann Thorac Surg. 2004;77:2051-5. World Health Organization. Diabetes Mellitus: A Report of a WHO Study Group (WHO publication no. 727). World Health Organization, Geneva, 1985.
  4. Ascione R, Lloyd CT, Gomes WJ, et al. Beating versus arrested heart revascularization: Evaluation of myocardial function in a prospective randomized study. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1999;15:685-90. Gerritsen WB, van Boven WJ, Driessen AH, et al. Off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: Oxidative stress and renal function. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2001;20:923-9.
  5. Puskas JD, Williams WH, Duke PG, et al. Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting provides complete revascularization with reduced myocardial injury, transfusion requirements, and length of stay: A prospective randomized comparison of two hundred unselected patients undergoing off-pump versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003;125:797-808.
  6. Cartier R, Brann S, Dagenais F, et al. Systematic off-pump coronary artery revascularization in multivessel disease: Experience of three hundred cases. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2000;119:221-9.
  7. Guyton RA, Thourani VH, Puskas JD, et al. Perfusion-assisted direct coronary artery bypass: Selective graft perfusion in off-pump cases. Ann Thorac Surg. 2000;69:171-5.
  8. Ascione R, Caputo M, Angelini GD. Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: not a flash in the pan. Ann Thorac Surg. 2003;75:306-13. Rose EA. Off-pump coronary-artery bypass surgery. N Engl J Med. 2003;348:379-80.
  9. Pegg TJ, Selvanayagam JB, Karamitsos TD, et al. Effects of off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting on early and late right ventric