Detrimental effect of cardiopulmonary bypass(CPB) on malignant disease

Patients with coronary artery disease associated with malignancy are a difficult group of patients to treat. The ideal approach to manage them is still controversial. Both problems can be manage by either a combined or staged operation. The use of CPB during revascularization of the myocardium among patients with malignant disease, may have an effect on dissimination of malignant cells. This was observed among two of our patients. We believe that the use of off-pump technique to revascularize the myocardium is a safe approach and can be performed either in combined or staged surgery to resect malignant disease

Emergency coronary artery bypass grafting using minimized versus standard extracorporeal circulation--a propensity score analysis

BACKGROUND: The impact of minimized extracorporeal circulation (MECC) for emergency revascularization remains controversial. METHODS: A total of 348 patients underwent emergency CABG with MECC (n=146) or conventional extracorporeal circulation (CECC; n=175) between January 2005 and December 2010. Using propensity score matching after binary logistic regression, 100 patients, who underwent CABG with MECC could be matched with 100 patients, who underwent CABG with CECC. Primary outcome was 30-day mortality. RESULTS: Unadjusted 30-day mortality was 14.8% in patients with CECC and 6.9% in those with MECC (mean difference -7.9%; p=0.03). The adjusted mean difference (average treatment effect of the treated, ATT) after matching was -1.0% (95% CI -8.6 to 7.6; p=1.0). Intensive care unit stay (adjusted mean difference 1.0; 95% CI -0.2 to 3.2; p=0.70) and hospital stay (adjusted mean difference 1.0; 95% CI -2.0 to 3.6; p=0.40) did not show significant differences between both groups. The adjusted mean difference for postoperative low cardiac output syndrome was -1.1% (95% CI -7.3 to 7.1; p=0.83) without significant differences between CECC and MECC. Postoperative mechanical ventilation time, drain loss, postoperative rethoracotomy, postoperative neurological events, new onset renal replacement therapy and respiratory failure also had insignificant average treatment effects of the treated. In addition, all average treatment effects (ATEs) did not significantly differ between both groups. CONCLUSION: Using propensity score estimation and matching, we did not observe significant differences in terms of survival and further outcomes in patients who undergo emergency CABG with CECC or MECC, but our results call for further analysis