Is there an optimal minimally invasive technique for left anterior descending coronary artery bypass?

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of three different minimally invasive surgical techniques for left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG): Port-Access surgery (PA-CABG), minimally invasive direct CABG (MIDCAB) and off-pump totally endoscopic CABG (TECAB).</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Over a decade, 160 eligible patients for elective LAD bypass were referred to one of the three techniques: 48 PA-CABG, 53 MIDCAB and 59 TECAB. In MIDCAB group, Euroscore was higher and target vessel quality was worse. In TECAB group, early patency was systematically evaluated using coronary CT scan. During follow-up (mean 2.7 ± 0.1 years, cumulated 438 years) symptom-based angiography was performed.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>There was no conversion from off-pump to on-pump procedure or to sternotomy approach. In TECAB group, there was one hospital cardiac death (1.7%), reoperation for bleeding was higher (8.5% vs 3.7% in MIDCAB and 2% in PA-CABG) and 3-month LAD reintervention was significantly higher (10% vs 1.8% in MIDCAB and 0% in PA-CABG). There was no difference between MIDCAB and PA-CABG groups. During follow-up, symptom-based angiography (n = 12) demonstrated a good patency of LAD bypass in all groups and 4 patients underwent a no LAD reintervention. At 3 years, there was no difference in survival; 3-year angina-free survival and reintervention-free survival were significantly lower in TECAB group (TECAB, 85 ± 12%, 88 ± 8%; MIDCAB, 100%, 98 ± 5%; PA-CABG, 94 ± 8%, 100%; respectively).</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Our study confirmed that minimally invasive LAD grafting was safe and effective. TECAB is associated with a higher rate of early bypass failure and reintervention. MIDCAB is still the most reliable surgical technique for isolated LAD grafting and the least cost effective.</p

Surgical reconstruction of the left main coronary artery with patch-angioplasty

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) has been established as the treatment of choice for left main coronary artery (LMCA) stenosis However, the conventional grafting provides a retrograde perfusion to extensive myocardial area and leads prospectively to competitive flow of the non-occluded coronaries thus consuming the grafts. Surgical reconstruction of the LMCA with patch-angioplasty is an alternative method that eliminates these drawbacks.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Between February 1997 and July 2007, 37 patients with isolated LMCA stenosis were referred for surgical ostial reconstruction. In 27 patients (73%) surgical angioplasties have been performed. All patients were followed up clinically and with transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) and coronary angiography when required.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>In 10 patients (27%) a LMCA stenosis could not be confirmed. There were no early mortality or perioperative myocardial infarctions. The postoperative course was uneventful in all patients. In 25 patients, TEE demonstrated a wide open main stem flow pattern one to six months after reconstruction of the left main coronary artery with one patch mild aneurysmal dilated.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>The surgical reconstruction with patch-angioplasty is a safe and effective method for the treatment of proximal and middle LMCA stenosis. Almost one third of the study group had no really LMCA stenosis: antegrade flow pattern remained sustained and the arterial grafts have been spared. In the cases of unclear or suspected LMCA stenosis, cardio-CT can be performed to unmask catheter-induced coronary spasm as the underlying reason for isolated LMCA stenosis.</p

Preliminary experience with Impella Recover\textregistered LP5.0 in nine patients with cardiogenic shock: A new circulatory support system in the intensive cardiac care unit

SummaryAimCardiogenic shock is associated with high mortality. We report our experience with the short-term left ventricular axial pump Impella LP5.0 in nine patients with severe ischaemic heart failure.MethodsSix patients (group 1) presented with cardiogenic shock at the acute phase of an ST elevation myocardial infarction. Three patients (group 2) had severe ischaemic cardiomyopathy with temporary contra-indication to LVAD or transplantation. We measured haemodynamic and metabolic variables up to 96hours and recorded morbidity, mechanical pump failures, and mortality up to one year postimplantation.ResultsIn all patients the Impella LP5.0 was safely placed through the right subclavian artery. Cardiac power output increased from 0.64 (0.07) W to 0.94 (0.44) W and 1.02 (0.30) W at 24 and 72hours, respectively. The Impella LP5.0 remained in place for 12 (7.2) days. In group 1, five patients were in INTERMACS Profile 3 at the time of pump insertion. Three could be weaned and survived. One patient in INTERMACS Profile 1 died of intractable heart failure within hours. In group 2, two of three patients underwent heart transplantation. Haemorrhage requiring transfusions was observed in four patients but only one case was directly related to the Impella LP5.0.ConclusionLeft ventricular assistance with the Impella LP5.0 appears to be well tolerated. It may be especially useful in patients with acute myocardial infarction complicated by cardiogenic shock who achieve INTERMACS Profile 3 with initial treatment

Prevalence of Occupational Contact Dermatitis to Mercaptobenzothiazole in a Population of Seamen and Prognosis after 3-Year Evaluation

International audienc

Cyclosporine protects the heart during aortic valve surgery

International audienceBACKGROUND: Part of the myocardial damage occurring during cardiac surgery is a consequence of reperfusion injury. Cyclosporine, a potent inhibitor of the opening of the mitochondrial permeability transition pore, attenuates reperfusion injury in patients with acute ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction. This study investigated whether the administration of cyclosporine just before the aortic cross-unclamping would reduce myocardial injury in patients undergoing aortic valve surgery. METHODS: This study was a monocentric, prospective, randomized, single-blinded, controlled trial. Sixty-one patients, scheduled for elective aortic valve surgery, were randomly assigned (computer-generated randomization sequence) to receive either an intravenous bolus of cyclosporine (2.5 mg/kg, cyclosporine group, n = 30) or normal saline (control group, n = 31) 10 min before aortic cross-unclamping. The primary endpoint was the 72-h area under the curve for cardiac troponin I. RESULTS: Both groups were similar with respect to baseline characteristics and aortic cross-clamping duration. A significant 35% reduction of area under the curve for cardiac troponin I was observed in the cyclosporine group compared with the control group (242 +/- 225 vs. 155 +/- 71 arbitrary units, mean +/- SD; mean difference, -86.2 +/- 42.5; 95% CI, -172.3 to -0.1; P = 0.03). Cyclosporine beneficial effect remained significant after adjustment for aortic cross-clamping duration in each group (mean difference, -88 +/- 34, 95% CI, -157 to -19; P = 0.01). None of the treated patients had significant side effects (odds ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.16 to 2.55; P = 0.52). CONCLUSIONS: Cyclosporine administration at the time of reperfusion protects against reperfusion injury in patients undergoing aortic valve surgery. The clinical benefit of this protection requires confirmation in a larger clinical trial