Patency rates of endoscopically harvested radial arteries one year after coronary artery bypass grafting

ObjectivesTo improve patients’ acceptance of the radial artery as a graft for coronary revascularization, we introduced an endoscopic harvesting technique. The aim of this study was to assess graft quality 1 year after the operation.MethodsIn 50 patients who underwent endoscopic radial artery harvesting for coronary artery bypass grafting, 64-slice computed tomography, electrocardiography, and echocardiography were utilized to assess graft patency and left ventricle function at a 1-year follow-up. In addition, the influencing factors of radial artery graft patency were evaluated. Radial artery patency was compared with a control group from our database.ResultsAny patency of endoscopically harvested radial artery grafts was 78% (39/50) and perfect patency was 72% (36/50) 1 year after coronary revascularization. The implanting surgeon and graft harvester, patient factors, graft properties, medication, and target territory did not influence the patency rates of the radial artery graft. The only significant and strong parameter to predict perfect graft patency was the severity of the target vessel stenosis (P < .001). In patients with a target vessel stenosis of 90% or greater, radial artery graft patency was 90.3% (28/31). Patency rates of endoscopically (72%) and conventionally (74%) harvested radial arteries were not different (P = .822).ConclusionsPatency rates 1 year after endoscopic radial artery harvesting are comparable to the open technique. On the basis of our results, we attempt to use the radial artery as a bypass graft only for target coronary arteries with 90% or greater stenosis. We recommend endoscopic harvesting as the technique of choice to harvest the radial artery

Ayurvedic vs. Conventional Nutritional Therapy Including Low-FODMAP Diet for Patients With Irritable Bowel Syndrome — A Randomized Controlled Trial

Aims: To compare the effects of Ayurvedic and conventional nutritional therapy in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Methods: Sixty-nine patients with IBS were randomized to Ayurvedic (n = 35) or conventional nutritional therapy according to the recommendations of the German Nutrition Society including the low-FODMAP diet (n = 34). Study visits took place at baseline and after 1, 3, and 6 months. The primary outcome was IBS symptom severity (IBS-SSS) after 3 months; secondary outcomes included stress (CPSS), anxiety and depression (HADS), well-being (WHO-5) and IBS-specific quality of life (IBS-QOL). A repeated measures general linear model (GLM) for intent-to-treat-analyses was applied in this explorative study. Results: After 3 months, estimated marginal means for IBS-SSS reductions were 123.8 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 92.8-154.9; p < 0.001] in the Ayurvedic and 72.7 (95% CI = 38.8-106.7; p < 0.001) in the conventional group. The IBS-SSS reduction was significantly higher in the Ayurveda group compared to the conventional therapy group (estimated marginal mean = 51.1; 95% CI = 3.8-98.5; p = 0.035) and clinically meaningful. Sixty-eight percentage of the variance in IBS-SSS reduction after 3 months can be explained by treatment, 6.5% by patients' expectations for their therapies and 23.4% by IBS-SSS at pre-intervention. Both therapies are equivalent in their contribution to the outcome variance. The higher the IBS-SSS score at pre-intervention and the larger the patients' expectations, the greater the IBS-SSS reduction. There were no significant group differences in any secondary outcome measures. No serious adverse events occurred in either group. Conclusion: Patients with IBS seem to benefit significantly from Ayurvedic or conventional nutritional therapy. The results warrant further studies with longer-term follow-ups and larger sample sizes

Ayurvedic vs. conventional nutritional therapy including low-FODMAP diet for patients with irritable Bowel syndrome - a randomized controlled trial

Aims: To compare the effects of Ayurvedic and conventional nutritional therapy in patients with irritable bowel syndrome (IBS). Methods: Sixty-nine patients with IBS were randomized to Ayurvedic (n = 35) or conventional nutritional therapy according to the recommendations of the German Nutrition Society including the low-FODMAP diet (n = 34). Study visits took place at baseline and after 1, 3, and 6 months. The primary outcome was IBS symptom severity (IBS-SSS) after 3 months; secondary outcomes included stress (CPSS), anxiety and depression (HADS), well-being (WHO-5) and IBS-specific quality of life (IBS-QOL). A repeated measures general linear model (GLM) for intent-to-treat-analyses was applied in this explorative study. Results: After 3 months, estimated marginal means for IBS-SSS reductions were 123.8 [95% confidence interval (95% CI) = 92.8–154.9; p < 0.001] in the Ayurvedic and 72.7 (95% CI = 38.8–106.7; p < 0.001) in the conventional group. The IBS-SSS reduction was significantly higher in the Ayurveda group compared to the conventional therapy group (estimated marginal mean = 51.1; 95% CI = 3.8–98.5; p = 0.035) and clinically meaningful. Sixty-eight percentage of the variance in IBS-SSS reduction after 3 months can be explained by treatment, 6.5% by patients' expectations for their therapies and 23.4% by IBS-SSS at pre-intervention. Both therapies are equivalent in their contribution to the outcome variance. The higher the IBS-SSS score at pre-intervention and the larger the patients' expectations, the greater the IBS-SSS reduction. There were no significant group differences in any secondary outcome measures. No serious adverse events occurred in either group. Conclusion: Patients with IBS seem to benefit significantly from Ayurvedic or conventional nutritional therapy. The results warrant further studies with longer-term follow-ups and larger sample sizes. Clinical Trial Registration: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03019861, identifier: NCT03019861