Early quantitative coronary angiography of saphenous vein grafts for coronary artery bypass grafting harvested by means of open versus endoscopic saphenectomy: a prospective randomized trial

AbstractObjectiveEndoscopic saphenectomy is associated with a decreased incidence of wound complications without an increase in histologic trauma or endothelial dysfunction in published reports. Concern remains about the patency of saphenous vein grafts harvested endoscopically and the development of early intimal hyperplasia. The purpose of this study was to compare early quantitative coronary analysis of saphenous vein grafts used for coronary artery bypass grafting harvested with the open versus endoscopic techniques.MethodsForty patients undergoing primary coronary artery bypass grafting surgery with at least 1 saphenous vein graft were randomized preoperatively to open versus endoscopic saphenectomy with bipolar cauterization of side branches. Quantitative coronary angiography was performed a mean of 3 months (range, 1-9 months) after the operation.ResultsThere was no statistically significant difference in the patency rates of internal thoracic artery grafts between the open and endoscopic groups and no statistically significant difference in the patency rates of saphenous vein grafts between both groups (85.2% vs 84.4%, P = .991). Quantitative coronary angiography showed no difference in graft stenosis (≥50% of the internal diameter of the graft) in the body of the saphenous vein grafts in the open versus endoscopic saphenectomy groups (3.7% vs 0%, P = .280).ConclusionAngiographic appearance and patency rates of saphenous vein grafts harvested with the endoscopic technique are similar to those of saphenous vein grafts harvested with the open technique. These results support the use of endoscopic saphenectomy because of the known lower incidence of wound and infectious complications and superior functional results

Avecor trillium oxygenator versus noncoated monolyth oxygenator: A prospective randomized controlled study

Objectives: The surface coating of a synthetic surface is currently investigated to decrease the harmful effects of cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). This study was designed to study the effects of the surface coating of a hollow fiber membrane oxygenator on coagulation, inflammation markers, and clinical outcomes. The biomaterials used to coat the membrane include heparin, polyethylene oxide chains (PEO), and sulfate/sulfonate groups. The coated membrane was compared to an uncoated oxygenator made of polypropylene. Methods: Two hundred patients who were scheduled to undergo valve repair and/or replacement surgery with or without coronary surgery were enrolled in the study. The patients were randomized to undergo CPB with either the Avecor oxygenator with Trillium™ (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN, USA), a biopassive surface, or the Monolyth (Sorin, Irvine, CA, USA) oxygenator without coating. The primary and secondary endpoints were the differences between these oxygenators in regard to patients' biochemistry, coagulation profiles, inflammatory mediators, and clinical outcomes, including blood loss and neurological events. Results: There were no differences between the two groups in terms of biochemistry, coagulation profile, inflammatory mediator release, and blood loss. Five patients in the Avecor group showed clinical evidence of a stroke confirmed with computerized tomography (CT) scan imaging, and none in the noncoated oxygenator group. Conclusion: The oxygenator Avecor offers similar results in terms of inflammation and coagulation profiles and blood loss during valvular surgery compared to a standard uncoated control oxygenator. The rate of neurological events was unusually elevated in the former group of patients, with only speculative explanation at this point. Further studies are warranted to clarify this aspect. © 2008 by Blackwell Futura Publishing, Inc.SCOPUS: ar.jFLWINinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Immediate and long-term results of valve replacement for native and prosthetic valve endocarditis.

BACKGROUND: The objective of the present study was to compare current results of prosthetic valve replacement following acute infective native valve endocarditis (NVE) with that of prosthetic valve endocarditis (PVE). Prosthetic valve replacement is often necessary for acute infective endocarditis. Although valve repair and homografts have been associated with excellent outcome, homograft availability and the importance of valvular destruction often dictate prosthetic valve replacement in patients with acute bacterial endocarditis. METHODS: A retrospective analysis of the experience with prosthetic valve replacement following acute NVE and PVE between 1988 and 1998 was performed at the Montreal Heart Institute. RESULTS: Seventy-seven patients (57 men and 20 women, mean age 48 +/- 16 years) with acute infective endocarditis underwent valve replacement. Fifty patients had NVE and 27 had PVE. Four patients (8%) with NVE died within 30 days of operation and there were no hospital deaths in patients with PVE. Survival at 1, 5, and 7 years averaged 80% +/- 6%, 76% +/- 6%, and 76% +/- 6% for NVE and 70% +/- 9%, 59% +/- 10%, and 55% +/- 10% for PVE, respectively (p = 0.15). Reoperation-free survival at 1, 5, and 7 years averaged 80% +/- 6%, 76% +/- 6%, and 76% +/- 6% for NVE and 45% +/- 10%, 40% +/- 10%, and 36% +/- 9% for PVE (p = 0.003). Five-year survival for NVE averaged 75% +/- 9% following aortic valve replacement and 79% +/- 9% following mitral valve replacement. Five-year survival for PVE averaged 66% +/- 12% following aortic valve replacement and 43% +/- 19% following mitral valve replacement (p = 0.75). Nine patients underwent reoperation during follow-up: indications were prosthesis infection in 4 patients (3 mitral, 1 aortic), dehiscence of mitral prosthesis in 3, and dehiscence of aortic prosthesis in 2. CONCLUSIONS: Prosthetic valve replacement for NVE resulted in good long-term patient survival with a minimal risk of reoperation compared with patients who underwent valve replacement for PVE. In patients with PVE, those who needed reoperation had recurrent endocarditis or noninfectious periprosthetic dehiscence

Effect of Aortic Valve Replacement for Aortic Stenosis on Severity of Mitral Regurgitation

Background: Surgically addressing moderate mitral regurgitation (MR) at the time of aortic valve replacement (AVR) for aortic stenosis remains uncertain. The purpose of this study was to examine the change in moderate (2+) or moderate-severe (3+) MR after isolated AVR for aortic stenosis to determine preoperative factors predictive of improvement in MR. Methods: Using an institutional databank of prospectively collected data, all patients undergoing isolated AVR for aortic stenosis with moderate (2+) to moderate-severe (3+) MR between 1994 and 1996 at the Montreal Heart Institute were evaluated. Results: Eighty patients with preoperative and postoperative transthoracic echocardiographic follow-up were identified. Preoperative MR was moderate (2+) in 78 patients (97.5%) and moderate-severe (3+) in 2 patients (2.5%). Mitral regurgitation was classified as rheumatic (32%), ischemic (32%), functional (21%), and myxomatous (15%). At 1-year follow-up transthoracic echocardiography, MR improved by 1 or 2 grades in 29 patients (35%), was unchanged in 44 (55%), and worsened in 7 (10%). On multivariate analysis, isolated ischemic and functional MR were the only preoperative factors predictive of MR improvement after AVR (p = 0.01): 54% of ischemic and 44% of functional MR patients showed improvement in MR after AVR compared with 23% of rheumatic and 17% of myxomatous MR patients. Conclusions: Etiology of MR was a significant prognostic factor for improvement in MR grade. Since there was little improvement in the rheumatoid and myxomatous group, replacement or repair should strongly be considered. For functional and ischemic mitral regurgitation, a surgical correction should be performed on an individual basis. © 2007 The Society of Thoracic Surgeons.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Cardiac Surgery: Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society Recommendations.

Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) evidence-based protocols for perioperative care can lead to improvements in clinical outcomes and cost savings. This article aims to present consensus recommendations for the optimal perioperative management of patients undergoing cardiac surgery. A review of meta-analyses, randomized clinical trials, large nonrandomized studies, and reviews was conducted for each protocol element. The quality of the evidence was graded and used to form consensus recommendations for each topic. Development of these recommendations was endorsed by the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Society