Aprotinin reduces blood loss in off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) surgery

Objective: Effects of aprotinin in off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) surgery have not yet been described. This study analyses hemostasiologic changes and potential benefit in OPCAB patients treated with aprotinin. Methods: In a prospective, double-blind, randomized study 47 patients undergoing OPCAB surgery were investigated. Patients received either aprotinin (2×106 KIU loading dose and 0.5×106 KIU/h during surgery, n=22) or saline solution (control, n=25). Activated clotting time was adjusted to a target of 250 s intraoperatively. Blood samples were taken up to 18 h postoperatively: complete hematologic and hemostasiologic parameters including fibrinopeptide A (FPA) and D-dimer in a subgroup of 31 patients were analyzed. Blood loss, blood transfusion and other clinical data were collected. Results: Both groups showed comparable demographic and intraoperative variables. Forty-one (87%) patients of the whole study group received aspirin within 7 days prior to surgery. Number of grafts per patient were comparable (2.9±1.0 [mean±SD] in the aprotinin group and 2.8±1.2 in control, P=0.83). Blood loss during the first 18 h in intensive care unit was significantly reduced in patients treated with aprotinin (median [25th-75th percentiles]: 500 [395-755] ml vs. 930 [800-1170] ml, P<0.001). Postoperatively only two patients (10%) in the aprotinin group received packed red blood cells, whereas eight (35%) in the control group (P=0.07). Perioperatively FPA levels reflecting thrombin generation were elevated in both groups. The increase in D-dimer levels after surgery was significantly inhibited in the aprotinin group (P<0.001). Early clinical outcome was similar in both groups. Conclusions: Aprotinin significantly reduces blood loss in patients undergoing OPCAB surgery. Inhibition of enhanced fibrinolysis can be observed. FPA generation during and after OPCAB surgery seems not to be influenced by aprotini

Aprotinin reduces blood loss in off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) surgery

Objective: Effects of aprotinin in off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) surgery have not yet been described. This study analyses hemostasiologic changes and potential benefit in OPCAB patients treated with aprotinin. Methods: In a prospective, double-blind, randomized study 47 patients undergoing OPCAB surgery were investigated. Patients received either aprotinin (2×10 superscript 6 KIU loading dose and 0.5×10 superscript 6 KIU/h during surgery, n=22) or saline solution (control, n=25). Activated clotting time was adjusted to a target of 250 s intraoperatively. Blood samples were taken up to 18 h postoperatively: complete hematologic and hemostasiologic parameters including fibrinopeptide A (FPA) and D-dimer in a subgroup of 31 patients were analyzed. Blood loss, blood transfusion and other clinical data were collected. Results: Both groups showed comparable demographic and intraoperative variables. Forty-one (87%) patients of the whole study group received aspirin within 7 days prior to surgery. Number of grafts per patient were comparable (2.9±1.0 [mean±SD] in the aprotinin group and 2.8±1.2 in control, P=0.83). Blood loss during the first 18 h in intensive care unit was significantly reduced in patients treated with aprotinin (median [25th–75th percentiles]: 500 [395–755] ml vs. 930 [800–1170] ml, P<0.001). Postoperatively only two patients (10%) in the aprotinin group received packed red blood cells, whereas eight (35%) in the control group (P=0.07). Perioperatively FPA levels reflecting thrombin generation were elevated in both groups. The increase in D-dimer levels after surgery was significantly inhibited in the aprotinin group (P<0.001). Early clinical outcome was similar in both groups. Conclusions: Aprotinin significantly reduces blood loss in patients undergoing OPCAB surgery. Inhibition of enhanced fibrinolysis can be observed. FPA generation during and after OPCAB surgery seems not to be influenced by aprotinin

Plasma-functionalized electrospun matrix for biograft development and cardiac function stabilization

Cardiac tissue engineering approaches can deliver large numbers of cells to the damaged myocardium and have thus increasingly been considered as a possible curative treatment to counteract the high prevalence of progressive heart failure after myocardial infarction (MI). Optimal scaffold architecture and mechanical and chemical properties, as well as immune- and bio-compatibility, need to be addressed. We demonstrated that radio-frequency plasma surface functionalized electrospun poly(ɛ-caprolactone) (PCL) fibres provide a suitable matrix for bone-marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cell (MSC) cardiac implantation. Using a rat model of chronic MI, we showed that MSC-seeded plasma-coated PCL grafts stabilized cardiac function and attenuated dilatation. Significant relative decreases of 13% of the ejection fraction (EF) and 15% of the fractional shortening (FS) were observed in sham treated animals; respective decreases of 20% and 25% were measured 4 weeks after acellular patch implantation, whereas a steadied function was observed 4 weeks after MSC-patch implantation (relative decreases of 6% for both EF and FS)

Should intentional endovascular stent-graft coverage of the left subclavian artery be preceded by prophylactic revascularisation?

Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) has emerged as a promising therapeutic alternative to conventional open aortic replacement but it requires suitable proximal and distal landing zones for stent-graft anchoring. Many aortic pathologies affect in the immediate proximity of the left subclavian artery (LSA) limiting the proximal landing zone site without proximal vessel coverage. In patients in whom the distance between the LSA and aortic lesion is too short, extension of the landing zone can be obtained by covering the LSA's origin with the endovascular stent graft (ESG). This manoeuvre has the potential for immediate and delayed neurological and vascular symptoms. Some authors, therefore, propose prophylactic revascularisation of the LSA by transposition or bypass, while others suggest prophylactic revascularisation only under certain conditions, and still others see no requirement for prophylactic revascularisation in anticipation of LSA ostium coverage. In this review about LSA revascularisation in TEVAR patients with coverage of the LSA, we searched the electronic databases MEDLINE and EMBASE historically until the end date of May 2010 with the search terms left subclavian artery, covering, endovascular, revascularisation and thoracic aorta. We have gathered the most complete scientific evidence available used to support the various concepts to deal with this issue. After a review of the current available literature, 23 relevant articles were found, where we have identified and analysed three basic treatment concepts for LSA revascularisation in TEVAR patients (prophylactic, conditional prophylactic and no prophylactic LSA revascularisation). The available evidence supports prophylactic revascularisation of the LSA before ESG LSA coverage when preoperative imaging reveals abnormal supra-aortic vascular anatomy or pathology. We further conclude that elective patients undergoing planned coverage of the LSA during TEVAR should receive prophylactic LSA transposition or LSA-to-left-common-carotid-artery (LCCA) bypass surgery to prevent severe neurological complications, such as paraplegia or brain stem infarctio

Evidence, lack of evidence, controversy, and debate in the provision and performance of the surgery of acute type A aortic dissection

Acute type A aortic dissection is a lethal condition requiring emergency surgery. It has diverse presentations, and the diagnosis can be missed or delayed. Once diagnosed, decisions with regard to initial management, transfer, appropriateness of surgery, timing of operation, and intervention for malperfusion complications are necessary. The goals of surgery are to save life by prevention of pericardial tamponade or intra-pericardial aortic rupture, to resect the primary entry tear, to correct or prevent any malperfusion and aortic valve regurgitation, and if possible to prevent late dissection-related complications in the proximal and downstream aorta. No randomized trials of treatment or techniques have ever been performed, and novel therapies-particularly with regard to extent of surgery-are being devised and implemented, but their role needs to be defined. Overall, except in highly specialized centers, surgical outcomes might be static, and there is abundant room for improvement. By highlighting difficulties and controversies in diagnosis, patient selection, and surgical therapy, our over-arching goal should be to enfranchise more patients for treatment and improve surgical outcomes

The SURTAVI model: Proposal for a pragmatic risk stratification for patients with severe aortic stenosis

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is a less invasive alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR) for patients with symptomatic severe aortic stenosis (AS) and a high operative risk. Risk stratification plays a decisive role in the optimal selection of therapeutic strategies for AS patients. The accuracy of contemporary surgical risk algorithms for AS patients has spurred considerable debate especially in the higher risk patient population. Future trials will explore TAVI in patients at intermediate operative risk. During the design of the SURgical replacement and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation (SURTAVI) trial, a novel concept of risk stratification was proposed based upon age in combination with a fixed number of predefined risk factors, which are relatively prevalent, easy to capture and with a reasonable impact on operative mortality. Retrospective application of this algorithm to a contemporary academic practice dealing with clinically significant AS patients allocates about one-fourth of these patients as being at intermediate operative risk. Further testing is required for validation of this new paradigm in risk stratification. Finally, the Heart Team, consisting of at least an interventional cardiologist and cardiothoracic surgeon, should have the decisive role in determining whether a patient could be treated with TAVI or SAVR