Article

Differential effects of single versus double aortic clamping on myocardial protection during coronary bypass.

Cardiovascular Surgery, Bursa Yuksek Ihtisas Education and Research Hospital, Bursa, Turkey.
The Journal of international medical research (Impact Factor: 0.96). 03/2009; 37(2):341-50. DOI: 10.1177/147323000903700208
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The effects of double (n = 60, group 1) versus single (n = 60, group 2) aortic clamping on myocardial function and protection were investigated during coronary artery bypass grafting using a heart-lung pump. In group 1, after opening the cross clamp, proximal anastomosis was completed using side clamps and, in group 2, distal and proximal anastomosis was completed with a single clamp. Cross clamping time in the single-clamp patients (group 2; 77.1 min) was significantly higher than in the double-clamp patients (group 1; 62.9 min). Troponin T was significantly higher in group 2 than in group 1 h and 24 h after surgery. Post-operative left ventricular ejection fraction decreased in both groups, but this was not statistically significant. Post-operative wall motion score index and myocardial performance index increased significantly in both groups compared with the pre-operative level. Overall, the double-clamp technique provided better myocardial protection than the single-clamp technique and neither technique seemed to have a negative impact on the early post-operative global functioning of the left ventricle, however the effect of these techniques on the global functioning of the left ventricle in the late postoperative period needs to be evaluated.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
61 Views
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: We describe a modification of the standard open technique of long saphenous vein harvesting that, by avoiding dissection in the region of the medial malleolus, can reduce the incidence of leg wound related complications after coronary artery bypass grafting.
    The Annals of Thoracic Surgery 08/1998; 66(1):279. · 3.45 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Subcutaneous harvesting using an extraluminal vein dissector was used to obtain saphenous and cephalic veins for aortocoronary vein bypass grafting (CVBG) in 428 unselected consecutive patients without complications. The operative technique is simple, quick and easy to learn. Advantages of the method include expeditious harvesting, limited tissue dissection and vein handling, with minimal overt and occult blood loss. Symptomatic benefits include a considerable reduction of leg wound infection (3% superficial inflammation), comfort and improved early mobility. Reduction in late morbidity due to saphenous nerve damage (1.6%), prolonged oedema (0.7%), and delayed sinus formation were also noticeable features. Light and Scanning Electron Microscope (SEM) studies of 57 vein samples showed no excessive trauma to the vein wall but more specifically no evidence of distraction injury to the tributaries when compared with the more traditional dissection technique.
    The Journal of cardiovascular surgery 01/1987; 28(2):103-11. · 1.51 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Minimally invasive conduit harvesting techniques for coronary artery bypass grafting have developed over the past decade, aiming to reduce the morbidity and recovery time associated with the procedure, whilst preserving the quality of the conduit. Two types of commonly harvested free conduits include the great saphenous vein and the radial artery. Although much research has focussed on comparing less invasive and conventional harvest techniques, there is at present no consensus on the areas where one technique is superior to the other. Aspects of conduits that deserve appreciation when comparing minimally invasive and open harvesting techniques include wound healing at the harvest site, the macroscopic, histological and functional quality of the conduit, but perhaps most importantly its long-term angiographic patency. This paper aims to review the literature comparing minimally invasive and conventional conduit harvesting techniques for coronary artery bypass grafting, with regard to the previously mentioned factors. A literature search of Medline, Ovid, Embase and Cochrane databases was used to identify comparative studies published between 1997 and 2005. Outcomes of interest included: wound infection, non-infective healing disturbances, post-operative pain, neurological disturbance, mobility, patient satisfaction, conduit quality (macroscopic, histological and functional) and long-term conduit patency. A scoring system was applied and used to grade the quality of the evidence, based on which a recommendation of it being 'good' (Grade A), 'fair' (Grade B), or 'insufficient' (Grade C) was made. Results showed that there was 'good' evidence to suggest that wound infection and non-infective complications are reduced with minimally invasive harvest as compared to conventional vein harvest. The evidence suggesting that post-operative pain and mobilisation is reduced after minimally invasive vein harvest and that once harvested, the conduits are macroscopically comparable to conventional ones, is only 'fair'. Finally, although initial reports are encouraging, there is at present insufficient evidence to comment on whether minimally invasive radial artery harvesting is better than that of conventional open surgery. Wounds from minimally invasively harvested venous conduits appear to be less prone to complications although more comparative evidence on conduit quality and long-term patency is eagerly awaited.
    European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery 04/2006; 29(3):324-33. · 2.67 Impact Factor

Full-text

View
13 Downloads
Available from
Jun 4, 2014