Comparison of the effects of pulsatile cardiopulmonary bypass, non-pulsatile cardiopulmonary bypass and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting on the inflammatory response and S-100beta protein
ABSTRACT Background: We aimed to investigate the effects of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting, pulsatile cardiopulmonary bypass, and non-pulsatile cardiopulmonary bypass techniques on the inflammatory response and the central nervous system in the current study. Methods: A total of 32 patients who were scheduled for elective coronary artery bypass graft surgery were included in the study. The patients were allocated into three different groups according to the perfusion techniques used during the cardiopulmonary bypass procedure as follows: off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting group (n=10); pulsatile cardiopulmonary bypass group (n=11); and non-pulsatile cardiopulmonary bypass group (n=11). Serum interleukin-6, interleukin-8, tumor necrosis factor-alpha and S-100beta levels were measured preoperatively, and at 0, 6, and 24 hours postoperatively. Results: The postoperative increase in the levels of interleukin-6 and interleukin-8 was significantly lower in the off-pump group compared to the other two groups (p<0.05), while there was no significant difference in tumor necrosis factor-alpha levels between the groups. Postoperative S-100β levels, an indicator of cerebral injury, was significantly lower in the off-pump CABG group compared to the other two groups (p<0.05). Conclusion: We found that off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting had less negative effects on inflammatory response and central nervous system compared to pulsatile cardiopulmonary bypass and non-pulsatile cardiopulmonary bypass techniques.
- SourceAvailable from: ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
Article: Editorial.Perfusion 01/2012; 27(1):5-6. DOI:10.1177/0267659111433098 · 1.08 Impact Factor
- Circulation Journal 03/2012; 76(5):1087-8. DOI:10.1253/circj.CJ-12-0294 · 3.69 Impact Factor
- Journal of cardiothoracic and vascular anesthesia 05/2012; 26(4):669-79. DOI:10.1053/j.jvca.2012.03.030 · 1.48 Impact Factor