2011 ACCF/AHA guideline for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: executive summary: a report of the American College of Cardiology Foundation/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines.

The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery (Impact Factor: 3.99). 01/2012; 143(1):4-34. DOI: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2011.10.015
Source: PubMed
Download full-text


Available from: Manesh R Patel, Dec 16, 2013
1 Follower
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Objectives. Postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) is an important neuropsychiatric complication of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). It is most likely caused by microembolic brain damage and affects domains of attention, memory, executive functions and dexterity. In order to achieve better neuroprotection, surgeons introduced some advantageous operating procedures. Noteworthy among them is a state-of-the-art off-pump CABG aorta no-touch technique ("no touch" OPCABG). The aim of this study was to investigate the short-term effect of "no touch" OPCABG on patients' attention and executive functions. Methods. In this prospective, observational, single-surgeon trial, 74 patients scheduled for elective CABG were studied. Thirty-five patients underwent "no-touch" OPCABG and were compared to 39 patients who underwent "traditional" OPCABG. Subjects underwent neurological and neuropsychological evaluation at the time of admission (7 ± 2 days preoperatively) and discharge (7 days postoperatively). Results. Patients who underwent "traditional" OPCABG showed a significant decline in postoperative performance on 4 neuropsychological tests, while patients treated with "no touch" OPCABG showed a significant decline on 1 test. Twenty patients from "traditional" OPCABG group and ten patients from "no touch" OPCABG group were diagnosed with POCD. Conclusions. Use of "no touch" OPCABG was associated with better attention and executive functions 1 week after surgery compared with "traditional" OPCABG.
    The World Journal of Biological Psychiatry 08/2013; DOI:10.3109/15622975.2013.824611 · 4.23 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Despite the robust evidence of the potential benefits of n-3 polyunsaturated fatty acid (PUFA) supplementation in patients with established coronary artery disease, the impact of this therapy on patients after coronary artery bypass grafting remains completely unknown. Among 2,100 patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting in one tertiary care institution, 930 (44%) were put under n-3 PUFA therapy chronically at discharge. The impact of n-3 PUFAs was assessed by means of propensity-score adjusted analysis. The primary end point was all-cause mortality. Secondary end points were repeat revascularization and the composite of death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, and cerebrovascular events. In a crude analysis, patients discharged on n-3 PUFAs had a lower risk for late mortality (unadjusted hazard ratio [HR], 0.51; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.36 to 0.73; p = 0.0002), which was conformed at multivariable adjusted Cox regression analysis (HR, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.26 to 0.90; p = 0.02). Adjusted risk of repeat revascularization was significantly lower in patients receiving n-3 PUFAs than in those who did not (HR, 0.52; 95% CI, 0.28 to 0.97; p = 0.04). The adjusted risk for the composite of death, Q-wave myocardial infarction, or cerebrovascular events was lower in patients who received n-3 PUFAs compared with patients who did not (HR, 0.56; 95% CI, 0.36 to 0.81; p = 0.001). Subgroup analyses showed that mortality benefit associated with n-3 PUFAs was particularly relevant in patients with poor left ventricular function (HR, 0.36; 95% CI, 0.17 to 0.76; p = 0.007), but it was only marginal in patients with good ventricular function (HR, 0.89; 95% CI, 0.65 to 1.01; p = 0.05). This study showed that n-3 PUFAs after coronary artery bypass grafting were associated with a lower risk for repeat revascularization and overall mortality in patients with poor ventricular function.
    The Annals of thoracic surgery 04/2011; 91(4):1169-75. DOI:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2010.11.068 · 3.65 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: During the past 2 decades, percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) has increased dramatically compared with coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for patients with coronary artery disease. However, although the evidence available to all practitioners is similar, the relative distribution of PCI and CABG appears to differ among hospitals and regions. We reviewed the published data from the mandatory New York State Department of Health annual cardiac procedure reports issued from 1994 through 2008 to define trends in PCI and CABG utilization in New York and to compare the PCI/CABG ratios in the metropolitan area to the remainder of the State. During this 15-year interval, the procedure volume changes for CABG, for all cardiac surgeries, for non-CABG cardiac surgeries, and for PCI for New York State were -40%, -20%, +17.5%, and +253%, respectively; for the Manhattan programs, the changes were similar as follows: -61%, -23%, +14%, and +284%. The average PCI/CABG ratio in New York State increased from 1.12 in 1994 to 5.14 in 2008; however, in Manhattan, the average PCI/CABG ratio increased from 1.19 to 8.04 (2008 range: 3.78 to 16.2). The 2008 PCI/CABG ratios of the Manhattan programs were higher than the ratios for New York City programs outside Manhattan, in Long Island, in the northern counties contiguous to New York City, and in the rest of New York State; their averages were 5.84, 5.38, 3.31, and 3.24, respectively. In Manhattan, a patient had a 56% greater chance of receiving PCI than CABG as compared with the rest of New York State; in one Manhattan program, the likelihood was 215% higher. There are substantial regional and statewide differences in the utilization of PCI versus CABG among cardiac centers in New York, possibly related to patient characteristics, physician biases, and hospital culture. Understanding these disparities may facilitate the selection of the most appropriate, effective, and evidence-based revascularization strategy. (J Am Heart Assoc. 2012;1:e001446 doi: 10.1161/JAHA.112.001446.).
    Journal of the American Heart Association 04/2012; 1(2):e001446. DOI:10.1161/JAHA.112.001446 · 2.88 Impact Factor