Hemodynamics in off-pump surgery: Normal versus compromised preoperative left ventricular function

Department of Emergency and Transplantation, University of Bari, U.O. Anestesia e Rianimazione I, U.O. Cardiochirurgia, A.O. Policlinico, Giuseppe Fiore, via A. De Ferraris 16, I-70124 Bari, Italy.
European Journal of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery (Impact Factor: 3.3). 03/2005; 27(3):488-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2004.11.018
Source: PubMed


Off-pump coronary surgery (OPCABG), avoiding cardiopulmonary bypass and cardioplegic arrest, seems to be a better choice in patients with poor baseline cardiac function. Since cardiocirculatory collapse could be induced by heart displacement in this group of patients at high risk, a greater pathophysiologic understanding of the hemodynamic derangements occurring in such patients is needed.
Twenty-eight elective OPCABG patients were evaluated for hemodynamic changes induced by heart displacement, using arterial thermodilution to measure cardiac output and global end-diastolic volume. Hemodynamic parameters were recorded: at baseline; during proper exposure and stabilization of each vessel; and at the end of surgery. Patients were divided into two groups, according to baseline ejection fraction (EF): group A (EF>30%; N=16), group B (EF< or =30%; N=12).
Heart displacement induced a significant drop in the cardiac and stroke index, with a lesser decrease of mean arterial pressure because of raised systemic vascular resistance. Preload, measured as global end diastolic volume, significantly decreased in group A, while it remained unchanged or increased in group B. Linear regression between the preload index and left ventricular stroke work was significant only in group A.
Patients with poor baseline cardiac function can well tolerate OPCABG. However, the pathophysiologic modifications underlying the hemodynamic changes are different compared to those in patients with good preoperative cardiac performance.

Download full-text


Available from: Tommaso Fiore, Oct 22, 2015
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Nach der Etablierung der chirurgischen Revaskularisation ohne Verwendung der Herz-Lungen-Maschine (HLM) zur Behandlung der koronaren Mehrgefäßerkrankung konnte in vielen prospektiv-randomisierten Studien sowie in Metaanalysen zumeist kein signifikanter Überlebensvorteil der Off-Pump-Chirurgie („off-pump coronary artery bypass“ [OPCAB]) gegenüber der konventionellen Bypasschirurgie (CCAB) mit Einsatz der HLM und kardioplegischem Herzstillstand belegt werden. Daneben waren insbesondere die perioperative Myokardinfarkt- und Schlaganfallrate für beide Verfahren vergleichbar. Diesen Untersuchungen gemeinsam war, dass sie nahezu ausnahmslos an Patienten mit vergleichsweise geringem perioperativen Risiko oder an Mischpopulationen vorgenommen wurden. In den letzten Jahren wird nun auch zunehmend auf den Stellenwert der Beating-Heart-Chirurgie bei unterschiedlichen Risikopopulationen wie Patienten mit schlechter kardialer Pumpfunktion, hohem Alter, vorbestehender Niereninsuffizienz, akutem Myokardinfarkt oder Hauptstammstenose fokussiert. Für die einzelnen Subpopulationen mit spezifischen extrakardialen und kardialen Risiken liegt heute eine Vielzahl von mono- und multizentrischen Studien sowie Metaanalysen vor, die allerdings aufgrund ihres meist nichtrandomisierten Designs die Kriterien einer Level-AEvidenz nicht erreichen. Dennoch erlauben sie es, an Patienten mit spezifischen Operationsrisiken eine Zwischenbilanz vorzunehmen. So zeigte sich, dass insbesondere Multirisikopatienten und Patienten mit präoperativ eingeschränkter kardialer Pumpfunktion bei Anwendung der OPCAB-Chirurgie eine signifikant geringere perioperative Mortalität und Morbidität aufwiesen. Zudem war die Inzidenz perioperativer Schlaganfälle für die meisten Subpopulationen mit extrakardialen Risikofaktoren reduziert. Für Patienten mit präoperativ bestehender pulmonaler oder renaler Funktionsstörung war die Häufigkeit einer entsprechenden postoperativen Organkomplikation signifikant verringert. Bei nahezu allen Risikogruppen war die Transfusionspflichtigkeit reduziert. Für keine der Risikopopulationen zeigte die Beating-Heart-Strategie ein im Vergleich zur CCAB-Chirurgie erhöhtes Risiko. Dies belegt den hohen Stellenwert der OPCAB-Chirurgie insbesondere für Patienten mit einem überdurchschnittlich erhöhten perioperativen Risiko. Since the introduction of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) for coronary multivessel disease there was growing interest to evaluate the impact of OPCAB surgery compared to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CCAB) with cardiopulmonary bypass and cardioplegic arrest. However, subsequent prospective randomized studies and meta-analyses comparing OPCAB and CCAB surgery were performed on low-risk patients or mixed-risk populations. They usually failed to demonstrate a significant benefit of OPCAB surgery on early mortality or perioperative major cardiac and cerebrovascular events. In recent years, efforts were made to analyze the meaning of beating-heart concepts for patients with specific cardiac and extracardiac risks like ischemic cardiomyopathy, older age, renal failure, acute coronary syndrome, left main stenosis and others. For these subsets of patients several mono- and multicenter studies are available today. Even if most of them were nonrandomized and thus failed to reach evidence level A according to the AHA/ACC (American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology) definition, they still allow analyzing interim results for each specific perioperative risk factor. Particularly multi-risk patients and patients with severely reduced left ventricular function seem to benefit in terms of perioperative mortality and major morbidity by avoiding cardiopulmonary bypass and cardioplegic arrest. Analyzing early results and long-term follow-up of 364 patients with severely reduced ejection fraction < 20%, the authors found a long-term benefit for patients when using OPCAB strategies particularly due to reduced perioperative mortality (Figure 1). Moreover, for most subsets of patients with significant extracardiac risk factors the incidence or perioperative stroke was reduced. In patients with preoperative renal and pulmonary dysfunction a decrease of corresponding organ failure was found for OPCAB strategy. For most risk populations transfusion requirements were significantly lower in OPCAB compared to CCAB surgery. In none of the patients an unfavorable outcome of beating-heart surgery compared to CCAB was shown (Table 1). For emergency patients with an acute coronary syndrome presenting stable and unstable hemodynamics the authors found a clinical benefit by using beating-heart strategies. Particularly in patients with cardiogenic shock, cardiopulmonary bypass was often required to guarantee adequate perioperative organ perfusion. However, these patients seemed to benefit from avoiding global cardiac ischemia and maintaining native coronary blood flow. Follow-up results were comparable for these patients (Figure 2). In conclusion, beating-heart coronary artery bypass grafting seems to be advantageous in various risk populations and should be considered for patients with more than average risks for cardiopulmonary bypass and cardioplegic arrest.
    Herz 09/2007; 32(6):483-490. DOI:10.1007/s00059-007-2857-7 · 0.69 Impact Factor
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Patients undergoing cardiac surgery are at increased risk of gut hypoperfusion. During off-pump surgery, hemodynamic derangements at the time of heart displacement could reduce splanchnic perfusion, outweighing the beneficial effects of avoiding cardiopulmonary bypass. The purpose of this study is to assess, prospectively, blood flow modifications in the superior mesenteric artery during off-pump surgery using transesophageal echocardiography. In 19 patients undergoing multivessel elective off-pump coronary revascularization, systemic hemodynamics and superior mesenteric flow were assessed. Blood flow in the superior mesenteric artery was evaluated with duplex ultrasound using a transesophageal echo probe. Measurements were made four times: T0 (baseline), T1 (left anterior descendent anastomosis), T2 (heart displacement to expose the inferolateral and inferior walls), and T3 (closed chest, at the end of surgery). Superior mesenteric blood flow significantly decreased at T2 (from 426.4 +/- 83.1 mL to 212.9 +/- 48.6 mL, p < 0.001), when also cardiac output was reduced. The percentage of the cardiac output directed toward the mesenteric arterial bed was also decreased at this time. At the end of surgery (T3), whereas cardiac output returned to the initial values, mesenteric flow was significantly increased compared with baseline, with a higher percentage of the systemic output flowing through the superior mesenteric artery. Hemodynamic changes during off-pump coronary surgery induce a significant mesenteric hypoperfusion followed by a hyperemic response at the end of surgery. Transesophageal echo-Doppler allows the intraoperative measurement of blood flow distribution to splanchnic viscera.
    The Annals of thoracic surgery 08/2006; 82(1):62-7. DOI:10.1016/j.athoracsur.2006.02.012 · 3.85 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Haemodynamic instability during off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery (OPCAB) may appear rapidly, and continuous monitoring of the cardiac index (CI) during the procedure is advisable. With the PiCCO monitor, CI can be measured continuously and almost real time with pulse-contour analysis and intermittently with transthoracic thermodilution. The agreement between pulmonal artery thermodilution CI (Tpa), transthoracic thermodilution CI (Tpc) and pulse-contour CI (PCCI) during OPCAB surgery has not been evaluated sufficiently. In 30 patients scheduled for OPCAB surgery, a pulmonary artery catheter and a PiCCO catheter were inserted. At different time points during surgery, Tpa, Tpc and PCCI were compared. Measurements were performed after induction of anesthesia (T1), after pericardiothomy (T2), after grafting on the anterior (T3), posterior (T4) and lateral (T5) walls and after chest closure (T6). The PCCI was recalibrated at time point T2-T6. Mean difference and the limits of agreements (percentage error) between Tpa and Tpc were: -0.14 +/- 0.60 (22.0%) l/min/m2, between Tpa and PCCI: -0.07 +/- 0.92 (33.5%) l/min/m2 and between Tpc and PCCI: 0.10 +/- 1.00 (35.5%) l/min/m2. For changes in CI from one time point to the next (DeltaCI), the limits of agreements between DeltaCI Tpa and DeltaCI Tpc were 0.04 +/- 0.90 l/min/m2, between DeltaCI Tpa and DeltaCI PCCI: -0.02 +/- 1.22 l/min/m2 and between DeltaCI Tpc and DeltaCI PCCI: -0.08 +/- 1.32 l/min/m2. In OPCAB surgery, limits of agreement comparing thermodilution methods were smaller than comparing PCCI with thermodilution. Recalibration of PCCI is therefore advisable.
    Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica 11/2006; 50(9):1050-7. DOI:10.1111/j.1399-6576.2006.01118.x · 2.32 Impact Factor
Show more