Article

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: 2.67). 03/2005; 27(3):488-93. DOI: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2004.11.018
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT 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.

0 Bookmarks
 · 
72 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Coronary artery disease is one of the leading causes of illness for both men and women. However, women are 3 times more likely to die for coronary artery disease as they are of breast cancer. There are an increasing prevalence of coronary artery disease in women and thus facing the need for surgical revascularization. It has long being accepted that women carry a high risk of coronary surgery than men. Many investigators have suggested that female itself is predictive of poor outcome after on pump coronary surgery. We thought to search the litlature to investigate whether women who undergo off-pump surgery receive any benefits compared with women undergoing on-pump surgery.
    Journal of the Saudi Heart Association. 10/2009; 21(4):199-207.
  • [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 32(6):483-490. · 0.78 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Many new surgical technologies are being developed, with the overall aim of improving outcomes. One common feature of many new technologies is that they offer a safer approach than previous techniques; one of the greatest forces for change over the last 30 years is risk reduction. Cardiac surgery risk has been effectively undercut by percutaneous-based procedures, which have offered dramatic reductions in risk--at least in the short term. Beating heart techniques, whether minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB), off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery (OPCAB), or in other forms, such as percutaneous valve replacement, are likely to dramatically increase over the next decade. What role OPCAB and MIDCAB techniques will play in this new era is anyone's guess.
    Anesthesiology Clinics 10/2008; 26(3):437-52.

Full-text

View
0 Downloads