We have located links that may give you full text access.
COMPARATIVE STUDY
JOURNAL ARTICLE
Aortic no-touch technique makes the difference in off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting.
Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery 2011 December
OBJECTIVES: Both off-pump surgery (OPCAB) and aortic no-touch technique reduce stroke after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). We evaluate the impact of partial aortic clamping (PC) versus a no-touch technique using either the HEARTSTRING system (HS) or total arterial revascularization (TAR) on the incidence of stroke.
METHODS: From 1999 [corrected] to 2009, 4314 patients underwent myocardial revascularization. Patients either underwent OPCAB (n = 2203) or conventional on-pump CABG (n = 2111). The OPCAB cohort was divided into 2 subgroups: patients requiring proximal anastomosis applying PC (n = 567) or a "no-touch" technique with the HS (n = 1365). Patients who received TAR (n = 271) served as a control group (gold-standard). Data collection was performed prospectively using a propensity score (PS)-adjusted regression analysis. End points were stroke, mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), and a noncardiac composite end point including respiratory failure, renal failure, and bleeding.
RESULTS: The mortality rate (1.6% vs 2.4%; propensity-adjusted odds ratio [PAOR] = 0.51; CI 95%, 0.26-0.99; P = .047), MACCE (7.9% vs 17.1%; PAOR = 0.67; CI 95%, 0.52-0.84; P = .001) including myocardial infarction (1.1% vs 2.2%; PAOR = 0.50; CI 95%, 0.26-0.98; P = .044) and stroke (1.1% vs 2.4%; PAOR = 0.35; CI 95%, 0.17-0.72; P = .005) as well as the noncardiac composite (PAOR = 0.46; CI 95%, 0.35-0.91; P < .001) were significantly lower for OPCAB when compared with on-pump CABG. In comparison with PC, OPCAB patients undergoing the HS approach had significantly lower frequencies of stroke (0.7% vs 2.3%; PAOR = 0.39; CI 95%, 0.16-0.90; P = .04) and MACCE (6.7% vs 10.8%; PAOR = 0.55; CI 95%, 0.38-0.79; P = .001), and these results were similar to those of the control group, who underwent no-touch TAR (stroke rate, 0.8%; MACCE, 7.9%).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm that OPCAB is superior with regard to risk-adjusted outcomes. There is no difference in the stroke rate when comparing on-pump CABG versus applying partial aortic crossclamping in OPCAB. Whenever a proximal anastomosis is needed, a no-touch technique should be applied, that is, using the HS device.
METHODS: From 1999 [corrected] to 2009, 4314 patients underwent myocardial revascularization. Patients either underwent OPCAB (n = 2203) or conventional on-pump CABG (n = 2111). The OPCAB cohort was divided into 2 subgroups: patients requiring proximal anastomosis applying PC (n = 567) or a "no-touch" technique with the HS (n = 1365). Patients who received TAR (n = 271) served as a control group (gold-standard). Data collection was performed prospectively using a propensity score (PS)-adjusted regression analysis. End points were stroke, mortality, major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCE), and a noncardiac composite end point including respiratory failure, renal failure, and bleeding.
RESULTS: The mortality rate (1.6% vs 2.4%; propensity-adjusted odds ratio [PAOR] = 0.51; CI 95%, 0.26-0.99; P = .047), MACCE (7.9% vs 17.1%; PAOR = 0.67; CI 95%, 0.52-0.84; P = .001) including myocardial infarction (1.1% vs 2.2%; PAOR = 0.50; CI 95%, 0.26-0.98; P = .044) and stroke (1.1% vs 2.4%; PAOR = 0.35; CI 95%, 0.17-0.72; P = .005) as well as the noncardiac composite (PAOR = 0.46; CI 95%, 0.35-0.91; P < .001) were significantly lower for OPCAB when compared with on-pump CABG. In comparison with PC, OPCAB patients undergoing the HS approach had significantly lower frequencies of stroke (0.7% vs 2.3%; PAOR = 0.39; CI 95%, 0.16-0.90; P = .04) and MACCE (6.7% vs 10.8%; PAOR = 0.55; CI 95%, 0.38-0.79; P = .001), and these results were similar to those of the control group, who underwent no-touch TAR (stroke rate, 0.8%; MACCE, 7.9%).
CONCLUSIONS: Our results confirm that OPCAB is superior with regard to risk-adjusted outcomes. There is no difference in the stroke rate when comparing on-pump CABG versus applying partial aortic crossclamping in OPCAB. Whenever a proximal anastomosis is needed, a no-touch technique should be applied, that is, using the HS device.
Full text links
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app
All material on this website is protected by copyright, Copyright © 1994-2024 by WebMD LLC.
This website also contains material copyrighted by 3rd parties.
By using this service, you agree to our terms of use and privacy policy.
Your Privacy Choices
You can now claim free CME credits for this literature searchClaim now
Get seemless 1-tap access through your institution/university
For the best experience, use the Read mobile app