Robert C. King

Reperfusion injury significantly impacts clinical outcome after pulmonary transplantation

BACKGROUND Reperfusion injury after pulmonary transplantation can contribute significantly to postoperative pulmonary dysfunction. We hypothesized that posttransplantation reperfusion injury would result in an increase in both in-hospital mortality and morbidity. We also hypothesized that the incidence of reperfusion injury would be dependent upon the cause of recipient lung disease and the interval of donor allograft ischemia. METHODS We performed a retrospective study of all lung transplant recipients at our institution from June 1990 until June 1998. One hundred patients received 120 organs during this time period. We compared two groups of patients in this study: those experiencing a significant reperfusion injury (22%) and those who did not (78%). RESULTS In-hospital mortality was significantly greater in patients experiencing reperfusion injury (40.9% versus 11.7%, p < 0.02). Posttransplantation reperfusion injury also resulted in prolonged ventilation (393.5 versus 56.8 hours, p < 0.001) and an increased length of stay in both the intensive care unit (22.2 versus 10.5 days, p < 0.01) and in the hospital (48.8 versus 25.6 days, p < 0.03). The incidence of reperfusion injury could not be attributed to length of donor organ ischemia (221.5 versus 252.9 minutes, p < 0.20). The clinical impact of reperfusion injury was significantly greater in patients undergoing transplantation for preexisting pulmonary hypertension (6/14) than those with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease or emphysema alone (6/54) (42.9% versus 11.1%, p < 0.012). CONCLUSIONS Clinically significant pulmonary reperfusion injury increased in-hospital mortality and morbidity resulting in prolonged ventilation, length of stay in the intensive care unit, and cost of hospitalization. The incidence of reperfusion injury was not dependent upon the duration of donor organ ischemia but increased with the presence of preoperative pulmonary hypertension. These findings suggest that recipient pathophysiology and donor allograft quality may play important roles in determining the incidence of reperfusion injury.

Simultaneous coronary artery bypass grafting and abdominal aneurysm repair decreases stay and costs

BACKGROUND Patients with large (> or = 5.0 cm) abdominal aortic aneurysms (AAA) frequently have marked associated coronary artery disease. We hypothesized that a single operation for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG)/AAA would provide equivalent, if not improved, patient care while decreasing postoperative length of stay and hospital costs compared with staged procedures. METHODS Eleven patients to date have undergone a combined procedure at our institution. Ten underwent CABG followed by AAA repair, whereas one patient received an aortic valve replacement before aneurysm repair. We performed a retrospective analysis comparing the postoperative length of stay and hospital costs for this single procedure to a combined cohort of 20 randomly selected patients who either received AAA repair (n = 10) or standard CABG (n = 10) during the same time period. RESULTS No operative mortality has been reported. There were no episodes of neurologic deficit or cardiac complication after these procedures. The postoperative length of stay was significantly decreased for the CABG/AAA group compared with the combined postoperative length of stay for the AAA plus CABG group (7.44+/-0.88 days versus 14.10+/-2.00; p = 0.012). Total hospital costs were also significantly decreased for the CABG/AAA group compared with total hospital costs for the AAA plus CABG group (

Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting decreases hospital stay and cost.

22,941+/-

Inhibition of Inducible Nitric Oxide Synthase After Myocardial Ischemia Increases Coronary Flow

1,933 versus

Low-dose sodium nitroprusside reduces pulmonary reperfusion injury

34,076+/-

Replacing the atherosclerotic ascending aorta is a high-risk procedure

2,534; p = 0.003). CONCLUSIONS A single operation for coronary revascularization and AAA repair is safe and effective. Simultaneous CABG and AAA repair substantially decreases postoperative length of stay and hospital costs while avoiding possible interim aneurysm rupture and repeat anesthesia.

Both blood and crystalloid-based extracellular solutions are superior to intracellular solutions for lung preservation☆☆☆★★★♢♢♢

OBJECTIVE The authors performed a retrospective cost analysis for patients undergoing revascularization of their left anterior descending (LAD) coronary artery either by standard coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA), or minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (MICABG). SUMMARY BACKGROUND DATA Minimally invasive CABG has become a safe and effective alternative treatment for single-vessel coronary artery disease. However, the acceptance of this procedure as a routine alternative for the treatment of coronary artery disease will depend on both long-term graft patency rates as well as a competitive market cost. METHODS The authors conducted a retrospective analysis of three patient groups undergoing LAD coronary revascularization from January 1995 to July 1996. Ten patients were selected randomly from this period after PTCA of an LAD lesion with or without stenting. Nine patients underwent standard CABG on cardiopulmonary bypass with a left internal mammary artery. Nine patients received MICABG via a limited left anterior thoracotomy and left internal mammary artery to LAD grafting without the use of cardiopulmonary bypass. RESULTS Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (n = 10) was unsuccessful in two patients. One patient in the MICABG group (n = 9) was converted successfully to conventional CABG because of an intramyocardial LAD and dilated left ventricle. There was no operative morbidity or mortality in any group. Average length of stay postprocedure was decreased significantly for both the MICABG and PTCA groups when compared with that of conventional CABG (n = 9) (2.7 + 0.26, p = 0.009, and 2.6 + 0.54, p = 0.006, vs. 4.8 + 0.46, respectively). Total hospital costs for the MICABG and PTCA groups were significantly less when compared with those of standard CABG (

Mature pulmonary lobar transplants grow in an immature environment

10,129 + 1104, p = 0.0028, and

Some of the Properties of the Components of Drosophila ooplasm

9113 + 3,039, p = 0.0001, vs.

The Transplantation of Ovaries between Genetically Sterile and Wild Type Drosophila melanogaste

17,816 + 1043, respectively). There were no statistically significant differences between the MICABG and PTCA groups. CONCLUSIONS The final role of minimally invasive CABG is unclear. This procedure is clearly cost effective when compared with that of PTCA and conventional CABG. The long-term patency rates for MICABG will determine its overall efficacy.