Thomas F. Flavin

Safety and efficacy of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting

BACKGROUND We evaluated the application of the off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) procedure relative to safety and efficiency as measured by operative mortality postoperative complications and longitudinal outcome. METHODS Three hundred and fifty OPCAB patients were compared to 3,171 on-pump or conventional coronary artery bypass (CCAB) patients between January 1, 1997 and December 31, 1998. The groups were divided into three preoperative predicted risk categories: low-risk (0 to 2.59%), medium-risk (2.6 to 9.9%), and high-risk (> or =10%). Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Cardiac Surgery Database definitions and predicted risk group models were utilized to compare all preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative variables using univariate analysis. RESULTS Overall comparison of the immediate outcome of CCAB and OPCAB shows little statistical significance in the variables analyzed. The operative mortality was 3.4% in both groups. When the immediate outcome was compared between groups (CCAB vs OPCAB), as well as individual risk groups (low, medium, and high), similar patterns of operative variables and postoperative complications were observed. The operative mortality in the low-risk group was 1.1% for CCAB and 1.4% for OPCAB; 7% for CCAB and 6% for OPCAB in the medium-risk group; and in the high-risk group 28.5% for CCAB compared to 7.7% for OPCAB group (p = 0.008). Short-term follow-up shows a trend of increased recurring angina and reinterventional procedures in the OPCAB patients. CONCLUSIONS Safety for OPCAB is assessed through retrospective data review. Longitudinal follow-up for survival, reintervention, and quality of postoperative document efficacy and patency rates, compared to on-pump procedures, is mandatory. This study documented the immediate safety of the OPCAB procedure. Preliminary findings at 1-year follow-up is an important finding in this study, but it is not conclusive at this time. Long-term longitudinal follow-up is required to assess the future effectiveness of OPCAB.

Does multivessel, off-pump coronary artery bypass reduce postoperative morbidity?

BACKGROUND Off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) is an emerging procedure. It is assumed that elimination of cardiopulmonary bypass for coronary artery bypass grafting has the potential for reducing postoperative morbidity. This review evaluates the safety and impact of multivessel OPCABG as compared to CABG. METHODS A retrospective review of 744 patients undergoing multivessel coronary artery bypass between January 1, 1997, and March 31, 1999, was done. The total population was divided into two groups: group A (n = 609 cardiopulmonary bypass) and group B (n = 135 OPCAB). This consecutive study cohort was elective status, full sternotomy with three or more distal anastomoses performed at a single institution. RESULTS The mean risk adjusted predicted mortality was 2.3% in group A and 2.7% in group B (p = NS), with the mean number of distal anastomosis being greater in group A (3.8 vs 3.5/patient, p < 0.001). Major postoperative complications were similar but were not statistically significant between groups. Postoperative blood loss and use of blood transfusions were the only significant variables (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS Multivessel OPCABG can be safely performed in selected patients. Elimination of cardiopulmonary bypass did not significantly reduce postoperative morbidity. Prospective randomized trials and long-term follow-up are needed to better define patient selection and the role of OPCABG.

A review of 1,582 consecutive Octopus off-pump coronary bypass patients

BACKGROUND Off-pump coronary bypass may provide a safer form of surgical revascularization by avoiding the unwanted complications of cardiopulmonary bypass, particularly in the increasingly complex patients being referred for operation. This study reviews the entire experience of the Medtronic Octopus System (Medtronic, Minneapolis, MN) for beating heart bypass from 7 surgeons. Demographics, operative procedures, early outcomes, and trends in usage were examined. METHODS Patients were selected for off-pump procedures by the individual surgeons. Data were entered prospectively into locally maintained databases and then collected for collation and analysis. RESULTS A total of 1,582 consecutive Octopus patients were entered, representing the entire Octopus experience of each surgeon. Proportions of off-pump procedures relative to standard bypass increased over time, as did the percentage of patients receiving three or more grafts, 24.6% in 1997 and 55.9% in 1999. A total of 3,653 anastomoses were performed, 1,905 to the left anterior descending system, 837 to the circumflex distribution, and 911 to the right coronary territory. Morbidity was low. Few patients required conversion to cardiopulmonary bypass (2.6%; 0.2% urgently). Permanent stroke occurred in 0.6% and myocardial infarction in 1.2%. Operative mortality was 1%. CONCLUSIONS Octopus off-pump bypass was demonstrated to be a safe procedure with widening applicability. With experience surgeons tend to apply the system to increasing proportions of their patients and are able to revascularize all coronary territories.

Is low ejection fraction safe for off-pump coronary bypass operation?

BACKGROUND Does the manipulation of the heart during off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) procedure further compromise the hemodynamic stability of a patient with depressed left ventricular function compared with the conventional coronary artery bypass (CCAB) approach? Does this manipulation induce a more dramatic hypoperfused state that may contribute to an increase in the incidence of related complications or mortality? This retrospective review of data attempted to answer the above concern. METHODS Between January 1, 1998, and June 30, 1999, 177 patients with ejection fractions of 30% or less underwent full sternotomy coronary artery bypass grafting at our institution. Of these patients, 45 underwent OPCAB procedures and 132 patients underwent CCAB. Pre-, intra-, and postoperative variables as identified by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Cardiac Surgery Database were compared using univariate and logistical regression analysis. RESULTS Despite recognized hemodynamic derangement during cardiac displacement, these groups of OPCAB patients appeared to tolerate the procedure well. Univariate analysis of cardiac enzyme leak and blood loss was statistically significant in the OPCAB patients. Utilizing regression analysis, cardiopulmonary bypass was the only predictor for all postoperative complications. CONCLUSIONS Multivessel coronary artery bypass utilizing the OPCAB approach in patients with depressed left ventricular function of equal to or less than 30% is appropriate and applicable. Analysis of CCAB and OPCAB variables was nonsignificant except for operative and postoperative blood loss and peak cardiac enzyme leak. Attention to intraoperative detail and hemodynamic management could be credited for the success with OPCAB.

Clinical, Angiographic, and Interventional Follow-Up of Patients With Aortic-Saphenous Vein Graft Connectors

Background—The use of aortic connectors for proximal saphenous vein bypass graft anastomoses eliminates the need for aortic clamping during coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and may reduce the incidence of stroke in the elderly and in patients with severe aortic atherosclerosis. Methods and Results—We studied 74 consecutive patients who received the Symmetry Bypass System aortic connector at the time of CABG. A total of 131 of 144 proximal vein graft anastomoses were performed with this device. The left internal mammary artery was used in 62 patients, and 61 patients had “off-pump” coronary revascularization. A total of 11 patients were readmitted with chest pain consistent with unstable angina 173±39 days after CABG. Five of the 11 patients had previous in-stent restenosis before CABG. At angiography, 20 saphenous vein bypass grafts containing 19 connectors were found to have severe stenosis (n=12) or occlusion (n=6) and were treated with angioplasty and stenting or medical therapy. Seven of 11 patients were readmitted 76±11 days later with recurrent chest pain and were found to have severe stenosis at the previously stented connector site. Six patients underwent angioplasty followed by brachytherapy. Three of these patients redeveloped chest pain and were readmitted 151±71 days later. Two patients were started on oral Rapamune, and one patient underwent redo-CABG. Conclusion—Eleven of 74 patients who received aortic connectors at the time of CABG developed symptomatically significant stenosis or occlusion at the connector site shortly after CABG, requiring multiple repeat interventions, including brachytherapy.

Cost-effectiveness of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass surgery

BACKGROUND Coronary artery bypass grafting without cardiopulmonary bypass is gaining popularity as an alternative to conventional on-pump technique for myocardial revascularization. This includes minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) and full sternotomy off-pump (OPCAB) methods. These two approaches should be evaluated for financial and clinical appropriateness. METHODS Records of patients who had single or double bypass (internal mammary artery and/or saphenous vein) grafts between January 1997 and June 1998 were reviewed. These included 44 MIDCAB, 62 OPCAB, and 243 conventional coronary artery bypass (CCAB) patients. Univariate analysis was applied to pre, intra, and postoperative variables, comparing MIDCAB and OPCAB to the CCAB group. Procedural cost information was obtained from participating institutions. RESULTS MIDCAB patients compared to CCAB patients had a higher predicted risk (5.4+/-11 versus 2.3+/-2.8, p = 0.012) and OPCAB patients had a predicted risk of 5.3+/-7.8. MIDCAB and OPCAB procedures required less operating room time and blood utilization. Observed operative mortality rates were MIDCAB 4.5%, OPCAB 1.6%, and CCAB 2.8% (not significant). Mean hospital costs were CCAB at

Multidisciplinary Standardized Care for Acute Aortic Dissection Design and Initial Outcomes of a Regional Care Model

19,000, OPCAB at

Revascularization using angioplasty and minimally invasive techniques documented by thermal imaging

15,000, and

Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass grafting : Experimental and clinical experiences

17,000 for MIDCAB. CONCLUSIONS Off pump procedures currently reflect acute episode-of-care cost savings over CCAB.

OPCAB surgery : a critical review of two different categories of pre-operative ejection fraction

> “No physician can diagnose a condition he never thinks about.” > > — Michael DeBakey Patients with acute aortic dissection (AAD) have an in-hospital mortality of 26%, and for those patients with type A AAD, the mortality risk is 1% to 2% per hour until emergency surgical repair is performed.1,2 It is therefore critical that AAD be recognized promptly and that surgical care be provided expeditiously. Data from the International Registry of Acute Aortic Dissection (IRAD) indicate that the median time from emergency department (ED) presentation to definitive diagnosis of AAD is 4.3 hours, with an additional 4 hours between diagnosis and surgical intervention for type A patients.2,3 A portion of the delay to surgery is often the result of the patients presenting to smaller community hospitals underequipped to manage emergent AAD. Transfer to high-volume aortic care centers with highly specialized facilities and expertise is routine, but even at such centers, current surgical mortality is 25%.4 In an effort to address factors that delay AAD recognition and optimal management, a standardized, quality-improvement protocol for the regional treatment of AAD was developed and implemented with the goal of providing consistent, integrated, and coordinated care for patients with AAD throughout all phases of care. Modeled, in part, after a successful regional program for ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction,5, the specific aims of the program were to decrease the time from hospital arrival to diagnosis and treatment and to improve clinical outcomes for patients with AAD. A collaborative team designed program elements directed at (1) increasing awareness and knowledge of AAD among emergency care providers, (2) standardizing optimal care for AAD through the use of a formal protocol, (3) improving care coordination and communication across disciplines, and (4) providing …