-
Je něco špatně v tomto záznamu ?
Porovnání minimální extrakorporální cirkulace a aortokoronárního bypassu bez použití mimotělního oběhu
[Prospective randomized comparison of coronary bypass grafting with minimal extracorporeal circulation system (MECC) versus off-pump coronary surgery]
Mazzei V, et al.
Jazyk čeština Země Česko
- MeSH
- analýza přežití MeSH
- interleukin-6 krev MeSH
- kardiopulmonální bypass metody mortalita MeSH
- koronární bypass bez mimotělního oběhu mortalita MeSH
- koronární bypass metody mortalita MeSH
- kreatinkinasa krev MeSH
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mimotělní oběh metody mortalita MeSH
- následné studie MeSH
- nemoci koronárních tepen chirurgie mortalita MeSH
- pooperační komplikace mortalita MeSH
- prospektivní studie MeSH
- proteiny S100 krev MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- Check Tag
- lidé středního věku MeSH
- lidé MeSH
- mužské pohlaví MeSH
- senioři MeSH
- ženské pohlaví MeSH
We aimed to evaluate the clinical results and biocompatibility of the minimal extracorporeal circulation system (MECC) compared with off-pump coronary revascularization (OPCABG). METHODS AND RESULTS: In a prospective randomized study, 150 patients underwent coronary surgery with the use of MECC and 150 underwent OPCABG. End points were (1) circulating markers of inflammation and organ injury, (2) operative results, and (3) outcome at 1-year follow-up. Operative mortality and morbidity were comparable between the groups. Release of inflammatory markers was similar between groups at all time points (peak interleukin-6 167.2+/-13.5 versus 181+/-6.5 pg/mL, P=0.14, OPCABG versus MECC group, respectively). Peak creatine kinase was 419.3+/-103.5 versus 326+/-84.2 mg/dL (P=0.28), and peak S-100 protein was 0.13+/-0.08 versus 0.29+/-0.1 pg/mL (P=0.058, OPCABG versus MECC group, respectively). Length of hospital stay and use of blood products were similar between groups. Two cases of angina recurrence at 1 year in the MECC group were observed versus 5 cases observed in the OPCABG group (P=0.44). A residual perfusion defect at myocardial nuclear scan was less frequent among patients in the MECC group (3 versus 9 cases, P=0.14; odds ratio 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 1.32). Six (OPCABG group) versus 3 (MECC group) coronary grafts were occluded or severely stenotic at 1 year (P=0.33, odds ratio 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.09 to 2.14). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical results of coronary revascularization with MECC are optimal when this procedure is performed by experienced teams. Postoperative morbidity is comparable to that with OPCABG. MECC is associated with little pump-related systemic and organ injury. It may achieve the benefits of OPCABG (less morbidity in high-risk patients) while facilitating complete revascularization in the case of complex lesions unsuitable for OPCABG.
Prospective randomized comparison of coronary bypass grafting with minimal extracorporeal circulation system (MECC) versus off-pump coronary surgery
- 000
- 04151naa 2200481 a 4500
- 001
- bmc07506375
- 003
- CZ-PrNML
- 005
- 20111210122606.0
- 008
- 080708s2008 xr e cze||
- 009
- AR
- 040 __
- $a ABA008 $b cze $c ABA008 $d ABA008 $e AACR2
- 041 0_
- $a cze $b eng
- 044 __
- $a xr
- 100 1_
- $a Mazzei, V.
- 245 10
- $a Porovnání minimální extrakorporální cirkulace a aortokoronárního bypassu bez použití mimotělního oběhu / $c Mazzei V, et al.
- 246 11
- $a Prospective randomized comparison of coronary bypass grafting with minimal extracorporeal circulation system (MECC) versus off-pump coronary surgery
- 314 __
- $a Division of Cardiac Surgery, Ospedale Papardo, Messina
- 520 9_
- $a We aimed to evaluate the clinical results and biocompatibility of the minimal extracorporeal circulation system (MECC) compared with off-pump coronary revascularization (OPCABG). METHODS AND RESULTS: In a prospective randomized study, 150 patients underwent coronary surgery with the use of MECC and 150 underwent OPCABG. End points were (1) circulating markers of inflammation and organ injury, (2) operative results, and (3) outcome at 1-year follow-up. Operative mortality and morbidity were comparable between the groups. Release of inflammatory markers was similar between groups at all time points (peak interleukin-6 167.2+/-13.5 versus 181+/-6.5 pg/mL, P=0.14, OPCABG versus MECC group, respectively). Peak creatine kinase was 419.3+/-103.5 versus 326+/-84.2 mg/dL (P=0.28), and peak S-100 protein was 0.13+/-0.08 versus 0.29+/-0.1 pg/mL (P=0.058, OPCABG versus MECC group, respectively). Length of hospital stay and use of blood products were similar between groups. Two cases of angina recurrence at 1 year in the MECC group were observed versus 5 cases observed in the OPCABG group (P=0.44). A residual perfusion defect at myocardial nuclear scan was less frequent among patients in the MECC group (3 versus 9 cases, P=0.14; odds ratio 0.32, 95% confidence interval 0.07 to 1.32). Six (OPCABG group) versus 3 (MECC group) coronary grafts were occluded or severely stenotic at 1 year (P=0.33, odds ratio 0.47, 95% confidence interval 0.09 to 2.14). CONCLUSIONS: Clinical results of coronary revascularization with MECC are optimal when this procedure is performed by experienced teams. Postoperative morbidity is comparable to that with OPCABG. MECC is associated with little pump-related systemic and organ injury. It may achieve the benefits of OPCABG (less morbidity in high-risk patients) while facilitating complete revascularization in the case of complex lesions unsuitable for OPCABG.
- 650 _2
- $a senioři $7 D000368
- 650 _2
- $a kardiopulmonální bypass $x metody $x mortalita $7 D002315
- 650 _2
- $a koronární bypass $x metody $x mortalita $7 D001026
- 650 _2
- $a koronární bypass bez mimotělního oběhu $x mortalita $7 D047549
- 650 _2
- $a nemoci koronárních tepen $x chirurgie $x mortalita $7 D003324
- 650 _2
- $a kreatinkinasa $x krev $7 D003402
- 650 _2
- $a mimotělní oběh $x metody $x mortalita $7 D005112
- 650 _2
- $a ženské pohlaví $7 D005260
- 650 _2
- $a následné studie $7 D005500
- 650 _2
- $a lidé $7 D006801
- 650 _2
- $a interleukin-6 $x krev $7 D015850
- 650 _2
- $a mužské pohlaví $7 D008297
- 650 _2
- $a lidé středního věku $7 D008875
- 650 _2
- $a pooperační komplikace $x mortalita $7 D011183
- 650 _2
- $a prospektivní studie $7 D011446
- 650 _2
- $a proteiny S100 $x krev $7 D009418
- 650 _2
- $a analýza přežití $7 D016019
- 773 0_
- $w MED00012706 $t Clinical cardiology alert $g Roč. 2, č. 1 (2008), s. 3 $x 1213-2586
- 910 __
- $a ABA008 $b B 2242 $c 407 a $y 1
- 990 __
- $a 20080708110723 $b ABA008
- 991 __
- $a 20080708131304 $b ABA008
- 999 __
- $a ok $b bmc $g 622000 $s 474433
- BAS __
- $a 3
- BMC __
- $a 2008 $b 2 $c 1 $d 3 $i 1213-2586 $m Clinical Cardiology Alert $x MED00012706
- LZP __
- $a 2008-7/mkme