scholarly journals Recycling thoracic arteries for redo coronary artery bypass grafting: Long-term follow-up

2007 ◽  
Vol 134 (1) ◽  
pp. 233-235 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marco Agrifoglio ◽  
Fabio Barili ◽  
Alessandro Parolari ◽  
Eleonora Penza ◽  
Matteo Trezzi ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting ◽  
Coronary Artery Bypass ◽  
Artery Bypass ◽  
Bypass Grafting ◽  
Artery Bypass Grafting ◽  
Long Term Follow Up

Long-term Follow-up After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Reoperation

CHEST Journal ◽  
1999 ◽  
Vol 115 (6) ◽  
pp. 1593-1597 ◽  
Author(s):  
Itzhak Shapira ◽  
Aharon Isakov ◽  
Israel Heller ◽  
Marcel Topilsky ◽  
Amos Pines
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting ◽  
Coronary Artery Bypass ◽  
Artery Bypass ◽  
Bypass Grafting ◽  
Artery Bypass Grafting ◽  
Long Term Follow Up

scholarly journals Long-Term Follow-Up of Device-Assisted Clampless Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Compared with Conventional On-Pump Technique

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
pp. 275
Author(s):  
Carlo Bassano ◽  
Paolo Nardi ◽  
Dario Buioni ◽  
Laura Asta ◽  
Calogera Pisano ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting ◽  
Coronary Artery Bypass ◽  
Artery Bypass ◽  
P Value ◽  
Bypass Grafting ◽  
Artery Bypass Grafting ◽  
Long Term Follow Up

Study objective: To evaluate the long-term outcomes of clampless off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (C-OPCAB) compared with conventional on-pump double clamping coronary artery bypass grafting (C-CABG). Methods: From October 2006 to December 2011, 366 patients underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting. After propensity score matching of preoperative variables, 143 pairs were selected who received C-OPCAB with the use of device-assisted PAS-Port proximal venous graft anastomoses or C-CABG, performed by the same surgeon experienced in both techniques. Data of the two groups of patients were retrospectively analyzed up to 14 years of follow-up. Results: As compared with C-OPCAB, in the C-CABG patients, the performed number of grafts per patient was higher (2.9 ± 0.5 vs. 2.6 ± 0.6, p-value 0.0001). At 14 years, overall survival, including in-hospital death, was 64 ± 4.7% for the C-OPCAB vs. 55 ± 5.5% for the C-CABG, freedom from overall MACCEs 51 ± 6.2% vs. 41 ± 7.7%, and from late cardiac death 94 ± 2.4% vs. 96 ± 2.2% (p-value not significant, for all comparisons). No significant statistical differences were observed in the actual rates of adverse events during follow-up. Independent predictors of survival were advanced age at operation (p-value 0.001) and a lower mean value of preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction (p-value 0.015). Conclusions: Our single-center study analysis suggests that clampless OPCAB using device-assisted proximal anastomoses proved to be not inferior to double-clamping CABG in the long-term follow-up, provided that involved surgeons are familiar with both techniques. These conclusions are supported by a large and long-term follow-up period, eliminating potential bias, i.e., by means of the propensity score matching and analyzing single-surgeon experience.

Clinical markers, management, and long-term follow-up of early ischemia after coronary artery bypass grafting

1995 ◽  
Vol 76 (12) ◽  
pp. 967-970
Author(s):  
Carlos X. Pimentel ◽  
Srinivas N. Paranandi ◽  
David M. Goodhart ◽  
Shelly K. Sapp ◽  
Bruce W. Lytle ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting ◽  
Coronary Artery Bypass ◽  
Artery Bypass ◽  
Bypass Grafting ◽  
Clinical Markers ◽  
Artery Bypass Grafting ◽  
Long Term Follow Up

scholarly journals Can double internal thoracic artery grafts affect 10-year outcomes after coronary artery bypass grafting?

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (Supplement_2) ◽  
Author(s):  
F Barili ◽  
P D'Errigo ◽  
S Rosato ◽  
F Biancari ◽  
M D'Ovidio ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Coronary Artery ◽  
Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting ◽  
Coronary Artery Bypass ◽  
Internal Thoracic Artery ◽  
Artery Bypass ◽  
Bypass Grafting ◽  
Artery Bypass Grafting ◽  
Percutaneous Cardiac Intervention

Abstract Background The advantages of the employment of double internal thoracic artery grafts (BITA) for coronary artery bypass grafting have been recently questioned and no data on long-term follow-up are available. This observational retrospective cohort study was designed by the PRIORITY planning committee to evaluate 10-year follow-up of isolated CABG performed with and without BITA in order to clarify and consolidate the contrasting literature. Methods The PRIORITY project was designed to evaluate the long-term outcomes of 2 large prospective multicenter cohort studies on CABG conducted between 2002–2004 and 2007–2008. Data on isolated CABG were linked to 2 administrative datasets. Time-to-event distributions were separately analyzed accordingly to primary event-type (death, MACEs), using Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression. Results The population consisted of 11021 patients who underwent isolated CABG that were divided into development and validation datasets; double thoracic internal artery grafts was employed in 24.6%. The median follow-up time was 8 years (interquartile range 7.6–10 years) and was 100% complete. After adjustment for potential confounding factors, BITA was significantly associated with better survival (HR 0.85, 95% CI 0.76–0.95, p=0.003). Moreover, the employment of BITA reduced the incidence of MACEs at follow-up (adjusted HR 0.87, 95% CI 0.80–0.94, p=0.001). In details, BITA was demonstrated to be a protective factor for acute myocardial infarction (adjusted HR 0.84, 95% CI 0.71–0.99, p=0.05) and for rehospitalization for percutaneous cardiac intervention (PCI; adjusted HR 0.82, 95% CI 0.70–0.96, p=0.013). Conclusions The employment of double internal thoracic artery grafts for coronary artery bypass grafting has been associated to survival advantage at 10-year. Moreover, it significantly decreased the incidence of acute myocardial infarction and rehospitalization for percutaneous cardiac intervention. Funding Acknowledgement Type of funding source: Public grant(s) – National budget only. Main funding source(s): Italian Minister of Health

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document