Literature DB >> 11276489

Comparison of MIDCAP versus conventional CABG surgery regarding pain and quality of life.

A Diegeler1, T Walther, S Metz, V Falk, R Krakor, R Autschbach, F W Mohr.   

Abstract

BACKGROUND: This prospective clinical trial focuses on pain and quality of life (QOL) after minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) grafting versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).
METHODS: Group A consisted of 65 consecutive MIDCAB patients using an anterolateral mini-thoracotomy and the "off-pump" technique. Group B consisted of 95 computer-matched patients who underwent conventional CABG with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Pain was graduated using the visual analog scale (VAS), and the verbal rating scale (VRS) [Troidl 1990]. QOL was evaluated at the time of discharge and three months after surgery using modified Nottingham Health Questionnaires that separate physical, social, activity, emotional, pain, and sleeping conditions.
RESULTS: Postoperative pain was higher after MIDCAB on postoperative day (POD) 1 (p< 0.002). From POD 4 onwards MIDCAB patients had less pain compared with the conventional group (p<0.04). MIDCAB patients required less pain medication from POD 4 onwards (p<0.05). QOL was significantly better in the MIDCAB group on POD 7 for physical (p< 0.038), activity (p< 0.016), pain (p< 0.041), and sleep (p<0.038) conditions. The three-month questionnaire showed significantly better levels for MIDCAB patients regarding physical (p< 0.03) and pain (p< 0.001) conditions, and a trend for activity (p< 0.08) and emotional (p<0.08) conditions.
CONCLUSION: Compared to patients undergoing conventional surgery, MIDCAB patients suffer more pain in the first three postoperative days, probably as a result of the lateral thoracotomy. From POD 4 onwards, MIDCAB patients are significantly better, experiencing less pain and showing better physical, activity, and sleeping conditions even three months after surgery. This can be attributed to the absence of median sternotomy and/or the avoidance of cardiopulmonary bypass.

Entities:  

Mesh:

Year:  1999        PMID: 11276489

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Heart Surg Forum        ISSN: 1098-3511            Impact factor:   0.676


  9 in total

Review 1.  Meta-analysis of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass versus drug-eluting stents for isolated left anterior descending coronary artery disease.

Authors:  Ralf E Harskamp; Judson B Williams; Michael E Halkos; Renato D Lopes; Jan G P Tijssen; T Bruce Ferguson; Robbert J de Winter
Journal:  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg       Date:  2014-03-20       Impact factor: 5.209

2.  Minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass versus off-pump coronary surgery through sternotomy.

Authors:  R Birla; P Patel; G Aresu; G Asimakopoulos
Journal:  Ann R Coll Surg Engl       Date:  2013-10       Impact factor: 1.891

3.  Health Status Benefits of Transcatheter vs Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement in Patients With Severe Aortic Stenosis at Intermediate Surgical Risk: Results From the PARTNER 2 Randomized Clinical Trial.

Authors:  Suzanne J Baron; Suzanne V Arnold; Kaijun Wang; Elizabeth A Magnuson; Khaja Chinnakondepali; Raj Makkar; Howard C Herrmann; Susheel Kodali; Vinod H Thourani; Samir Kapadia; Lars Svensson; David L Brown; Michael J Mack; Craig R Smith; Martin B Leon; David J Cohen
Journal:  JAMA Cardiol       Date:  2017-08-01       Impact factor: 14.676

Review 4.  Minimally invasive surgery or stenting for left anterior descending artery disease - meta-analysis.

Authors:  Monica Gianoli; Anne R de Jong; Kirolos A Jacob; Hanae F Namba; Niels P van der Kaaij; Pim van der Harst; Willem J L Suyker
Journal:  Int J Cardiol Heart Vasc       Date:  2022-05-10

5.  Quality of life and coping following minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (MIDCAB) surgery.

Authors:  J Wray; S Al-Ruzzeh; W Mazrani; K Nakamura; S George; C Ilsley; M Amrani
Journal:  Qual Life Res       Date:  2004-06       Impact factor: 4.147

6.  Minimally invasive compared to conventional approach for coronary artery bypass grafting improves outcome.

Authors:  Jitumoni Baishya; Antony George; Jayaprakash Krishnamoorthy; Geetha Muniraju; Murali Chakravarthy
Journal:  Ann Card Anaesth       Date:  2017 Jan-Mar

7.  Perioperative outcomes in minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass versus off-pump coronary artery bypass with sternotomy.

Authors:  Ali İhsan Tekin; Ümit Arslan
Journal:  Wideochir Inne Tech Maloinwazyjne       Date:  2017-05-12       Impact factor: 1.195

8.  The Likert scale is a powerful tool for quality of life assessment among patients after minimally invasive coronary surgery.

Authors:  Łukasz J Krzych; Małgorzata Lach; Michał Joniec; Marek Cisowski; Andrzej Bochenek
Journal:  Kardiochir Torakochirurgia Pol       Date:  2018-06-25

Review 9.  Minimally Invasive Coronary Revascularisation Surgery: A Focused Review of the Available Literature.

Authors:  Karel M Van Praet; Markus Kofler; Timo Z Nazari Shafti; Alaa Abd El Al; Antonia van Kampen; Andrea Amabile; Gianluca Torregrossa; Jörg Kempfert; Volkmar Falk; Husam H Balkhy; Stephan Jacobs
Journal:  Interv Cardiol       Date:  2021-05-19
  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.