BACKGROUND: Left ventricle dysfunction and co-morbidities are responsible for a large number of complications after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. The best strategy for these patients, including the use or not and type of extracorporeal circulation (ECC), the use of minimized ECC (MECC), or conventional ECC (CECC), remains unclear. The aim of the present study was to investigate the potential effect of on-pump beating-heart (OPBH) surgery with the help of MECC for CABG in patients with a high-risk EuroSCORE and to compare this strategy to three other different procedures, including OPCAB and MECC or CECC with cardiac arrest. METHODS: Patients were included if their EuroSCORE was strictly >" xbd="1427" xhg="1404" ybd="1477" yhg="1440"/>9. Four groups were retrospectively compared: an OPCAB, an OPBH, a MECC and a CECC group under cardiac arrest. RESULTS: 214 patients, mean age 74.26 ± 8.5 years, 68.7% male, were operated. Mean EuroSCORE was 12.1 ± 2.9, left ventricular (LV) function 37.4 ± 12.3%, recent myocardial infarction (MI) 49.5%, renal failure 48.1%, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) 42.2%, and peripheral vascular disease (PVD) 55.6%. Mean number of grafts per patient was 2.4 ± 0.7. Our study showed that it was possible, in very high-risk patients, to carry out revascularisation with OPBH similar to that using MECC or CECC under cardiac arrest (p=NS). This technique reduces troponin release (3.23 vs 6.56, p<0.01), postoperative myocardial complications (2% vs 8%, p<0.01), cardiotonic drug prescription (15.7% vs 31.3%, p<0.01), ventilation time (4.57H vs 6.48H, p<0.01) and length of stay (LOS) in ICU (2.16 vs 2.53, p=0.02). CONCLUSION: The OPBH method seems to be safe, secure and effective in this population of very high-risk patients, reducing early complications and multi-organ failure. OPBH surgery, combining MECC without aortic cross-clamping, makes it possible to perform complete revascularization and is an interesting alternative for CABG in high-risk patients.
BACKGROUND:Left ventricle dysfunction and co-morbidities are responsible for a large number of complications after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. The best strategy for these patients, including the use or not and type of extracorporeal circulation (ECC), the use of minimized ECC (MECC), or conventional ECC (CECC), remains unclear. The aim of the present study was to investigate the potential effect of on-pump beating-heart (OPBH) surgery with the help of MECC for CABG in patients with a high-risk EuroSCORE and to compare this strategy to three other different procedures, including OPCAB and MECC or CECC with cardiac arrest. METHODS:Patients were included if their EuroSCORE was strictly >" xbd="1427" xhg="1404" ybd="1477" yhg="1440"/>9. Four groups were retrospectively compared: an OPCAB, an OPBH, a MECC and a CECC group under cardiac arrest. RESULTS: 214 patients, mean age 74.26 ± 8.5 years, 68.7% male, were operated. Mean EuroSCORE was 12.1 ± 2.9, left ventricular (LV) function 37.4 ± 12.3%, recent myocardial infarction (MI) 49.5%, renal failure 48.1%, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) 42.2%, and peripheral vascular disease (PVD) 55.6%. Mean number of grafts per patient was 2.4 ± 0.7. Our study showed that it was possible, in very high-risk patients, to carry out revascularisation with OPBH similar to that using MECC or CECC under cardiac arrest (p=NS). This technique reduces troponin release (3.23 vs 6.56, p<0.01), postoperative myocardial complications (2% vs 8%, p<0.01), cardiotonic drug prescription (15.7% vs 31.3%, p<0.01), ventilation time (4.57H vs 6.48H, p<0.01) and length of stay (LOS) in ICU (2.16 vs 2.53, p=0.02). CONCLUSION: The OPBH method seems to be safe, secure and effective in this population of very high-risk patients, reducing early complications and multi-organ failure. OPBH surgery, combining MECC without aortic cross-clamping, makes it possible to perform complete revascularization and is an interesting alternative for CABG in high-risk patients.