Literature DB >> 24574446

Quicker yet safe: skeletonization of 1640 internal mammary arteries with harmonic technology in 965 patients.

Teresa M Kieser1, M Sarah Rose, Uthman Aluthman, Kishan Narine.   

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: Skeletonization of the internal mammary artery (IMA) facilitates arterial grafting and has been shown to reduce deep sternal infection but is more time-consuming and tedious than pedicle harvest. We wished to determine if use of harmonic technology (HT) facilitates skeletonization of the IMA and is as safe as the conventional technique of skeletonization.
METHODS: In a consecutive series of 1057 patients with isolated coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery from 2003 to 2013, adverse events and recorded harvest times were compared between harmonic (965 patients) and non-harmonic patients (86 patients).
RESULTS: HT was used to harvest 1640 IMAs in 965 (91%) of 1057 consecutive CABG patients and skeletonization with the traditional technique (use of an electrocautery tip as a dissector) was used to harvest 147 IMAs in 86 patients. Six patients had no IMA harvested with this surgery (4 patients had an IMA used from a previous CABG, 1 had no disease of the left anterior descending coronary artery and 1 patient was in cardiogenic shock precluding IMA use). Excluding patients with single-vessel disease, 730/987 (74%) of patients received bilateral IMAs. Demographics of patients with and without harmonic skeletonization, respectively, were the following: mean age: 64.7 vs 67.7 years; diabetes: 33 vs 34%; women: 21 vs 26% and median European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation: 2.9 vs 3.2. The mean harvest time for 77 non-harmonic skeletonized mammary arteries (49 surgeries) was 32.2 min (95% confidence interval (CI): 30.1, 34.3), for harmonic skeletonized arteries after 450 surgeries was 28.4 min, (95% CI: 27.8, 29.1) and in the last 100 IMAs harvested for the isolated harmonic device use/mammary was 15.4 min (95% CI: 14.0, 16.7). Major adverse events for patients with and without harmonic skeletonization, respectively, were: reoperation for bleeding: 2.7 vs 3.5% (difference = 0.8%, 95% CI: -3.2, 4.8); damaged mammaries: 0.4 vs 0.7% (difference = 0.3%, 95% CI: -1.0, 1.7); deep sternal infection: 1.6 vs 1.2% (difference = -0.4%, 95% CI: -2.8, 2.0) and perioperative infarction: 1.7 vs 2.3% (difference = 0.7%, 95% CI: -2.6, 4.0).
CONCLUSION: In this largest series to date of harmonic IMA skeletonization, this technique results in rare damage, is quicker and with a comparable adverse event rate compared with the non-harmonic method.

Entities:  

Keywords:  Bilateral internal mammary; Coronary artery bypass graft; Harmonic scalpel

Mesh:

Year:  2014        PMID: 24574446     DOI: 10.1093/ejcts/ezu024

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg        ISSN: 1010-7940            Impact factor:   4.191


  9 in total

1.  Harmonic scalpel harvest of bilateral internal thoracic arteries.

Authors:  Teresa M Kieser
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2018-09

2.  Bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting: in situ or composite?

Authors:  Hidetake Kawajiri; Juan B Grau; Jacqueline H Fortier; David Glineur
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2018-09

Review 3.  How I deploy arterial grafts.

Authors:  David P Taggart
Journal:  Ann Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2018-09

4.  How to build a multi-arterial coronary artery bypass programme: a stepwise approach.

Authors:  Mario F L Gaudino; Sigrid Sandner; Giorgia Bonalumi; Jennifer S Lawton; Stephen E Fremes
Journal:  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2020-12-01       Impact factor: 4.191

5.  Impact of skeletonized harvesting of the internal thoracic artery on intrasternal microcirculation considering preparation quality.

Authors:  Lars Saemann; Alina Zubarevich; Folker Wenzel; Jasmin Soethoff; Sivakkanan Loganathan; Sevil Korkmaz-Icöz; Matthias Karck; Gábor Szabó; Gábor Veres
Journal:  Interact Cardiovasc Thorac Surg       Date:  2021-10-29

Review 6.  Bilateral Versus Single Internal Thoracic Artery Grafts.

Authors:  Michael Persson; Ulrik Sartipy
Journal:  Curr Cardiol Rep       Date:  2018-01-23       Impact factor: 2.931

Review 7.  Minimally invasive and robotic coronary artery bypass grafting-a 25-year review.

Authors:  Johannes Bonatti; Stephanie Wallner; Ingo Crailsheim; Martin Grabenwöger; Bernhard Winkler
Journal:  J Thorac Dis       Date:  2021-03       Impact factor: 2.895

Review 8.  All we need to know about internal thoracic artery harvesting and preparation for myocardial revascularization: a systematic review.

Authors:  Matiullah Masroor; Kang Zhou; Chunyang Chen; Xianming Fu; Yuan Zhao
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2021-12-27       Impact factor: 1.637

9.  A randomized comparison of flow characteristics of semiskeletonized and pedicled internal thoracic artery preparations in coronary artery bypass.

Authors:  Opas Satdhabudha; Narupa Noppawinyoowong
Journal:  J Cardiothorac Surg       Date:  2017-05-16       Impact factor: 1.637

  9 in total

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.