| Literature DB >> 31364343 |
Dinçer Uysal1, Şenol Gülmen1, Hayrettin Özkan1, Ulaş Sağlam1, Mustafa Etli1, Sema Bircan2, Recep Sütçü3, Turhan Yavuz1, Hakan Öntaş1, Fatih Aksoy4.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To examine the effects of classical technique, electrocautery, and ultrasonic dissection on endothelial integrity, function, and preparation time for harvesting the radial artery (RA) during coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).Entities:
Keywords: Coronary Artery Bypass; Drainage; Electrocoagulation; Nitric Oxide; Radial Artery; Staining and Labeling; Vascular Cell Adhesion Molecular
Mesh:
Substances:
Year: 2019 PMID: 31364343 PMCID: PMC6894033 DOI: 10.21470/1678-9741-2018-0311
Source DB: PubMed Journal: Braz J Cardiovasc Surg ISSN: 0102-7638
Patients’ demographic and clinical characteristics.
| Variables | Group 1 (n=15) | Group 2 (n=15) | Group 3 (n=15) | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Sex, males/females | 11-4 | 12-3 | 11-4 | 0.886 | |
| Age, years | 61.7±7 (range, 45-71) | 57.3±9.6 (range, 45-77) | 60 & #x00b1; 6.6 (range, 53-74) | 0.519 | |
| Comorbiditiy, N (%) | Hypertension | 9 (60.0) | 7 (46.7) | 11 (73.3) | 0.329 |
| Diabetes mellitus | 11 (73.3) | 10 (66.7) | 9 (60.0) | 0.748 | |
| Dyslipidemia | 10 (66.7) | 8 (53.3) | 12 (80.0) | 0.301 | |
| Alcohol | 1 (6.7) | 2 (13.3) | 1 (6.7) | 0.760 | |
| Smoker | 8 (53.3) | 7 (46.7) | 6 (40.0) | 0.464 | |
| Coronary artery disease | 0.649 | ||||
| 2-vessel disease | 3 | 2 | 4 | ||
| 3-vessel disease | 12 | 13 | 11 |
Statistical analysis of immunohistochemical scores and values between the groups.
| Immunohistochemical technique | Group 1 | Group 2 | Group 3 | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| - | + | ++ | Mean score | - | + | ++ | Mean score | - | + | ++ | Mean score | ||
| ICAM-1 (n) | 10 | 4 | 1 | - | 11 | 3 | 1 | - | 9 | 5 | 1 | - | 0.556 |
| eNOS (n) | 11 | 3 | 1 | - | 10 | 4 | 1 | - | 9 | 5 | 1 | - | 0.977 |
Immunohistochemical findings were graded as follows: A score of 0 was assigned to (-) indicating no endothelial staining; a score of 1 was assigned to (+) indicating faint staining across the entire endothelium, staining was seen at 10´ zoom under a light microscope; and a score of 2 was assigned to (++) indicating marked staining across the entire endothelium, staining was seen even at 4´ zoom under a light microscope.
ICAM-1=intracellular adhesion strength molecule 1; eNOS=endothelial nitric oxide synthetase
Fig. 1Endothelial nitric oxide synthetase (eNOS) of patient no. 17 (in the electrocautery group) ++ endothelial damage (eNOS immunohistochemical staining of the transverse section taken from the radial artery sample) (eNOS immunoreactivity in endothelial cells ++) (40×).
Fig. 2Endothelial nitric oxide synthetase (eNOS) of patient no. 22 (in the sharp dissection group) + endothelial damage (eNOS immunohistochemical staining of the transverse section taken from the radial artery sample) (eNOS immunoreactivity in endothelial cells +) (10×).
Fig. 3Intracellular adhesion strength molecule (ICAM) of patient no. 30 (in the ultrasonic cautery group) – endothelial damage (ICAM immunohistochemical staining of the transverse section taken from the radial artery sample) (ICAM immunoreactivity in endothelial cells -) (4×).
Fig. 4Distribution of length-time ratio between the groups.
Group 1=classical method (using sharp dissection); Group 2=electrocautery; Group 3=ultrasonic cautery
Fig. 5Distribution of 24-hour drainage amount between the groups.
Group 1=classical method (using sharp dissection); Group 2=electrocautery; Group 3= ultrasonic cautery
Fig. 6Distribution of 48-hour drainage amount between the groups.
Group 1=classical method (using sharp dissection); Group 2=electrocautery; Group 3=ultrasonic cautery
| Abbreviations, acronyms & symbols | |
|---|---|
| CABG | = Coronary artery bypass grafting |
| ELISA | = Enzyme-linked immunosorbent assay |
| eNOS | |
| ICAM-1 | = Intracellular adhesion strength molecule 1 |
| IHC | = Immunohistochemical |
| RA | = Radial artery |
| SPSS | = Statistical Package for the Social Sciences |
| VCAM-1 | = Vascular cell adhesion molecule 1 |
| Authors’ roles & responsibilities | |
|---|---|
| DU | Substantial contributions to the conception or design of the work; or the acquisition, analysis, or interpretation of data for the work; final approval of the version to be published |
| SG | Article review; final approval of the version to be published |
| HO | Article review; final approval of the version to be published |
| US | Article review; final approval of the version to be published |
| ME | Article review; final approval of the version to be published |
| SB | Pathological analysis; final approval of the version to be published |
| RS | Biochemical analysis; final approval of the version to be published |
| TY | Conception and design of the project; data collection; discussion of results; article review; final approval of the version to be published |
| HO | Article review; final approval of the version to be published |
| FA | Conception and design of the project; data collection; discussion of results; article review; final approval of the version to be published |