Download PDF
Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 2001; 49(3): 144-148
DOI: 10.1055/s-2001-14290
Original Cardiovascular
Original Paper
© Georg Thieme Verlag Stuttgart · New York

Re-OPCAB vs. Re-CABG for Myocardial Revascularization[*]

A. Schütz1 , H. Mair1 , S. M. Wildhirt1 , G. Gillrath1 , P. Lamm1 , E. Kilger2 , B. Reichart1
  • 1Department of Cardiac Surgery, Herzklinik am Augustinum
  • 2Institute for Anesthesiology, University of Munich, Germany
Further Information

Publication History

Publication Date:
31 December 2001 (online)

    Permissions and Reprints All articles of this category

Background: The present study compared redo coronary artery bypass grafting (Re-OPCAB) techniques with conventional redo coronary artery bypass grafting (Re-CABG) with particular focus on myocardial damage and clinical outcome parameters. Methods: Redo OPCAB (Re-OPCAB) was performed on 20 consecutive patients (15 males, mean age 63.2 ± 9.3 years) using either the anterolateral approach for minimally invasive direct coronary artery bypass (n = 4) or the Octopus technique with regular sternotomy (n = 16). The Re-CABG group consisted of 20 consecutive patients (18 males, mean age 67.1 ± 6.6 years). Groups did not differ in the number of atherosclerotic risk factors, or left ventricular, renal or liver function. Results: Duration of surgery, number of bypass grafts and amount of transfused red blood cells did not differ significantly between both groups. Requirement of epinephrine (mg/h) within the first 24 h was lower in the Re-OPCAB group (Re-OPCAB: 0.14 ± 0.22 vs. CABG: 0.88 ± 0.97; p < 0.01). In addition, CKMB levels at 24 h after operation were lower in the Re-OPCAB group (Re-OPCAB: 10.0 ± 10.1 vs. Re-CABG: 38.7 ± 28.1 U/l, p < 0.001). There were no acute myocardial infarctions or deaths in the perioperative period. In the CABG group, there was a longer time period to extubation (hours) (Re-OPCAB: 9.8 ± 3.9 vs. Re-CABG: 28.7 ± 25.5; p < 0.001), and the length of ICU stay was significantly prolonged (OPCAB: 1.3 ± 0.5 versus Re-CABG: 4.4 ± 8.7; p < 0.001). The graft patency rate at follow-up was 95 % in the Re-OPCAB group. Conclusion: Re-OPCAB results in decreased cardiac specific enzyme release, reduced requirement of inotropes and comparable clinical outcome in the early postoperative period. It is an appropriate alternative to conventional Re-CABG in selected patients awaiting reoperation for myocardial revascularization. Larger prospective and randomized trials are required to select the appropriate patient who benefits most from one or the other treatment regime.

Key words:

Re-OPCAB - Re-CABG - Myocardial revascularization - CKMB

1 Presented in part presented at the 3rd Joint meeting of the German, Austrian the Swiss Societies for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery in February 2000.

References

  • 1 He G W, Acuff T E, He Y Y, Ryan W H, Mack M J. Determinants of operative mortality in reoperative coronary bypass grafting.  J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1995;  110 971-978
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 2 Shennib H, Allan G L, Akin J. Safe and effective method of stabilization for coronary artery bypass grafting on the beating heart.  Ann Thorac Surg. 1997;  63 988-992
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 3 Benetti F J, Naselli G, Wood M, Geffner L. Direct myocardial revascularization without extracorporeal circulation. Experience in 700 patients.  Chest. 1991;  100 (2) 312-316
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 4 Calafiore A M, Di Giammarco G, Teodori G. et al . Left anterior descending coronary artery grafting via left anterior small thoracotomy without cardiopulmonary bypass.  Ann Thorac Surg. 1996;  61 1658-1663
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 5 Calafiore A M, Angelini G D, Bergsland J, Salerno T A. Minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting.  Ann Thorac Surg. 1996;  62 1545-1548
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 6 Jansen E W L, Gründemann P F, Borst C. et al . Less invasive Re-OPCAB CABG using a suction device for immobilization: the “Octopus” method.  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1997;  12 406-412
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 7 Wildhirt S M, Schulze C, Conrad N N, Sreejayan N, Reichenspurner H, von Ritter C, Reichart B. Reduced Myocardial Cellular Damage and Lipid Peroxidation in Off-Pump versus conventional Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.  European Journal of Medical Research. 2000;  5 222-228
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 8 Schulze C, Conrad N N, Schütz A, Egi K, Reichenspurner H, Reichart B, Wildhirt S M. Reduced Expression of Systemic Proinflammatory Cytokines after Off-Pump versus Conventional Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.  Thoracic- and Cardiovascular Surgeon. 2000;  48 364-369
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 9 Diegeler A, Doll N, Rauch T, Haberer D, Walther T, Falk V, Gummert J, Autschbach R, Mohr F W. Humoral immune response during coronary artery bypass grafting: A comparison of limited approach, “Off-Pump” technique, and conventional cardiopulmonary bypass.  Circulation. 2000 Nov 7;  102 (19 Suppl 3) III 95-III 100
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 10 Fanning W J, Kakos G S, Williams T E. Reoperative coronary bypass grafting without cardiopulmonary bypass.  Ann Thorac Surg. 1993;  55 486-489
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 11 Doty J R, Salazar J D, Fonger J D. et al . Reoperative MIDCAB grafting: 3-year clinical experience.  Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 1998;  13 641-649
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 12 Allen K B, Matheny R G, Robinson R J, Heimansohn D A, Shaar C J. Minimally invasive versus conventional reoperative coronary artery bypass.  Ann Thorac Surg. 1997;  64 616-622
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 13 Rosengart T K. Risk analysis of primary versus reoperative coronary artery bypass grafting.  Ann Thorac Surg. 1993;  56 S 74-S 77
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 14 Stamou S C, Pfister A J, Dangas G. et al . Beating heart versus conventional single-vessel reoperative coronary artery bypass.  Ann Thorac Surg. 2000;  69 1383-1387
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 15 Beyersdorf F, Mitrev Z, Sarai K, Eckel L, Klepzig H, Maul F D, Ihnken K, Satter P. Changing patterns of patients undergoing emergency surgical revascularization for acute coronary occlusion. Importance of myocardial protection techniques.  Journal of Thoracic- and Cardiovascular Surgery.. 1993;  106 137-148
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 16 Ihnken K, Morita K, GD B, Sherman M P, Young H H. Studies of hypoxemic/reoxygenation injury: Without aortic clamping VI. Counteraction of oxidant damage by exogenous antioxidants: N-(2-mercaptopropionyl)-glycine and catalase.  Journal of Thoracic- and Cardiovascular Surgery. 1995;  110 (II) 1212-1220
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 17 Wan S, LeClerc J, Vinvent J. Cytokine response to cardiopulmonary bypass: Lessons learned from cardiac transplantation.  Annnals of Thoracic Surgery. 1997;  63 269-276
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 18 Butler J, Rocker G M, Westaby S. Inflammatory response to cardiopulmonary bypass.  Ann Thorac Surg. 1993;  55 552-559
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 19 Koh T W, Car-White G S, DeSouza A C. et al . Intraoperative cardiac troponin T release and lactate metabolism during coronary artery surgery: comparison of beating heart with conventional coronary artery surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass.  Heart. 1999;  81 495-500
    PubMedGoogle Scholar
  • 20 Kshettry V, Flavin T, Emery R, Nicoloff D, Arom K, Petersen R. Does multivessel, off-pump coroanry artery bypass reduce postoperative morbidity?.  Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2000;  69 1725
    CrossrefPubMedGoogle Scholar

1 Presented in part presented at the 3rd Joint meeting of the German, Austrian the Swiss Societies for Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery in February 2000.

Prof. Dr. med. Albert Schütz

Herzklinik der Universität München
am Augustinum

Wolkerweg 16

81375 München

Germany

Phone: +49-89-7097/844

Fax: +49-89-7097/848

Email: a.schuetz@hch.med.uni-muenchen.de