Key result
Patients with coronary malperfusion had a significantly higher pulsatility index (4.7 vs 3.4, p=0.04) and a higher rate of abnormal transit-time flow measurement results compared to those with coronary artery disease.
Why the study?
Transit-time flow measurement is mainly used for coronary artery disease bypass assessment, but little was known about its use in coronary malperfusion.
Does transit-time flow measurement (TTFM) of saphenous vein grafts differ between patients undergoing surgery for acute type A aortic dissection with coronary malperfusion versus those with coronary artery disease?
Observational (n=53)
No
Does transit-time flow measurement (TTFM) of saphenous vein grafts differ between patients undergoing surgery for acute type A aortic dissection with coronary malperfusion versus those with coronary artery disease?
Absolute Event Rate: 4.7% vs 3.4%
p-value: p=0.04
In patients undergoing CABG for coronary malperfusion during acute type A aortic dissection, abnormal transit-time flow measurement results are common but do not necessarily predict poor short-term graft patency or mortality.
Abnormal TTFM results may not predict poor short-term outcomes in malperfusion; leaves open whether PI thresholds differ from CAD.
PURPOSE: Transit-time flow measurement (TTFM), consisting of pulsatility index (PI), mean graft flow, and diastolic filling, is mainly used as a bypass assessment for coronary artery disease (CAD). However, little was known about TTFM in the case of coronary malperfusion (CMP). This study aimed to clarify the difference in the results of TTFM between two different diseases. METHODS: Between 2010 and 2020, 138 patients underwent aortic surgery and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with vein grafts. Patients were divided into two groups: CMP (n = 26) and CAD (n = 27). Their results were compared. The primary endpoints were the results of TTFM. Secondary endpoints were the relation between TTFM and mortality, morbidity, and short-term patency in each group. RESULTS: The PI in the CMP group was significantly higher than the other group (4.7 ± 2.9 vs. 3.4 ± 1.9, p = 0.04). There was no statistical significance in the other two elements. In both groups, the short-term graft patency, mortality, and morbidity but for cardiac tamponade did not significantly change depending on the TTFM results. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with CMP tended to have a higher PI than those with CAD. With additional CABG for aortic dissection, insufficient TTFM results did not necessarily mean poor short-term graft patency, complications, or case mortality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Minamidate et al. (2022) conducted an observational in Acute type A aortic dissection with coronary malperfusion (n=53). Coronary malperfusion (CMP) vs. Coronary artery disease (CAD) was evaluated on Pulsatility index (PI) measured by transit-time flow measurement (p=0.04). Patients with coronary malperfusion had a significantly higher pulsatility index (4.7 vs 3.4, p=0.04) and a higher rate of abnormal transit-time flow measurement results compared to those with coronary artery disease.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: