Why the study?
The left internal mammary artery is a high-performing CABG vessel, but non-invasive assessment of its graft patency remains challenging.
Does Doppler ultrasonography reliably evaluate the patency of LIMA grafts in patients following CABG intervention?
Does Doppler ultrasonography reliably evaluate the patency of LIMA grafts in patients following CABG intervention?
Doppler ultrasonography is a potentially reliable non-invasive technique for assessing LIMA graft patency post-CABG, utilizing specific velocity and fraction parameters to detect severe stenosis.
The impact of coronary artery disease (CAD) on all-cause mortality and overall disabilities is well-established. Percutaneous and/or surgical coronary revascularization procedures dramatically reduced the occurrence of adverse cardiovascular events in patients suffering from atherosclerosis. Specifically, guidelines from the European Society of Cardiology on the management of myocardial revascularization promoted coronary artery by-pass graft (CABG) intervention in patients with specific alterations in the coronary tree due to the higher beneficial effects of this procedure as compared to the percutaneous one. The left internal mammary artery (LIMA) is one of the best-performing vessels in CABG procedures due to its location and its own structural characteristics. Nevertheless, the non-invasive assessment of its patency is challenging. Doppler ultrasonography (DU) might perform as a reliable technique for the non-invasive evaluation of the patency of LIMA. Data from the literature revealed that DU may detect severe (>70%) stenosis of the LIMA graft. In this case, pulsed-wave Doppler might show peak diastolic velocity/peak systolic velocity < 0.5 and diastolic fraction < 50%. A stress test might also be adopted for the evaluation of patency of LIMA through DU. The aim of this narrative review is to evaluate the impact of DU on the evaluation of the patency of LIMA graft in patients who undergo follow-up after CABG intervention.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Scicchitano et al. (2022) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: