Why the study?
Does combined AVR with CABG using MECC reduce blood product requirements and improve clinical outcomes compared to standard CPB in patients undergoing combined AVR and CABG?
Does combined AVR with CABG using MECC reduce blood product requirements and improve clinical outcomes compared to standard CPB in patients undergoing combined AVR and CABG?
Combined AVR and CABG using MECC is feasible and reduces blood product requirements and haemoglobin drop compared to standard CPB without increasing morbidity or mortality.
MECC may reduce haemoglobin drop and transfusions in this cohort; leaves open confirmation of benefit in randomized combined AVR+CABG trials.
Isolated aortic valve replacement (AVR) or coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) using minimized extracorporeal circulation (MECC) has been shown to have less deleterious effects than standard cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). In this prospective cohort study, we evaluated and compared clinical results of combined AVR with CABG using MECC. We prospectively collected preoperative, intraoperative, postoperative and follow-up data of 65 patients who underwent combined AVR with CABG using MECC and compared these with 135 patients undergoing combined AVR with CABG using standard CPB. No significant differences were seen in patients demographic characteristics or intraoperative data. Patients in the MECC group experienced a smaller preoperative haemoglobin drop (4.5±0.8 g/dl vs. 5.0±0.5 g/dl, P=0.002) resulting in higher haemoglobin at discharge (11.3±1.3 g/dl vs. 10.8±1.1 g/dl, P=0.03). They had decreased blood products requirements (P=0.004) compared to patients in the standard CPB group. No differences were noted in pulmonary complications, neurological events or mortality. We present for the first time data showing that combined AVR with CABG using MECC is feasible and provides better clinical results compared to standard CPB with regard to blood products requirements, without compromising operative morbidity or mortality.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Yilmaz et al. (2010) studied this question.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: