Why the study?
Does Port Access CABG improve symptoms and maintain safety in patients with one or two-vessel disease?
Observational (n=68)
Does Port Access CABG improve symptoms and maintain safety in patients with one or two-vessel disease?
Absolute Event Rate: 1.1% vs 3.1%
p-value: p=<0.0001
Port Access CABG is a safe technique that significantly reduces angina symptoms with stable mid-term results in patients with one or two-vessel disease.
Between May 1997 and November 2002, 68 patients with one or two-vessel disease (55+/-9 years) underwent Port Access CABG using the Heartport endoCPB. The LITA was used in 63 cases, the RITA in 14, a radial artery in 2 and a vein graft in 3. Mean distal anastomoses was 1.3+/-0.5. Cross clamping, CPB, and operative times were 42+/-20 min, 64+/-27 min, and 3.8+/-1.5 h. Postoperative ventilation was 11+/-17 h, and ICU stay was 1.9+/-2.6 days. At day-1, troponin level was 2.3+/-2.9 UI and blood loss was 398+/-240 ml. Two patients needed long intubation and two had pleural re-drainage. One patient had a stroke, one had a myocardial infarction, and one underwent revision for bleeding. Hospital stay was 7+/-3 days. 65% were discharged to home. Follow up was completed in all cases (4.1+/-1.8 years). CCS score was significantly reduced (from 3.1+/-0.3 to 1.1+/-0.3, P<0.0001). Two patients had PTCA and stenting of non-grafted arteries. Five other patients had recurrent angina. Angiograms showed patent grafts in all cases. Two patients died after 19 months and 5 years from non cardiac reasons. In conclusion, Port Access CABG remains a safe technique with stable results at mid-term follow up.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Fadi Farhat (2005) conducted an observational in One or two-vessel coronary artery disease (n=68). Port Access CABG vs. Baseline was evaluated on CCS score (p=<0.0001).
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: