Home  About us  Contact
 

Undergoing CABG (undergoing + cabg)

Distribution by Scientific Domains
Medical Sciences100%

Kinds of Undergoing CABG

  • patient undergoing cabg
    		•

    Selected Abstracts

    Bleeding risk with AZD6140, a reversible P2Y12 receptor antagonist, vs. clopidogrel in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting in the DISPERSE2 trial

    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF CLINICAL PRACTICE, Issue 4 2009
    S. Husted
    Summary AZD6140, the first reversible oral P2Y12 receptor antagonist, exhibits greater and more consistent inhibition of platelet aggregation than the irreversible thienopyridine clopidogrel. As a result of its reversible effect, AZD6140 may pose less risk for bleeding when antiplatelet treatment cannot be stopped at least 5 days before coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery or other invasive procedures. The Dose conflrmation Study assessing anti-Platelet Effects of AZD6140 vs. clopidogRel in NSTEMI (DISPERSE2) trial showed overall comparable bleeding rates with antiplatelet treatment with AZD6140 90 mg twice daily or 180 mg twice daily vs. clopidogrel 75 mg once daily in 984 patients with non-ST-elevation acute coronary syndromes. A post hoc exploratory analysis of bleeding outcomes in the subset of 84 patients undergoing CABG in DISPERSE2 suggests reduced risk for total bleeding (41% and 58% vs. 62%), all major bleeding (38% and 50% vs. 62%), and life-threatening bleeding (22% and 38% vs. 54%) with AZD6140 90 mg (n = 32) and 180 mg (n = 26) vs. clopidogrel (n = 26) respectively. Trends suggested that major bleeding rates were reduced with AZD6140 (combined groups) vs. clopidogrel when treatment was stopped , 5 days prior to surgery (39% vs. 63%, p = 0.15) but not when treatment was stopped > 5 days before surgery (50% vs. 60%). This observation is consistent with the reversible binding of AZD6140 to the P2Y12 receptor. Further prospective studies are planned to assess the relationship between this potential clinical benefit of AZD6140 and the reversibility of its antiplatelet effects. [source]

    Meta-analysis comparing clinical effectiveness of drug-eluting stents, bare metal stents and coronary artery bypass surgery

    INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE BASED HEALTHCARE, Issue 3 2007
    Eun-Hwan Oh PhD MPH MHA BA
    Abstract Objective, To compare clinical outcomes among patients receiving drug-eluting stents, bare metal stents, or coronary artery bypass grafting surgery (CABG) to treat coronary artery disease. Data sources, Randomised controlled trials were systematically selected from electronic database for head-to-head comparisons. The results from these head-to-head comparisons were used for an adjusted indirect comparison. Methods, Published randomised controlled trials were reviewed for outcome data in patients treated for coronary artery disease with drug-eluting stents, bare metal stents, or CABG. Head-to-head comparisons were conducted for drug-eluting stents versus bare metal stents and for CABG versus bare metal stents. Adjusted indirect comparison was used to compare drug-eluting stents and CABG. Mid-term clinical outcomes (range: 6,12 months) were investigated and included rates of mortality, myocardial infarction, thrombosis, target lesion revascularisation, target vessel revascularisation, restenosis and major adverse cardiac events. Results, Systematic literature search identified 23 randomised controlled trials (15 for drug-eluting stents vs. bare metal stents, 8 for CABG vs. bare metal stents). Head-to-head comparisons for both single and multiple vessel disease demonstrated that compared with bare metal stents, drug-eluting stents had better outcomes for target lesion revascularisation, target vessel revascularisation, restenosis and major adverse cardiac events. Except target lesion revascularisation, data were similarly favourable for CABG when compared with bare metal stents. Adjusted indirect comparison between drug-eluting stents and CABG in single vessel disease failed to detect significant differences in any of the measured outcomes. Multiple vessel disease data analysis demonstrated that target vessel revascularisation (odds ratio 3.41 [95% CI 2.29,5.08]) and major adverse cardiac events (1.89 [1.28,2.79]) were superior to drug-eluting stents in patients undergoing CABG. Conclusions, Drug-eluting stents and CABG were superior to bare metal stents in terms of target lesion revascularisation (drug-eluting stents only), target vessel revascularisation, restenosis and major adverse cardiac events. There was no difference in clinical outcomes when comparing CABG and drug-eluting stents in patients with single vessel disease, and CABG may be superior to drug-eluting stents for target vessel revascularisation and major adverse cardiac events in patients with multiple vessel disease. However, results may vary between subpopulations with different clinical or socioeconomic differences. [source]

    IS INFORMED CONSENT IN CARDIAC SURGERY AND PERCUTANEOUS CORONARY INTERVENTION ACHIEVABLE?

    ANZ JOURNAL OF SURGERY, Issue 7 2007
    Marco E. Larobina
    Background: Medical and legal published work regularly discusses informed consent and patient autonomy before medical interventions. Recent discussions have suggested that Cardiothoracic surgeons' risk adjusted mortality data should be published to facilitate the informed consent process. However, as to which aspects of medicine, procedures and the associated risks patients understand is unknown. It is also unclear how well the medical profession understands the concepts of informed consent and medical negligence. The aims of this study were to evaluate patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention (PCI) to assess their understanding of the risks of interventions and baseline level of understanding of medical concepts and to evaluate the medical staff's understanding of medical negligence and informed consent. Methods: Patients undergoing CABG or PCI at a tertiary hospital were interviewed with questionnaires focusing on the consent process, the patient's understanding of CABG or PCI and associated risks and understanding of medical concepts. Medical staff were questioned on the process of obtaining consent and understanding of medicolegal concepts. Results: Fifty CABG patients, 40 PCI patients and 40 medical staff were interviewed over a 6-month period. No patient identified any of the explained risks as a reason to reconsider having CABG or PCI, but 80% of patients wanted to be informed of all risks of surgery. 80% of patients considered doctors obligated to discuss all risks of surgery. One patient (2%) expressed concern at the prospect of a trainee surgeon carrying out the operation. Stroke (40%) rather than mortality (10%) were the important concerns in patients undergoing CABG and PCI. The purpose of interventions was only partially understood by both groups; PCI patients clearly underestimated the subsequent need for repeat PCI or CABG. Knowledge of medical concepts was poor in both groups: less than 50% of patients understood the cause or consequence of an AMI or stroke and less than 20% of patients correctly identified the ratio equal to 0.5%. One doctor (2.5%) correctly identified the four elements of negligence, eight (20%) the meaning of material risk and four (10%) the meaning of causation. Thirty doctors (75%) believed that all complications of a procedure needed to be explained for informed consent. Less than 10% could recognize landmark legal cases. Conclusion: Patients undergoing both CABG and PCI have a poor understanding of their disease, their intervention, and its complications making the attaining of true informed consent difficult, despite their desire to be informed of all risks. PCI patients particularly were highly optimistic regarding the need for reintervention over time, which requires specific attention during the consent process. Medical staff showed a poor knowledge of the concepts of material risk and medical negligence requiring much improved education of both junior doctors and specialists. [source]

    Beneficial Effect of Preventative Intra-Aortic Balloon Pumping in High-Risk Patients Undergoing First-Time Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting,A Single Center Experience

    ARTIFICIAL ORGANS, Issue 8 2009
    Qingcheng Gong
    Abstract Although intra-aortic balloon pumping (IABP) has been used widely as a routine cardiac assist device for perioperative support in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), the optimal timing for high-risk patients undergoing first-time CABG using IABP is unknown. The purpose of this investigation is to compare preoperative and preventative IABP insertion with intraoperative or postoperative obligatory IABP insertion in high-risk patients undergoing first-time CABG. We reviewed our IABP patients' database from 2002 to 2007; there were 311 CABG patients who received IABP treatment perioperatively. Of 311 cases, 41 high-risk patients who had first-time on-pump or off-pump CABG (presenting with three or more of the following criteria: left ventricular ejection fraction less than 0.45, unstable angina, CABG combined with aneurysmectomy, or left main stenosis greater than 70%) entered the study. We compared perioperatively the clinical results of 20 patients who underwent preoperative IABP placement (Group 1) with 21 patients who had obligatory IABP placement intraoperatively or postoperatively during CABG (Group 2). There were no differences in preoperative risk factors, except left ventricular aneurysm resection, between the two groups. There were no differences in indications for high-risk patients between the two groups. The mean number of grafts was similar. There were no significant differences in the need for inotropes, or in cerebrovascular, gastrointestinal, renal, and infective complications postoperatively. There were no IABP-related complications in either group. Major adverse cardiac event (severe hypotension and/or shock, myocardial infarction, and severe hemodynamic instability) was higher in Group 2 (14 [66.4%] vs. 1 [5%], P < 0.0001) during surgery. The time of IABP pumping in Group 1 was shorter than in Group 2 (72.5 ± 28.9 h vs. 97.5 ± 47.7 h, P < 0.05). The duration of ventilation and intensive care unit stay in Group 1 was significantly shorter than in Group 2, respectively (22.0 ± 1.6 h vs. 39.6 ± 2.1 h, P < 0.01 and 58.0 ± 1.5 h vs. 98.5 ± 1.9 h, P < 0.005). There were no differences in mortality between the two groups (n = 1 in Group 1 and n = 3 in Group 2). Preoperative and preventative insertion of IABP can be performed safely in selected high-risk patients undergoing CABG, with results comparable to those in patients who received obligatory IABP intraoperatively and postoperatively. Therefore, earlier IABP support as part of surgical strategy may help to improve the outcome in high-risk first-time CABG patients. [source]