This Article Full Text (PDF) References Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Saved Citations Download to citation manager Request Permissions Request Reprints Add to My Marked Citations Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Citing Articles via Scopus Google Scholar Articles by Rimpiläinen, R Articles by Nissinen, J Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Rimpiläinen, R Articles by Nissinen, J Pubmed/NCBI databases Medline Plus Health Information Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery Heart Surgery Social Bookmarking                         What's this?

Outcome after coronary artery bypass surgery with miniaturized versus conventional cardiopulmonary bypass

Department of Anesthesiology, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland

F Biancari

Department of Surgery, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finlandfaustobiancari{at}yahoo.it

JO Wistbacka

Department of Anesthesiology, Vaasa Central Hospital, Vaasa, Finland

P Loponen

Department of Surgery, Vaasa Central Hospital, Vaasa, Finland

SP Koivisto

Department of Anesthesiology, Vaasa Central Hospital, Vaasa, Finland

J Rimpiläinen

Department of Surgery, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland

K Teittinen

Department of Surgery, Vaasa Central Hospital, Vaasa, Finland

J Nissinen

Department of Surgery, Vaasa Central Hospital, Vaasa, Finland

We have reviewed the results of our experience with the use of miniaturized (Mini-CPB) versus conventional (C-CPB) cardiopulmonary bypass in coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG). This study included 365 patients who underwent CABG with C-CPB and 101 patients with Mini-CPB. In-hospital mortality was lower in the C-CPB group (1.4% vs. 3.0%, P = 0.38). A better, but not statistically significant, immediate outcome was observed in the C-CPB group as indicated by a shorter length of stay in the intensive care unit as well as a lower incidence of combined adverse end-point. However, this was probably due to significantly higher operative risk in the Mini-CPB group (logistic EuroSCORE: 8.5 ± 10.0 vs. 4.6 ± 7.1, P < 0.0001). Seventy-seven propensity score-matched pairs had similar immediate postoperative results after Mini-CPB and C-CPB (30-day mortality: 1.3% vs. 1.3%; stroke: 0% vs. 0%; intensive care unit stay 5 days: 6.5% vs. 9.1%; combined adverse events: 14.3% vs. 11.7%). Mini-CPB achieves similar results to C-CPB in patients undergoing isolated CABG. The potential efficacy of Mini-CPB is expected to be more evident in high-risk patients or in complex cardiac surgery requiring much longer cardiopulmonary perfusion.

Perfusion, Vol. 23, No. 6, 361-367 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0267659109105254


CiteULike    Complore    Connotea    Del.icio.us    Digg    Reddit    Technorati    Twitter    What's this?