Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
addClaim

[Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: comparison between standard CABG and off-pump CABG].

Authors: K, Takahashi; M, Minagawa; S, Oikawa; M, Hatakeyama; N, Kondo; T, Kuga;

[Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: comparison between standard CABG and off-pump CABG].

Abstract

We have performed 321 cases of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), between October 15 1995 and November 20 2000. We have evaluated the operative results of 142 cases (44.2%) of conventional CABG and 179 cases (55.8%) of off-pump CABG performed during this period. The average numbers of bypassed grafts was 3.53 for conventional CABG, and 1.62 for off-pump CABG. The total number of 369 grafts were anastomosed to 501 coronary arteries for conventional CABG, and 283 grafts were anastomosed to 290 coronary arteries for off-pump CABG.Although two saphenous veins were occluded, the early postoperative patency rate was 100% for conventional CABG using RITA, LITA, GEA and RA. Three site of stenosis in 18 LITAs and 2 in 16 RITAs were recognized in off-pump CABG without the use of stabilizers. One site of stenosis in 130 LITAs and 3 string signs in 44 GEA were recognized in off-pump CABG with the use of stabilizers. Postoperative angiography in 52 off-pump CABG cases at one year later showed no new lesion.The use of stabilizers and LIMA suture enables adaptation of the MIDCAB procedure to a wider range of coronary artery bypass procedures, and a higher graft patency can be expected.

Keywords

Adult, Aged, 80 and over, Male, Humans, Minimally Invasive Surgical Procedures, Coronary Disease, Female, Coronary Artery Bypass, Middle Aged, Vascular Patency, Aged

  • BIP!
    Impact byBIP!
    selected citations
    These citations are derived from selected sources.
    This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    0
    popularity
    This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
    influence
    This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
    Average
    impulse
    This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
    Average
Powered by OpenAIRE graph
Found an issue? Give us feedback
selected citations
These citations are derived from selected sources.
This is an alternative to the "Influence" indicator, which also reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Citations provided by BIP!
popularity
This indicator reflects the "current" impact/attention (the "hype") of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Popularity provided by BIP!
influence
This indicator reflects the overall/total impact of an article in the research community at large, based on the underlying citation network (diachronically).
BIP!Influence provided by BIP!
impulse
This indicator reflects the initial momentum of an article directly after its publication, based on the underlying citation network.
BIP!Impulse provided by BIP!
0
Average
Average
Average
Upload OA version
Are you the author of this publication? Upload your Open Access version to Zenodo!
It’s fast and easy, just two clicks!