A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@gmail.com&api_key=61f08fa0b96a73de8c900d749fcb997acc09&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 1034
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3152
Function: GetPubMedArticleOutput_2016

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Deep pericardial traction suture versus vacuum-assisted apical suction to expose the posterior wall of the heart in off-pump coronary artery bypass: a prospective, randomized study. | LitMetric

Background: Displacement of the heart to expose the posterior vessels during off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) may cause hemodynamic instability. Deep pericardial traction suture (DPTS) and vacuum-assisted apical suction (VAS) with the Starfish positioning device help to provide good exposure without relevant hemodynamic changes. Our aim was to compare these two methods in patients undergoing multivessel OPCAB.

Methods: We prospectively randomized 20 patients undergoing multivessel OPCAB to the use of VAS or DPTS. The Octopus device was used in both groups to stabilize the target vessel. Hemodynamic parameters, including venous oxygen content (SvO(2)), cardiac index (CI), central venous pressure (CVP), mean arterial pressure (MAP), pulmonary artery pressure (PAP), and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP), were measured before grafting (baseline), after heart positioning, and during performance of peripheral anastomoses.

Results: Perioperative data for the two groups were similar. During exposure of the lateral wall, there were fewer hemodynamic changes in the DPTS group (increase in CVP) than in the VAS group (increases in CVP, PAP, and PCWP); the CVP was significantly higher in the DPTS group (P < .05). During exposure of the posterior wall, significant hemodynamic changes occurred only in the DPTS group (increase in PCWP). Values for all other parameters were similar, including anastomosis time, graft flow, postoperative myocardial enzymes, and inotropic support.

Conclusions: Heart positioning during OPCAB with either VAS or DPTS is a safe and effective maneuver for exposure of coronary arteries. In our study, the use of the VAS device produced less hemodynamic impairment during exposure of the lateral and posterior walls.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://dx.doi.org/10.1532/HSF98.20121028DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

hemodynamic changes
12
dpts group
12
deep pericardial
8
pericardial traction
8
traction suture
8
vacuum-assisted apical
8
apical suction
8
expose posterior
8
posterior wall
8
off-pump coronary
8

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!