PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
UNASSIGNED: We aimed to compare transit-time flow measurement (TTFM) parameters for on-pump (ONCAB) and off-pump (OPCAB) coronary artery bypass procedures.
UNASSIGNED: The database of the Registry for Quality AssESsmenT with Ultrasound Imaging and TTFM in Cardiac Bypass Surgery (REQUEST) study was retrospectively reviewed. Only single grafts were included (ie, no sequential or Y/T grafts). Primary end points were mean graft flow (MGF), pulsatility index (PI), diastolic fraction (DF), and backflow (BF). Unadjusted and propensity score-matching comparisons were performed.
UNASSIGNED: Of 1016 patients in the REQUEST registry, 846 had at least 1 graft for which TTFM was performed. Of these, 512 patients (60.6%) underwent ONCAB and 334 (39.4%) OPCAB procedures. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) during measurements was higher in the OPCAB group. After propensity score-matching, 312 well balanced pairs were left. In these matched patients, MGF was higher for the ONCAB versus the OPCAB group (32 vs 28 mL/min, respectively, for all grafts [P < .001]; 30 vs 27 mL/min for arterial grafts [P = .002]; and 35 vs 31 mL/min for venous grafts [P = .006], respectively). PI was lower in the ONCAB group (2.1 vs 2.3, for all grafts; P < .001). Diastolic fraction was slightly lower in the ONCAB group (65% vs 67.5%; P < .001). The backflow was also lower in the ONCAB group (0.6 vs 1.3; P < .001) with trends similar to MGF and PI for venous and arterial grafts. There were 21 (3.3%) revisions in the OPCAB group and 14 (2.1%) in the ONCAB group (P = .198).
UNASSIGNED: ONCAB surgery was associated with higher MGF and lower PI values, especially in venous grafts. Different TTFM cutoff values for ONCAB versus OPCAB surgery might be considered.
UNASSIGNED: The database of the Registry for Quality AssESsmenT with Ultrasound Imaging and TTFM in Cardiac Bypass Surgery (REQUEST) study was retrospectively reviewed. Only single grafts were included (ie, no sequential or Y/T grafts). Primary end points were mean graft flow (MGF), pulsatility index (PI), diastolic fraction (DF), and backflow (BF). Unadjusted and propensity score-matching comparisons were performed.
UNASSIGNED: Of 1016 patients in the REQUEST registry, 846 had at least 1 graft for which TTFM was performed. Of these, 512 patients (60.6%) underwent ONCAB and 334 (39.4%) OPCAB procedures. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) during measurements was higher in the OPCAB group. After propensity score-matching, 312 well balanced pairs were left. In these matched patients, MGF was higher for the ONCAB versus the OPCAB group (32 vs 28 mL/min, respectively, for all grafts [P < .001]; 30 vs 27 mL/min for arterial grafts [P = .002]; and 35 vs 31 mL/min for venous grafts [P = .006], respectively). PI was lower in the ONCAB group (2.1 vs 2.3, for all grafts; P < .001). Diastolic fraction was slightly lower in the ONCAB group (65% vs 67.5%; P < .001). The backflow was also lower in the ONCAB group (0.6 vs 1.3; P < .001) with trends similar to MGF and PI for venous and arterial grafts. There were 21 (3.3%) revisions in the OPCAB group and 14 (2.1%) in the ONCAB group (P = .198).
UNASSIGNED: ONCAB surgery was associated with higher MGF and lower PI values, especially in venous grafts. Different TTFM cutoff values for ONCAB versus OPCAB surgery might be considered.
摘要：
UNASSIGNED：我们旨在比较泵上（ONCAB）和泵外（OPCAB）冠状动脉旁路手术的传输时间流量测量（TTFM）参数。
UNASSIGNED：对心脏搭桥术（REQUEST）研究中超声成像和TTFM质量评估注册数据库进行回顾性审查。仅包括单个移植物（即，无顺序或Y/T移植)。主要终点是平均移植物流量（MGF），搏动指数(PI),舒张分数（DF），和回流（BF）。进行了未调整和倾向得分匹配的比较。
未经批准：在REQUEST注册表中的1016名患者中，846具有至少1个进行TTFM的移植物。其中,512例（60.6%）患者接受了ONCAB和334例（39.4%）OPCAB手术。OPCAB组测量期间的平均动脉压（MAP）较高。在倾向得分匹配后，剩下312对平衡良好的对。在这些匹配的患者中，与OPCAB组相比，ONCAB组的MGF更高（32对28mL/min，分别,所有移植物[P<.001]；动脉移植物30vs27mL/min[P=.002]；静脉移植物35vs31mL/min[P=.006]，分别)。ONCAB组PI较低（2.1vs2.3，所有移植物；P<.001）。ONCAB组的舒张分数略低（65%vs67.5%；P<.001）。ONCAB组的回流也较低（0.6vs1.3；P<.001），静脉和动脉移植物的趋势与MGF和PI相似。OPCAB组21例（3.3%）修订，ONCAB组14例（2.1%）修订（P=0.198）。
未经证实：ONCAB手术与较高的MGF和较低的PI值相关，尤其是在静脉移植物中.可能会考虑ONCAB与OPCAB手术的不同TTFM截止值。
UNASSIGNED：对心脏搭桥术（REQUEST）研究中超声成像和TTFM质量评估注册数据库进行回顾性审查。仅包括单个移植物（即，无顺序或Y/T移植)。主要终点是平均移植物流量（MGF），搏动指数(PI),舒张分数（DF），和回流（BF）。进行了未调整和倾向得分匹配的比较。
未经批准：在REQUEST注册表中的1016名患者中，846具有至少1个进行TTFM的移植物。其中,512例（60.6%）患者接受了ONCAB和334例（39.4%）OPCAB手术。OPCAB组测量期间的平均动脉压（MAP）较高。在倾向得分匹配后，剩下312对平衡良好的对。在这些匹配的患者中，与OPCAB组相比，ONCAB组的MGF更高（32对28mL/min，分别,所有移植物[P<.001]；动脉移植物30vs27mL/min[P=.002]；静脉移植物35vs31mL/min[P=.006]，分别)。ONCAB组PI较低（2.1vs2.3，所有移植物；P<.001）。ONCAB组的舒张分数略低（65%vs67.5%；P<.001）。ONCAB组的回流也较低（0.6vs1.3；P<.001），静脉和动脉移植物的趋势与MGF和PI相似。OPCAB组21例（3.3%）修订，ONCAB组14例（2.1%）修订（P=0.198）。
未经证实：ONCAB手术与较高的MGF和较低的PI值相关，尤其是在静脉移植物中.可能会考虑ONCAB与OPCAB手术的不同TTFM截止值。
