2005
DOI: 10.1097/01243895-200512000-00002
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Abstract: : Meta-analysis of Level A and B evidence provided the basis for the following consensus statements in patients undergoing surgical myocardial revascularization: (1) OPCAB should be considered a safe alternative to CCAB with respect to risk of mortality [Class I, Level A]; (2) With appropriate use of modern stabilizers, heart positioning devices, and adequate surgeon experience, similar completeness of revascularization and graft patency can be achieved [Class IIa, Level A]; (3) OPCAB is recommended to reduce … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
3
1
1

Citation Types

0
23
2
7

Year Published

2007
2007
2017
2017

Publication Types

Select...
5
3
1

Relationship

0
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 117 publications
(32 citation statements)
references
References 118 publications
0
23
2
7
Order By: Relevance
“…A meta-analysis of randomized trials showed a lower number of grafts per patient in the OPCAB group compared with ONCAB (2.6 for OPCAB and 2.8 for ONCAB). 18) However, these results were not supported by the JOCRI trial, which showed that the number of grafts per patient were similar between OPCAB and ONCAB (3.5 ± 1.0 for OPCAB and 3.6 ± 0.9 for ONCAB). 5) We believe that OPCAB is a suitable technique for coronary artery revascularization, especially multiple vessel revascularization.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 40%
“…A meta-analysis of randomized trials showed a lower number of grafts per patient in the OPCAB group compared with ONCAB (2.6 for OPCAB and 2.8 for ONCAB). 18) However, these results were not supported by the JOCRI trial, which showed that the number of grafts per patient were similar between OPCAB and ONCAB (3.5 ± 1.0 for OPCAB and 3.6 ± 0.9 for ONCAB). 5) We believe that OPCAB is a suitable technique for coronary artery revascularization, especially multiple vessel revascularization.…”
Section: Discussioncontrasting
confidence: 40%
“…In concluding, based on these data and on reports in medical literature, particularly the work carried out by Puskas et al 22 , we can say that myocardial revascularization surgery without extracorporeal circulation in patients with left ventricular dysfunction is safe and has low rates of mortality and complications. This type of operation should be considered for patients with a high risk for myocardial revascularization.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…At the end of 2005, Puskas et al 22 published the results of a meta-analysis comparing operations with and without CPB. In the group of patients with left ventricular dysfunction, the off-CPB operation produced better results concerning 30-day mortality (3.8% vs 6.9%), atrial fibrillation (14.1% vs 17.3%), renal dysfunction (36.7% vs 52.7%), use of inotropic drugs (3.7% vs 7.2%), pulmonary dysfunction (2.7% vs 4.1%), and use of the intra-aortic balloon (76.6% vs 91.4%).…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Процедуру, широко применяемую Calafiore [21], можно было считать естественным развитием техники на работающем сердце, по-скольку это выдвинуло на первый план потенциал минимального доступа при шунтировании коро-нарных артерий. Однако использование мини-до-ступов имеет ограниченное применение при мно-гососудистых поражениях коронарных артерий [22][23][24][25].…”
Section: в и ганюков р с тарасов и дрunclassified