Valve surgery combined with coronary artery operation: is the use of internal mammary artery a predictor for early complications?

HOME

HELP

QUICK SEARCH:

	Author:		Keyword(s):
Year:		Vol:		Page:

This Article

	Full Text (PDF)
	Alert me when this article is cited
	Alert me if a correction is posted

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 Personal Folders
	Download to citation manager
	Permission Requests

Citing Articles

	Citing Articles via Google Scholar

Google Scholar

	Articles by Bauer, E. P.
	Articles by Klovekorn, W. P.
	Search for Related Content

PubMed

	PubMed Citation
	Articles by Bauer, E. P.
	Articles by Klovekorn, W. P.

ARTICLES

Valve surgery combined with coronary artery operation: is the use of internal mammary artery a predictor for early complications?

EP Bauer, M Schonburg, T Schwarz, A Piepho and WP Klovekorn
Max-Planck-Institute for Clinical and Physiological Research, Kerckhoff Clinic, Bad Nauheim, Germany.

The internal mammary artery (IMA) provides better early and long-term patency than venous grafts do. Although IMA is the conduit of choice in isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), its use in combined procedures is not routine in some cardiovascular units. During a 16- month period, 188 patients underwent valve surgery combined with CABG. Internal mammary grafts were used in 68/188 (36%) patients (group 1) and vein grafts without arterial grafts (group 2) in 120/188 (64%). Left IMA was implanted in 67/68 (99%) and right IMA in 1/68 1%) cases. Surgeon A used IMA in 28/44 (64%), surgeon B in 20/32 (63%), surgeon C in 18/44 (41%), surgeon D in 1/4 (25%) and surgeon E in 1/63 (2%) patients. The final decision to use IMA in a combined procedure was left up to the surgeon. Statistically, the preoperative- and perioperative data were identical in the two groups, although the frequency of IMA grafting in patients with double valve replacement and reoperation was lower (1/68 vs 11/120, ns, and 3/68 vs 9/120, ns). Ten of 188 (5.3%) patients died within 30 days after operation. Longer cross-clamp time (P = 0.008) and mitral valve replacement (P = 0.05) were independent risk factors for early death. The use of IMA did not increase the risk of early mortality. The postoperative variables were similar in the IMA and vein groups, in particular data suggesting perioperative myocardial infarction (CK-MB, catecholamine support). Postoperative mechanical ventilation was longer in the IMA group, although not significantly (P = 0.06). Early mortality and morbidity were identical in the two groups in combined procedures. We did not find any hints for an increased risk of using IMA in this type of surgery. Internal mammary artery implantation is safe in selected patients undergoing combined valve and CABG surgery. Beside the better long-term patency of IMA, its use may have several technical advantages.