| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
|
|
|
|||||||
|
|||||||||
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 2002;21:205-211
© 2002 Elsevier Science NL
Heart Center, Department of Thoracic and Cardiac Surgery - 414, University Medical Center St. Radboud Nijmegen, 6500 HB Nijmegen, The Netherlands
Received 25 July 2001; received in revised form 31 October 2001; accepted 15 November 2001.
* Corresponding author. Tel.: +31-243614744; fax: +31-243540129
e-mail: l.noyez{at}thchir.azn.nl
 |
Abstract |
|---|
 Top Abstract 1. Introduction2. Material and methods3. Results4. DiscussionReferences |
|---|
Key Words: Reoperation • Coronary artery bypass • Atherosclerosis • Graft failure
|
1. Introduction |
|---|
|
TopAbstract1. Introduction2. Material and methods3. Results4. DiscussionReferences |
|---|
|
2. Material and methods |
|---|
|
TopAbstract1. Introduction2. Material and methods3. Results4. DiscussionReferences |
|---|
Table 1 presents the studied general variables. Diabetes was defined when there was diet-controlled, oral therapy or insulin dependency. Hypertension was defined as systolic blood pressure of greater than 160 mmHg or diastolic pressure of greater than 100 mmHg. Hyperlipidemia was defined as having a total cholesterol level of greater than 250 mg/dl or a triglyceride level of greater than 200 mg/dl. Cerebrovascular disease was registered in patients with cerebrovascular accidents and/or transient ischaemic attack in their histories. Kidney disease was defined as having a documented renal failure (creatinine 
150 µmol/l), preoperative dialysis, or renal transplantation. Lung disease was registered in patients with chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, and/or a history of previous lung disease. Successful PTCA was defined as a successful PTCA as well before the CABG as before the RECABG.
|
30%. It must be noted that ejection fraction is not routinely calculated for all patients, however, for patients with bad ventricular function, this is mostly done. Clinical indication for RECABG was angina and proven ischemia (treadmill test, sintigraphy) despite medical therapy with ß blockers, calcium antagonists or nitrates, or a combination. We distinguish three groups. Elective operations, patients with stable cardiac function, usually scheduled at least one day prior to the surgical procedure. Urgent operations, when surgery is required within 24 h after admission. Emergency operations: in case of operation for evolving infarction, ischemia not responding to medical therapy, or cardiogenic shock.
Vessel-disease is also presented in Table 1. It is important to note that, in case of a diseased native coronary artery with a patent, not diseased, graft, this coronary artery was not coded as a diseased vessel. So a patient with a patent IMA-graft on a diseased LAD, and an occluded circumflex-and right coronary artery without, or with diseased grafts is registered as a two-vessel disease.
Table 2 presents the specific RECABG variables. Patent internal mammary artery graft (IMA), and different time periods. The angiographic indication for RECABG is divided into five groups. Early graft failure (GF), as documented GF within the first six months after the CABG. Late GF, GF later than six months after CABG. Progression of atherosclerosis in the native coronary artery system (PA). The combination of GF and PA, and incomplete revascualarization, in case of a documented not- or wrong-bypassed vessel during the CABG.
|
2.2. Surgical technique
Our surgical technique is described in previous papers [3,4]. Of the total number of patients 79% (459/582) received at least one new arterial graft. In group A 80% (154/193), group B 82% (164/201) and in group C 75% (141/188). Table 3 presents the total number of new grafts and distal anastomoses, new arterial and vein grafts performed in the different groups.
|
2-test when appropriate. Statistical significance was assumed at P0.05. |
3. Results |
|---|
|
TopAbstract1. Introduction2. Material and methods3. Results4. DiscussionReferences |
|---|
Table 1 shows that there is a statistical significant increase of the mean age of the patients (P<0.001), with the significant step from group A to group B. The percentage of patients with kidney disease (P=0.001) increased significantly over the whole studied period and the percentage of preoperative successful PTCA (P<0.001) increased significantly from period B to C. On the other hand there is a significant decrease of patients with a family history of cardiovascular disease (P=0.01) during the whole period, and in the last period a decrease of patients with hypertension (P=0.01).
There is no statistical significant difference in the percentage of diabetes, hyperlipidemia, peripheral vascular disease, cerebrovascular disease, lung disease, the occurrence of myocardial infarctions and percentage of patients with an impaired left ventricular function.
There is a significant difference (P=0.006) in the clinical indication for RECABG; this statistical significance is due to the significant decrease of urgent patients in the last period (25 versus 41% in group A and B, P=<0.001) and consequently an increase of elective patients in group C (64% versus 50 and 46% in group A and B, P=0.001). The percentage of emergency RECABG remains about 10% during the study.
There is a statistical significant difference in the distribution of the vessel disease over period (P=0.04). There is an increase of patients operated for one vessel disease during period C (9% versus 6 and 4%), however, not significant. The decrease of patients operated in period B is statistically significant (P=0.04) and also the higher number of patients operated for three vessel disease in period B is statistically significant difference from the other two periods. (P=0.007).
Table 2 presents the specific RECABG variables. There is a significant increase of patients with patent arterial grafts, IMA-graft (P<0.001). Also, the angina-free period after the primary operation (P<0.001), the time between CABG and RECABG (P<0.001), and also the time period between the new onset of angina and the RECABG (P=0.012) increased significantly.
There is a statistical significant difference in angiographic indication over the years. Analyzing the different classes of angiographic indication, there is a decrease, not significant (P=0.22) of patients operated for early GF (5% in group C versus 9 and 8%). There is a statistically significant (P<0.001) increase of patients reoperated for late GF in group B and C versus group A (34%, 26 versus 9%). The decrease of group C (26%) did not reach significance (P=0.067) versus the 34% in group B. There is a statistically significant increase (P<0.001) of patients operated for PA in the native coronary arteries (18% in group C versus 5 and 6%). Since period A there is a statistically significant decrease (P<0.001) of patients reoperated for combined GF and PA in the coronary arteries (75% in group A versus 51 and 50%). The percentage of patients operated for incomplete revascularizations remains small (1%) and was not different over the years.
Analyzing the patients reoperated for PA of any sort, there is a statistically significant difference (P=<0.0001) over the studied period. The decrease from 80% (155/193) in group A versus 57% (115/201) in group B and versus 69% (131/188) in Group C is significant (P=0.001 A–B, P=0.01 A–C). However, the increase from B to C is also significant (P=0.01). For late GF of any sort, there is no statistically significant difference over the study (P=0.82). The increase from 84% (162/193) in group A versus 89% (179/201) in group B is not significant (P=0.1) and the decrease from 89% in group B to the 76% (68/188) in group C reaches statistical significance (P=0.02).
There is a decrease (from 80 to 75%), however, not significant (P=0.7), of patients receiving a new arterial graft. The number of new grafts, distal anastomoses, new arterial and venous grafts is not statistical significant different (P=0.2) between the three groups (Table 3).
|
4. Discussion |
|---|
|
TopAbstract1. Introduction2. Material and methods3. Results4. DiscussionReferences |
|---|
As in CABG, the trend to operate older patients with more coexisting disease, is also visible in the RECABG population [1,2]. There is an increase of age in our study (Group A versus B and C). That this increase of age is not continuous over the whole studied period can be related to several factors. There is use of arterial grafts during CABG, even in elderly patients, since the eighties [7]. Because these older patients received arterial grafts, at the CABG, the event-free period after CABG increased, which means that they were even older at the moment of the RECABG. It is certain that older patients are not so frequently presented for RECABG, or died already before, because of their age and before we have a statistically significant increase of the mean age of a group, we need a lot of older patients in this group. There is a significant increase of patients with kidney disease That there is an increase of patients with kidney disease undergoing CABG in the last decade is known, and this is also a result of the aging of the patient population [8]. There is a significant increase of successful PTCAs over the studied period (Group C). This is similar as in CABG [2], and we know that a lot of patients underwent a PTCA between CAGB and RECABG. Our strategy, to stabilize urgent/emergency patients, eventually by PTCA of the culprit lesion, is probably one of the reasons for this increased percentage in group C. However, because this is not registered separately, we cannot prove that there is a specific increase of PTCA between CABG and RECABG.
The percentage of patients with hypertension and a family history of cardiovascular disease decreased significantly. Hypertension is a co-morbidity factor with an incremental risk for death in the late phase (more than 6 years after CABG), so because the increase of the time between the CABG and the RECABG, more than 10 years in group C, [9] a number of patients with hypertension died already.
It may be remarkable that there is a slight, not significant, increase of patients with diabetes (14–19%), and cerebrovascular disease (6–8%). Here again we can suppose that several of these patients died already, due to this co-morbidity. But probably a lot of these patients were not even presented for RECAGB, because of the perioperative risk for morbidity and mortality. Diabetic patients have mostly diffuse and distal pathology, not so suitable for surgery and diabetes is also a risk factor for perioperative myocardial infarction and mortality in RECABG [3]. Also patients with a history of cerebrovascular disease have a higher risk for neurological morbidity during cardiac surgery [10].
So, the increase of co-morbidity with RECABG seems to be of lesser importance than in CABG. However, it must be clear, that the RECABG population is only a part of the population with an insufficient result of the CABG. Some of them died already, due the importance of several co-morbidity factors over the years, or were not presented for RECABG, because they do not have enough symptoms, can be managed with medication, by interventional procedures, or because the procedural risk seems to high in relation with the expected benefit. On the other hand, because of the interval between CABG and RECABG, we can expect further increase of co-morbidity variables in the RECABG-group over the years. If we compare our series of CABG between 1987 and 1995 we note an increase of patients with diabetes, and these with cerebrovascular disease in particular in the years 1992–1995 [2]. The interval between CABG and RECABG at this moment is about 12 years, so some of these patients will be reoperated over about five years.
There is no significant difference in myocardial infarct percentage before CABG or between CABG and RECABG, neither of the percentage of patients with an impaired left ventricular function, over the years.
There is a significant difference in the clinical indication for RECABG, especially a significant decrease of urgent RECABG, and an increase of elective RECABG (Group C). Since our study identifying urgent and emergency RECABG [3], as dominant independent variables in predicting the occurrence of perioperative myocardial infarction and mortality, we try to avoid urgent emergency RECABG since 1996. The number of emergency RECABG is constant over the studied period (10%) and these were patients that we could not stabilize.
There is a significant difference in vessel disease over the studied periods. Because of the complex blood supply of the myocardium by native coronary arteries, grafts, collaterals, it is sometimes difficult and arbitrary to distinguish one- two- three-vessel disease in redo-patients. Therefore our specific registration of one- two- three-vessel disease in redo-patients as already defined, and also this is the reason why we do not register left main in these patients [3]. The percentage of patients undergoing RECABG for one-vessel disease is low, and remained stable over the years (P=0.18). The statistically significant difference in vessel disease is caused by the significant lower percentage of patients with two-vessel disease and the higher percentage of patients with three-vessel disease in group B versus A and C. However there is a different reason for the trend seen from A to B and the trend from B to C. The fact, that in group C a lower percentage of patients is reoperated for three-vessel disease, is certainly related to the use on arterial grafts. Most patients received at the CABG an IMA-graft to the LAD. The percentage of about 30% of patients with a patent IMA in group C (Table 2) is corresponding well with 74% of patients reoperated for three-vessel disease. Also in group B the percentage of 12% patients with a patent IMA graft is complementary to about 86% patients reoperated for three-vessel disease. In group A, there are only a small number of patients with a patent IMA-graft at the moment of the RECABG. But about 25% of the patients were reoperated for early/late GF, PA in the native coronary arteries, and incomplete revascularization (Table 2). Several of these patients had patent venous grafts at the moment of the RECABG and were therefore not registered as three-vessel disease.
Despite the significant difference in vessel disease of the three groups, there is no statistically significant difference in the number of new constructed grafts or distal anastomoses (Table 3). The reason is that the percentage of patients with two-and three-vessel disease remains quit stable over the three periods and the higher number of distal anastomoses in group B is an indication that more vessels were bypassed (not significant).
The statistically significant increase of a patent IMA is of course a result of our own surgical work. The effect of an internal mammary artery graft on survival and the event-free period after CABG is well known [11]. The significant increase of angina-free period, the time interval between CABG and RECABG confirms this. The group of patients undergoing RECABG with a patent arterial graft offers a double challenge: the problem of protection in the myocardial region supplied by the arterial graft, and the preservation of the patent arterial graft. Certainly because preservation of a patent arterial graft results in a decrease of morbidity and mortality of the RECABG, but damage of this arterial graft results in a increase of morbidity and mortality of RECAGB [12]. Despite surgeons experienced in performing RECABG who are used to handling patent arterial grafts, this challenge can be partially responsible for the slight, but significant, increase of the time period between the new onset of angina and the RECABG, because several people are more conservative in patients with return of angina but with (a) patent arterial graft(s), mostly an internal mammary graft to the anterior site [13].
Despite the significant higher percentage of patent IMA-grafts over the years, the number of patients receiving a new arterial graft, and the number of new constructed arterial grafts did not change. This is because in a lot of patients with one patient arterial graft a second new, mostly the right IMA, but also the gastroepiploic artery is used. In some patients a patent IMA graft is recycled to another vessel [4,14].
The percentage of patients reoperated for early GF and incomplete revascularization deceased, not significant, over the years, but this is a small percentage.
On the whole, there is a decrease of patients reoperated for PA of any sort. The high, and statistically significant (P<0.001) percentage of patients in group A, reoperated for PA of any sort in combination with GF, is partially explaining the global decrease. However, further analysis shows a statistically significant increase for patients reoperated for atherosclerosis of any sort in group C versus group B, and this is only related to the increase (P<0.001) of patients reoperated for isolated progression of the disease in the native system. There is no statistically significant difference in the percentage of patients reoperated for late GF of any sort (P=0.82). That there is no significant difference between group A and B, despite there being a statistical difference for patients reoperated for the combination of GF and PA, is due to the statistically significant increase (P<0.001) of patients reoperated for isolated late GF in group B. That the decrease of patients reoperated for late GF of any sort between group B and C reaches significance (P=0.02) is due to the complementary effect of the decrease of isolated late GF (P=0.06) and in combination with PA in group C. These results are interesting, in group B, there is a high percentage of patients reoperated for isolated late GF, we can suppose that these patients had an initial good revascularization, however due to the vein graft pathology they need a reoperation. This in contrast with group A, were a lot of patients were reoperated for combined GF and PA, but significantly shorter after the CABG. This trend was already described by Lytle et al. [15] In group C, there is a significant decrease of patients reoperated for isolated late GF (P=0.02), this is due to extensive use of arterial grafts during the CABG (patent IMA=30%) and probably also to the use of platelet-inhibiting medication [16], this evolution is also reflected in the increased time between CABG and RECABG. However, there in group C there is a significant increase of patients reoperated for PA of any sort, but as a consequence of the increasing number of patients reoperated for isolated PA in the native coronary arteries (P<0.001). This means that despite surgical evolution, the increasing use of arterial grafts, certainly resulting in an increase of the event-free period, and increasing the time before a RECABG, the disease is still going on. The knowledge that in group C, we have patients with total arterial revacularization at the CABG, and new lesions in native coronary arteries, in some patients and even distal of a patent arterial graft, let us suppose that total arterial revascularization is not excluding RECABG. These RECABGs, with several patent arterial grafts, offer again new surgical challenges: preservation of the arterial grafts, mobilization of the heart, recycling of arterial grafts, use of veins, or other alternative grafts.
In conclusion there have been, during the last years, an increasing number of older patients, with more coexisting disease, and more patent arterial grafts, undergoing RECABG. This is not only due to demographic changes, but also in part the result of the different strategies used in CABG. The extensive use of arterial grafts at CABG, results in an increase of the event-free period and of the period between CAGB and RECABG. The increasing number of patients reoperated for progression of the disease in the coronary arteries, confirms again the palliative aspect of bypass surgery and in our aging population, we can expect a further increase of this trend.
|
Footnotes |
|---|
|
References |
|---|
|
TopAbstract1. Introduction2. Material and methods3. Results4. DiscussionReferences |
|---|
70 years. Am J Cardiol 1995;75:734-736.[Medline]
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  Y. K. Mishra, S. P. Collison, R. Malhotra, V. Kohli, Y. Mehta, and N. Trehan Ten-year experience with single-vessel and multivessel reoperative off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., March 1, 2008; 135(3): 527 - 532. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
E. Ott, C. D. Mazer, I. C. Tudor, L. Shore-Lesserson, S. A. Snyder-Ramos, B. A. Finegan, P. Mohnle, C. B. Hantler, B. W. Bottiger, R. D. Latimer, et al. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery care globalization: The impact of national care on fatal and nonfatal outcome J. Thorac. Cardiovasc. Surg., May 1, 2007; 133(5): 1242 - 1251. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 M. Di Mauro, A. L. Iaco, M. Contini, G. Teodori, G. Vitolla, M. Pano, G. Di Giammarco, and A. M. Calafiore Reoperative Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: Analysis of Early and Late Outcomes Ann. Thorac. Surg., January 1, 2005; 79(1): 81 - 87. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
I. Sanisoglu, M. Guden, Z. Bayramoglu, E. Sagbas, C. Dibekoglu, S. Y. Sanisoglu, and B. Akpinar Does off-pump CABG reduce gastrointestinal complications? Ann. Thorac. Surg., February 1, 2004; 77(2): 619 - 625. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 L. Noyez and F. M. van Eck Long-term cardiac survival after reoperative coronary artery bypass grafting Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., January 1, 2004; 25(1): 59 - 64. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. M. van Eck, L. Noyez, F. W.A. Verheugt, and R. M.H.J. Brouwer Analysis of mortality within the first six months after coronary reoperation Ann. Thorac. Surg., December 1, 2002; 74(6): 2106 - 2112. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
F. M. van Eck, L. Noyez, F. W.A. Verheugt, and R. M.H.J. Brouwer Preoperative prediction of early mortality in redocoronary artery surgery Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., June 1, 2002; 21(6): 1031 - 1036. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
L. Noyez Retrocaval route for the right internal mammary artery Eur. J. Cardiothorac. Surg., May 1, 2002; 21(5): 953 - 954. [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| HOME | HELP | FEEDBACK | SUBSCRIPTIONS | ARCHIVE | SEARCH | TABLE OF CONTENTS |
| ANN THORAC SURG | ASIAN CARDIOVASC THORAC ANN | EUR J CARDIOTHORAC SURG |
| J THORAC CARDIOVASC SURG | ICVTS | ALL CTSNet JOURNALS |
