Synchronous carotid and coronary bypass surgery using minimal extracorporeal circulation does not increase the risk of in-hospital stroke compared to isolated carotid endarterectomy under general anaesthesia

Gebiet: Chirurgie Abstract: Introduction: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) could be approached in a combined or a staged fashion. Some crucial studies have shown no significant difference in peri-operative stroke and death rate in combined versus staged CEA/CABG. At present conventional extracorporeal circulation (CECC) is regarded as the gold standard for performing on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. On contrary, the use of minimized extracorporeal circulation (MECC) for CABG diminishes hemodilution, blood-air contact, foreign surface contact and inflammatory response. At the same time, general anaesthesia (GA) is a potential risk factor for higher perioperative stroke rate after isolated CEA, not only for the ipsilateral but also for the contralateral side especially in case of contralateral high-grade stenosis or occlusion. The aim of the study was to analyze if synchronous CEA/CABG using MECC (CEA/CABG group) allows reducing the perioperative stroke risk to the level of isolated CEA performed under GA (CEA-GA group). – Methods: A retrospective analysis of all patients who underwent CEA at our institution between January 2005 and December 2012 was performed. We compared outcomes between all patients undergoing CEA/CABG to all isolated CEA-GA during the same time period. The CEA/CABG group was additionally compared to a reference group consisting of patients undergoing isolated CEA in local anaesthesia. Primary outcome was in-hospital stroke. – Results: A total of 367 CEAs were performed, from which 46 patients were excluded having either off-pump CABG or other cardiac surgery procedures than CABG combined with CEA. Out of 321 patients, 74 were in the CEA/CABG and 64 in the CEA-GA group. There was a significantly higher rate of symptomatic stenoses among patients in the CEA-GA group (p<0.002). Three (4.1%) strokes in the CEA/CABG group were registered, two ipsilateral (2.7%) and one contralateral (1.4%) to the operated side. In the CEA-GA group 2 ipsilateral strokes (3.1%) occurred. No difference was noticed between the groups (p=1.000). One patient with stroke in each group had a symptomatic stenosis preoperatively. – Conclusions: Outcome with regard to mortality and neurologic injury is very good in both -patients undergoing CEA alone as well as patients undergoing synchronous CEA and CABG using the MECC system. Although the CEA/CABG group showed slightly increased risk of stroke, it can be considered as combined treatment in particular clinical situations.

Use of minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation in cardiac surgery: principles, definitions and potential benefits. A position paper from the Minimal invasive Extra-Corporeal Technologies international Society (MiECTiS).

Minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation (MiECC) systems have initiated important efforts within science and technology to further improve the biocompatibility of cardiopulmonary bypass components to minimize the adverse effects and improve end-organ protection. The Minimal invasive Extra-Corporeal Technologies international Society was founded to create an international forum for the exchange of ideas on clinical application and research of minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation technology. The present work is a consensus document developed to standardize the terminology and the definition of minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation technology as well as to provide recommendations for the clinical practice. The goal of this manuscript is to promote the use of MiECC systems into clinical practice as a multidisciplinary strategy involving cardiac surgeons, anaesthesiologists and perfusionists.

Minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation should become the standard practice in coronary revascularization surgery†.

We read with great interest the large-scale network meta-analysis by Kowalewski et al. comparing clinical outcomes of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) operated on using minimal invasive extracorporeal circulation (MiECC) or off-pump (OPCAB) with those undergoing surgery on conventional cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) [1]. The authors actually integrated into single study two recently published meta-analysis comparing MiECC and OPCAB with conventional CPB, respectively [2, 3] into a single study. According to the results of this study, MiECC and OPCAB are both strongly associated with improved perioperative outcomes following CABG when compared with CABG performed on conventional CPB. The authors conclude that MiECC may represent an attractive compromise between OPCAB and conventional CPB. After carefully reading the whole manuscript, it becomes evident that the role of MiECC is clearly undervalued. Detailed statistical analysis using the surface under the cumulative ranking probabilities indicated that MiECC represented the safer and more effective intervention regarding all-cause mortality and protection from myocardial infarction, cerebral stroke, postoperative atrial fibrillation and renal dysfunction when compared with OPCAB. Even though no significant statistical differences were demonstrated between MiECC and OPCAB, the superiority of MiECC is obvious by the hierarchy of treatments in the probability analysis, which ranked MiECC as the first treatment followed by OPCAB and conventional CPB. Thus, MiECC does not represent a compromise between OPCAB and conventional CPB, but an attractive dominant technique in CABG surgery. These results are consistent with the largest published meta-analysis by Anastasiadis et al. comparing MiECC versus conventional CPB including a total of 2770 patients. A significant decrease in mortality was observed when MiECC was used, which was also associated with reduced risk of postoperative myocardial infarction and neurological events [4]. Similarly, another recent meta-analysis by Benedetto et al. compared MiECC versus OPCAB and resulted in comparable outcomes between these two surgical techniques [5]. As stated in the text, superiority of MiECC observed in the current network meta-analysis, when compared with OPCAB, could be attributed to the fact that MiECC offers the potential for complete revascularization, whereas OPCAB poses a challenge for unexperienced surgeons; especially when distal marginal branches on the lateral and/or posterior wall of the heart need revascularization. This is reflected by a significantly lower number of distal anastomoses performed in OPCAB when compared with conventional CPB. Therefore, taking into consideration the literature published up to date, including the results of the current article, we advocate that MiECC should be integrated in the clinical practice guidelines as a state-of-the-art technique and become a standard practice for perfusion in coronary revascularization surgery.