The Cardica C-Port System: clinical and angiographic evaluation of a new device for automated, compliant distal anastomoses in coronary artery bypass grafting surgery--a multicenter prospective clinical trial

OBJECTIVES: The C-Port System (Cardica, Inc, Redwood City, Calif) integrates in one tool all functions necessary to enable rapid automated distal coronary anastomoses. The goal of this prospective, nonrandomized, and multicenter study is to determine the safety and efficacy of this novel anastomotic system. METHODS: Five centers enrolled 133 patients awaiting elective coronary artery bypass grafting surgery. Outcome variables were intraoperative device performance, incidence of device-related adverse events, predischarge and 6-month angiographic graft patency, and 12-month clinical outcome. Independent core laboratories performed qualitative and quantitative angiographic and computed tomographic assessments. RESULTS: The C-Port was used to perform a vein-to-coronary anastomosis in 130 patients. Intraoperative conversion to a hand-sewn anastomosis was necessary in 11 patients because of inadequate target site preparation, inappropriate target vessel selection, or both. Inadequate blood flow related to poor runoff required conversion in 3 additional patients. Three patients died before discharge of causes unrelated to the device. At discharge, 113 patients had a C-Port implant in place, and 104 C-Port anastomoses were studied by means of angiography, resulting in 100 FitzGibbon A, 3 FitzGibbon B, and 1 FitzGibbon 0 classifications. At 6 months, one additional patient died of a device-unrelated cause, and 98 patients were evaluated by means of angiography (n = 89). Overall patency (FitzGibbon A) was 92.1%. Three C-Port anastomoses were rated FitzGibbon B, and 4 were rated FitzGibbon 0. At 12 months, 107 (98.2%) of 109 alive patients were followed up, without any reports of device-related major adverse cardiac events. CONCLUSIONS: The C-Port System allows for a rapid, reliable, and compliant distal anastomosis and yields favorable 6-month angiographic and 12-month clinical results when compared with published studies.

Lung volume reduction surgery versus conservative treatment in severe emphysema

Lung volume reduction surgery (LVRS) has been proposed for patients with severe emphysema to improve dyspnoea and pulmonary function. It is unknown, however, whether prognosis and pulmonary function in these patients can be improved compared to conservative treatment. The effect of LVRS and conservative therapy were compared prospectively in 57 patients with emphysema, who fulfilled the standard criteria for LVRS. The patients were divided into two groups according to their own decision. Patients in group 1 (n=29, eight females, mean+/-SEM 58.8+/-1.7 yrs, forced expiratory volume in one second (FEV1) 27.6+/-1.3% of the predicted value) underwent LVRS. Patients in group 2 (n=28, five females, 58.5+/-1.8 yrs, FEV1 30.8+/-1.4% pred) preferred to postpone LVRS. There were no significant differences in lung function between the two groups at baseline; however, there was a tendency towards better functional status in the control group. The control group had a better modified Medical Research Council (MMRC) dyspnea score (3.1+/-0.15 versus 3.5+/-0.1, p<0.04). Model-based comparisons were used to estimate the differences between the two groups over 18 months. Significant improvements were observed in the LVRS group compared to the control group in FEV1, total lung capacity (TLC), Residual volume (RV), MMRC dyspnea score and 6-min walking distance on all follow up visits. The estimated difference in FEV1 was 33% (95% confidence interval 13-58%; p>0.0001), in TLC 12.9% (7.9-18.8%; p>0.0001), in RV 60.9% 32.6-89.2%; p>0.0001), in 6-min walking distance 230 m (138-322 m; p<0.002) and in MMRC dyspnoea score 1.17 (0.79-1.55; p<0.0001). In conclusion, lung volume reduction surgery is more effective than conservative treatment for the improvement of dyspnoea, lung function and exercise capacity in selected patients with severe emphysema.

Progression of steroid-associated osteoporosis after heart transplantation

BACKGROUND: Osteoporosis has been recognized as an important side effect of long-term and of pulsed steroid application after heart transplantation. METHODS: In June 1989 a prospective clinical trial was started to study bone demineralization by quantitative computed tomographic scan. All patients received vitamin D and calcium. In group I (n = 30) synthetic calcitonin (40 Medical Research Council Standard Units subcutaneously per day was administered in 14-day cycles, whereas group II patients (n = 31) received a placebo preparation. Repeat trabecular and cortical quantitative computed tomographic scans of the thoracic (T12) and lumbar spine (L1, L2, L3) were obtained within 48 weeks after heart transplantation. RESULTS: Expressed as the means of T12, L1, L2, and L3, trabecular bone density decreased significantly from 100+/-24 to 79+/-29 mg/mL within 3 weeks after heart transplantation, followed by a further reduction to 67+/-29 mg/mL after 3 months in the calcitonin group. The values for cortical bone density decreased significantly from 229+/-37 to 202+/-40 mg/mL (calcitonin) 3 weeks after heart transplantation. Comparable results were obtained in the placebo group. In both groups bone density remained stable thereafter. Intergroup differences were not of statistical significance. CONCLUSIONS: In heart transplant recipients progressive trabecular bone demineralization is limited to the first 3 postoperative months. Thereafter, bone density remained stable. A positive effect of synthetic calcitonin in addition to prophylactic calcium and vitamin D application could not be proved by repeat quantitative computed tomography.

Lung volume reduction surgery for severe emphysema

BACKGROUND: We report mid-term results after 25 consecutive lung volume reduction operations (LVRS) for the treatment of severe dyspnea due to advanced emphysema. METHODS: Study design: patients were studied prospectively up to 12 months after surgery. Setting: preoperative evaluation, surgery and postoperative care took place in our university hospital. Patients: patient selection was based on severe dyspnea and airway obstruction despite optimal medical treatment, lung overinflation and completed rehabilitation programme. Patients with severe hypercarbia (PCO2>50 mmHg) were excluded. Nineteen rehabilitated patients who fulfilled our inclusion criteria but postponed or denied LVRS were followed up clinically. Interventions: LVRS was performed bilaterally in 22 patients (median sternotomy) and unilaterally in 3 patients (limited thoracotomy). Measures: Outcome was measured by dyspnea evaluation, 6-minute-walking distance and pulmonary function tests. RESULTS: Twelve months postoperatively dyspnea and mobility improved significantly (MRC score from 3.3+/-0.7 to 2.12+/-0.8, 6-min-walk from 251+/-190 to 477+/-189 m). These results were superior compared to the results of the conservatively treated patients. Significant improvement could also be documented in airway obstruction (FEV1 from 960+/-369 to 1438+/-610 ml) and overinflation (TLC from 133+/-14 to 118+/-21% predicted and RV from 280+/-56 to 186+/-59% predicted). CONCLUSIONS: LVRS is an effective and promising treatment option for selected patients with end-stage emphysema and could be offered as an alternative and / or bridge to lung transplantation.