• Journal of Chest Surgery
• /
• v.41 no.2
• /
• pp.210-215
• /
• 2008

Background: Drug-eluting stents are contributing to the exponential growth of percutaneous coronary intervention, and even in the patients with left main coronary artery disease, owing to the decreased restenosis rate. Our study aimed at comparing the one-year results after coronary artery bypass grafting versus percutaneous coronary intervention with drug-eluting stents in patients with left main coronary artery disease. Material and Method: Those patients who underwent coronary bypass surgery or stenting at our hospital under the diagnosis of left main coronary artery disease were divided in two groups. The variables for comparison were the preoperative disease severity, the length of the hospital stay, the early mortality and the cumulative incidence of mortality, myocardial infarction and repeated revascularization. Result: There were 101 cases in the surgery group and 78 cases in the stent group. Age, gender, the risk factors, the left ventricular ejection fraction and the proportion of acute coronary syndrome showed no significant differences between the two groups. The surgery group showed a more severe condition according to the Euroscore, a greater incidence of urgency, a longer hospital stay and a greater incidence of multi-vessel disease. The early mortality and one-year cumulative mortality were not different between the groups. The Euroscore-matched comparison for the surgery group (41 patients) and the stent group (78 patients) showed no significant differences in the Euroscore, age, gender, risk factors and the proportion of acute coronary syndrome. The surgery group in the Euroscore-matched comparison showed more multi-vessel disease and a longer hospital stay. The surgery group showed lower early mortality and lower one-year cumulative mortality, but this was statistically insignificant (0% vs 2.6%, respectively, p=0.55; 0% vs 6.6%, respectively, p=0.30). The rates of repeated revascularization and major adverse events (death or myocardial infarct) were lower in the CABG group, but this was not statistically significant (13.3% vs 6.3%, respectively, p=0.48; 10.0% vs 0%, respectively, p=0.09). Conclusion: Percutaneous coronary intervention using drug-eluting stents in low-risk patients with left main coronary artery disease resulted in a shortened length of the hospital stay, as compared with that of the CABG group of patients. However, the patients who underwent percutaneous coronary intervention using drug-eluting stents showed a tendency for an increased rate of repeated revascularization and higher one-year cumulative mortality. Further studies with large populations and longer follow-up will be necessary to reaffirm our findings.

• Journal of Chest Surgery
• /
• v.39 no.3 s.260
• /
• pp.184-193
• /
• 2006

Background: Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) has been proven to result in less morbidity. The patients who have left ventricular dysfunction may have benefits by avoiding the adverse effects of the cardiopulmonary bypass. The present study compared early and midterm outcomes of off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (On pump CABG) in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction. Material and Method: Ninety hundred forth six patients underwent isolated coronary artery bypass grafting by one surgeon between January 2001 and Febrary 2005.. Data were collected in 100 patients who had left ventricular ejection fraction (L VEF) less than $35\%$ (68 OPCAB; 32 On pump CABG). Mean age of patients were 62.9$\pm$9.0 years in OPCAS group and 63.8$\pm$8.0 years in On pump CABG group. We compared the preoperative risk factors and evaluated early and midterm outcomes. Result: In OPCAB and On pump CABG group, mean number of used grafts per patient were 2.75$\pm$0.72, 2.78$\pm$0.55 and mean number of distal anastomoses were 3.00$\pm$0.79, 3.16$\pm$0.72 respectively. There was one perioperative death in OPCAB group ($1.5\%$). The operation time, ventilation time, ICU stay time, CK-MB on the first postoperative day, and occurrence rate of complications were significantly low in OPCAB group. Mean follow-up time was 26.6$\pm$12.8 months (4${\~}$54 months). Mean LVEF of OPCAB and On pump CABG group improved significantly from $27.1\pm4.5\%$ to $40.7\pm13.0\%$ and $26.9\pm5.4\%$ to $33.3\pm13.7\%$. The 4-year actuarial survival rate of OPCAB and On pump CABG group were $92.2\%,\;88.3\%$ and the 4-year freedom rates from cardiac death were $97.7\%,\;96.4\%$ respectively. There were no significant differences between two groups in 4 year freedom rate from cardiac event and angina. Conclusion: OPCAS improves myocardial function and favors early and mid-term outcomes in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction compared to On pump CABG group. Therefore, OPCAB is a preferable operative strategy even in patients with severe left ventricular dysfunction.

• Journal of Chest Surgery
• /
• v.40 no.1 s.270
• /
• pp.45-51
• /
• 2007

Background: Although echocardiography is usually used for quantitative assessment of left ventricular function, the recently developed 16-slice multidetector computed tomography (MDCT) is not only capable of evaluating the coronary arteries but also left ventricular function. Therefore, the objective of our study was to compare the values of left ventricular function quantified by MDCT to those by echocardiography for evaluation of its regards to clinical applications. Material and Method: From 49 patients who underwent MDCT in our hospital from November 1, 2003 to January 31, 2005, we enrolled 20 patients who underwent echocardiography during the same period for this study. Left ventricular end-diastolic volume index (LVEDVI), left ventricular end-systolic volume index (LVESVI), stroke volume index (SVI), left ventricular mass index (LVMI), and ejection fraction (EF) were analyzed. Result: Average LVEDVI ($80.86{\pm}34.69mL$ for MDCT vs $60.23{\pm}29.06mL$ for Echocardiography, p<0.01), average LVESVI ($37.96{\pm}24.52mL$ for MDCT vs $25.68{\pm}16.57mL$ for Echocardiography, p<0.01), average SVI ($42.90{\pm}15.86mL$ for MDCT vs $34.54{\pm}17.94mL$ for Echocardiography, p<0.01), average LVMI ($72.14{\pm}25.35mL$ for MDCT vs $130.35{\pm}53.10mL$ for Echocardiography, p<0.01), and average EF ($55.63{\pm}12.91mL$ for MOCT vs $59.95{\pm}12.75ml$ for Echocardiography, p<0.05) showed significant difference between both groups. Average LVEDVI, average LVESVI, and average SVI were higher in MDCT, and average LVMI and average EF were higher in echocardiogram. Comparing correlation for each parameters between both groups, LVEDVI $(r^2=0.74,\;p<0.0001)$, LVESVI $(r^2=0.69,\;p<0.0001)$ and SVI $(r^2=0.55,\;p<0.0001)$ showed high relevance, LVMI $(r^2=0.84,\;p<0.0001)$ showed very high relevance, and $EF (r^2=0.45,\;p=0.0002)$ showed relatively high relevance. Conclusion: Quantitative assessment of left ventricular volume and function using 16-slice MDCT showed high relevance compared with echocardiography, therefore may be a feasible assessment method. However, because the average of each parameters showed significant difference, the absolute values between both studies may not be appropriate for clinical applications. Furthermore, considering the future development of MDCT, we expect to be able to easily evaluate the assessment of coronary artery stenosis along with left ventricular function in coronary artery disease patients.

• Journal of Chest Surgery
• /
• v.40 no.9
• /
• pp.600-606
• /
• 2007

Background: Infective endocarditis shows high surgical mortality and morbidity rates, especially for aortic endocarditis. This study attempts to investigate the clinical characteristics and operative results of isolated aortic endocarditis. Material and Method: From July 1990 to May 2005, 25 patients with isolated aortic endocarditis (Group I, male female=18 : 7, mean age $43.2{\pm}18.6$ years) and 23 patients with isolated mitral endocarditis (Group II, male female=10 : 13, mean age $43.2{\pm}17.1$ years) underwent surgical treatment in our hospital. All the patients had native endocarditis and 7 patients showed a bicuspid aortic valve in Group I. Two patients had prosthetic valve endocarditis and one patients developed mitral endocarditis after a mitral valvuloplasty in Group II. Positive blood cultures were obtained from 11 (44.0%) patients in Group I, and 10 (43.3%) patients in Group II, The pre-operative left ventricular ejection fraction for each group was $60.8{\pm}8.7%$ and $62.1{\pm}8.1%$ (p=0.945), respectively. There was moderate to severe aortic regurgitation in 18 patients and vegetations were detected in 17 patients in Group I. There was moderate to severe mitral regurgitation in 19 patients and vegetations were found in 18 patients in Group II. One patient had a ventricular septal defect and another patient underwent a Maze operation with microwaves due to atrial fibrillation. We performed echocardiography before discharge and each year during follow-up. The mean follow-up period was $37.2{\pm}23.5$ (range $9{\sim}123$) months. Result: Postoperative complications included three cases of low cardiac output in Group I and one case each of re-surgery because of bleeding and low cardiac output in Group II. One patient died from an intra-cranial hemorrhage on the first day after surgery in Group I, but there were no early deaths in Group II. The 1, 3-, and 5-year valve related event free rates were 92.0%, 88.0%, and 88.0% for Group I patients, and 91.3%, 76.0%, and 76.0% for Group II patients, respectively. The 1, 3-, and 5-year survival rates were 96.0%, 96.0%, and 96.0% for Group I patients, and foo%, 84.9%, and 84.9% for Group II patients, respectively. Conclusion: Acceptable surgical results and mid-term clinical results for aortic endocarditis were seen.