4.6 Article

Effect of flow competition on internal thoracic artery graft: Postoperative velocimetric and angiographic study

Journal

JOURNAL OF THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY
Volume 120, Issue 3, Pages 459-465

Publisher

MOSBY-ELSEVIER
DOI: 10.1067/mtc.2000.108166

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objectives: To assess the effects of competitive blood flow on internal thoracic artery grafts, we investigated postoperative flow velocity characteristics and angiographic findings of the grafts with various grades of native coronary artery stenosis. Methods: Fifty patients who had an internal thoracic artery graft to the left anterior descending artery underwent intravascular Doppler graft velocimetry during postoperative angiography. Patients were divided into 3 groups according to the grade of native coronary stenosis: group H (28 patients), 80% stenosis or greater; group M (16 patients), 60% to 79% stenosis; and group L (6 patients), 40% to 59% stenosis. Phasic flow velocity of the grafts was measured with an intravascular Doppler ultrasound-tipped guide wire during angiography, Graft flow volume was calculated from the diameter and the average peak velocity. Results: Average peak velocity (group HI 27.1 +/- 8.6 cm/s; group M, 16.9 +/- 3.9 cm/s; group L, 7.2 +/- 3.7 cm/s), distal graft diameter (group H, 2.27 +/- 0.23 mm; group M, 2.00 +/- 0.28mm; group L, 1.07 +/- 0.27 mm), and calculated graft flow volume (group H, 33.1 +/- 12.0 mL/min; group M, 16.2 +/- 5.8 mL/min; group L, 2.3 +/- 2.0 mL/min) significantly differed among the 3 groups. Graft flow in diastole and systole also differed among the 3 groups. Conclusions: Competitive blood flow reduces internal thoracic artery graft flow and diameter according to the grade of the native coronary artery stenosis. These data suggest that grafting the internal thoracic artery to the coronary artery with stenosis of a low grade can cause graft atrophy and failure.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available