4.2 Article

Higher levels of serum cytokines and myocardial tissue markers during on-pump versus off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery

期刊

JOURNAL OF CARDIAC SURGERY
卷 21, 期 4, 页码 395-402

出版社

WILEY
DOI: 10.1111/j.1540-8191.2006.00272.x

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Increased Troponin I levels and pro-inflammatory cytokines have been reported in most patients undergoing cardiac surgery, ascribed to the type and extent of surgery, reperfusion injury, and the method of myocardial protection. We investigated their levels in patients undergoing on-pump (CCAB) or off-pump (OPCAB) coronary artery bypass surgery and whether these correlated with the extent of myocardial injury. One hundred twenty patients were prospectively randomized to undergo OPCAB ( n = 60) or CCAB ( n = 60). Hemodynamic and respiratory data, as well as serum CK-MB mass fraction, Troponin I, and interleukin (IL)-6, IL-8, and IL-10 levels, were collected perioperatively. Demographic, hemodynamic, and respiratory parameters were similar between the two groups. Troponin I was significantly lower in the OPCAB than in the CCAB group, either at the end of ischemia, end of surgery, 6-hour and 24-hour postoperatively ( 4 +/- 3, 5 +/- 3, 7 +/- 5, and 8 +/- 3 mu g/L, vs. 19 +/- 18, 27 +/- 19, 28 +/- 13.5, and 33 +/- 8.5 mu g/L, respectively, p < 0.05). Serum cytokine levels in the OPCAB patients were lower compared to the CCAB group at the end of surgery ( 32 +/- 35, 25 +/- 30, and 40 +/- 30 pg/ml for IL-6, IL-8, and IL-10 vs. 230 +/- 30, 140 +/- 70, and 125 +/- 50 pg/ml, respectively, p < 0.05). Plasma IL- 6 levels correlated with the Troponin I levels at the end of surgery in both groups (r = 0.45, p = 0.01). Thus, OPCAB surgery is associated with reduced levels of Troponin I and activation of cytokines, compared to those in the CCAB group. High levels of these factors could correlate with myocardial damage during coronary artery bypass surgery. This finding warrants further laboratory and clinical confirmation in the future.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.2
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据