4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Reduction of systemic and cardiac adhesion molecule expression after off-pump versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting

期刊

SHOCK
卷 16, 期 -, 页码 55-59

出版社

BIOMEDICAL PRESS
DOI: 10.1097/00024382-200116001-00011

关键词

OPCAB; inflammation; cytokines; adhesion molecules; humans

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and operative Trauma are associated with increased expression of proinflammatory mediators. We determined the relative contribution of CPB on activation of cytokines and adhesion molecules in patients undergoing coronary revascularization by comparing them with patients receiving off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB). Twenty-six patients were assigned to either the OPCAB procedure using a suction device and regular sternotomy (n = 13), or were treated conventionally using extracorporeal circulation, blood cardioplegia, and hypothermic arrest (29 degreesC-31 degreesC; n = 13). Systemic levels of TNF-alpha and the soluble adhesion molecules P-selectin and intracellular adhesion molecule 1 (ICAM-1) were assayed. Immunohistochemistry was used to account for cardiac-specific expression of adhesion molecules in interventricular endomyocardial sections. Both systemic and endomyocardial expression of adhesion molecules were lower in the OPCAB group. Coronary revascularization with CPB resulted in a significant higher expression of TNF-alpha, which was associated with beta -selectin and ICAM-1 expression. This was accompanied with higher catecholamine requirement in the CPB group in the early postoperative period. Despite comparable surgical trauma, the OPCAB procedure without the use of CPB and cardioplegic arrest significantly reduces systemic and cardiac adhesion molecule expression and catecholamine requirement. Since the clinical course in the early postoperative period was comparable, larger trials are required to select the appropriate patient who benefits most from one or the other treatment regime.

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

4.6
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