PubMed Health⌕ Search
Home/Archive/PubMed

PubMed · 10818884

Extraanatomic bypass surgery.

V A Fahey·A Milzarek
View original source ↗Export metadata ↓

Abstract

The term "extraanatomic bypass" applies to grafts that pass through a different anatomic pathway than do the natural blood vessels they replace. These grafts are devised to circumvent complex problems when conventional vascular procedures are not possible or are too hazardous to perform. There are various indications, advantages, and disadvantages to each of these grafts. Extraanatomic bypass grafts are an accepted technique with known patency rates. Quality nursing care plays a significant role in successful patient outcome.

Explore related subjects

Blood Vessel Prosthesis ImplantationBlood VesselsHumansIschemiaPatient Education as TopicPatient SelectionPerioperative CarePerioperative NursingTransplantation, HeterotopicJournal ArticleReview

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

V A Fahey, A Milzarek. 1999. Extraanatomic bypass surgery.. https://doi.org/10.1016/s1062-0303(99)90012-2

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

PubMed2000

Procedural results and late clinical outcomes after percutaneous interventions using long (> or = 25 mm) versus short (< 20 mm) stents.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate clinical outcomes after the use of long coronary stents. BACKGROUND: The use of long slotted-tube stents has been recently approved in the U.S. to treat long lesions or dissections. Procedural success and long-term outcomes of long versus short stents have not been established. METHODS: We evaluated procedural success, major in-hospital complications, target lesion revascularization and long-term (one year) clinical outcomes in 1,226 consecutive patients (1,259 native coronary lesions) who underwent a single vessel intervention using a single long (> or =25 mm, 116 patients) or short (<20 mm, 1,110 patients) tubular-slotted stent. RESULTS: Patients treated with long stents had more diffuse (>10 mm length) lesions (63% vs. 28%, p = 0.001). The mean stent length was 28 +/- 5 mm versus 15 +/- 2 mm for long versus short stent groups (p = 0.001). Overall procedural success was similar in the long versus short stent groups (96% vs. 98%, p = 0.08). However, major in-hospital complications tended to occur more frequently in patients treated with longer stents (3.4% vs. 1.0%, p = 0.04). The rate of periprocedural non-Q-wave myocardial infarction (MI) (creatine kinase-MB > or =5 times normal) was notably higher after long stent implantation (23% vs. 11%, p = 0.001). Target lesion revascularization at one year was 14.5% vs. 13.8% (p = 0.69), and target vessel revascularization rate was 19.6% vs. 17.3% (p = 0.41) in the long versus short stent group, respectively. There was no difference in one year mortality (2.5% vs. 3.5%, p = 0.49) or Q-wave MI (2.7% vs. 1.2%, p = 0.48), and the overall cardiac event-free survival was similar for the two groups (81%). CONCLUSIONS: The use of single coronary long (> or =25 mm) versus short (<20 mm) stents is associated with: 1) somewhat increased major procedural complications, 2) significantly higher frequency of periprocedural non-Q-wave MIs, and 3) equivalent repeat revascularization risk and cardiac event-free survival out-of-hospital up to one year.

Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation↗
PubMed2000

Intravascular ultrasonic predictors of angiographic restenosis after long coronary stenting.

The intravascular ultrasound (IVUS) criteria for stent optimization have not been determined in stenting long lesions. We evaluated the predictors of angiographic restenosis and compared it with stent lumen cross-sectional area (CSA) and stent length between short (stent length <20 mm) and long (> or =20 mm) coronary stenting. IVUS-guided coronary stenting was successfully performed in 285 consecutive patients with 304 native coronary lesions. Six-month follow-up angiogram was performed in 236 patients (82.8%) with 246 lesions (80.9%). Results were evaluated using conventional (clinical, angiographic, and IVUS) methods. The overall angiographic restenosis rate was 22.8% (56 of 246 lesions) (short stent 17.6% vs. long stent 32.2%, p = 0.009). Using multivariate logistic regression analysis, the independent predictors of angiographic restenosis were the IVUS stent lumen CSA (odds ratio 1.51, 95% confidence intervals 1.18 to 1.92, p = 0.001) and stent length (odds ratio 0.95, 95% confidence intervals 0.91 to 1.00, p = 0.039). The angiographic restenosis rate was 54.8% for stent lumen CSA of <5.0 mm2 (short stent 37.5% vs. long stent 73.3%, p = 0.049), 27.4% for CSA between 5.0 and 7.0 mm2 (short stent 24.1% vs. long stent 31.7%, p = 0.409), 10.5% for CSA between 7.0 and 9.0 mm2 (short stent 10.0% vs. long stent 12.5%, p = 0.772), and 11.4% for stent lumen CSA of > or =9.0 mm2 (short stent 10.4% vs. long stent 13.3%, p = 0.767) (p = 0.001). Compared with short coronary stenting, long coronary stenting is effective treatment modality to cover long lesions with comparable long-term clinical outcomes in cases of stent lumen CSA of > or =7.0 mm2. Regardless of the stent length, the most important factor determining angiographic restenosis was the IVUS stent lumen CSA in relatively large coronary artery lesions.

Blood Vessel Prosthesis Implantation↗