English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background Coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) without the use of cardio-pulmonary bypass (CPB) was introduced to avoid the potential damaging effects of fpreign surfaces. Nevertheless, the value of off-pump CABG (OPCAB) remains controversial. Regional myocardial work has been shown to reflect regional metabolic demand and provide a more comprehensive assessment of myocardial function. Recently a novel non-invasive method for assessing regional MW by LV pressure–strain loop analysis has been described. Purpose To detect changes of MW after CABG comparing off- and on-pump techniques. Methods We prospectively evaluated 93 patients undergoing CABG (50 on- vs. 43 off-pump). Patients underwent transthoracic echocardiography exams prior to and one week after surgery as well as concurrently systolic arterial blood pressure measurements at rest. Besides conventional echocardiography parameters, wemeasured global longitudinal strain (GLS), global work index (GWI) and global work efficiency (GWE). Results All patients survived surgery. Patients in the OPCAB group had significantly higher EuroSCORE II (3.3% vs. 1.1%, p &amp;lt; 0.001). Preoperatively, OPCABgroup had significantly lower EF (50.1 vs. 55.7%, p = 0.004), lower GWI (1411 vs. 1650mmHg%, p = 0.039) and lower GWE (86.7 vs. 91.6%, p = 0.017). GLS did not differ significantly between off- and on-pump groupspreoperatively. However, postoperatively GLS, MWI, MWE and EF decreased significantly within the on-pump group (p &amp;lt; 0.001, p &amp;lt; 0.001, p &amp;lt; 0.001 and p = 0.002, respectively). In the OPCAB group only GWI and GLSdecreased significantly (p = 0.028 and p = 0.017, respectively). Due to the fact, that mean differences between all pre- and postoperative values were higher in the on-pump group, no significant differences in systolic LV-function (sLVF) could be detected between on- and off-pump patients postoperatively. During the early postoperative phase, no correlation between GWI and GWE and clinical outcomes could be detected, onlylower preoperative-GWI values showed a weak correlation with the incidence of postoperative cardiogenic shock (r= -0.27, p = 0.029). Conclusion Despite having worse preoperative sLVF in the off-pump group determined by EF, GLS, GWI and GWE, the decrease in sLVF parameters was significantly higher in the on-pump group, leading to an equal distribution of LV-function parameters between off- and on-pump patients postoperatively. Our results suggest that off-pump CABG provides a better preservation of LV-function.

P312 Early changes of left ventricular myocardial work performance in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery: off-pump vs. on-pump