ArticleInteractive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery2013
The application of intraoperative transit time flow measurement to accurately assess anastomotic quality in sequential vein grafting.
Article in Interactive cardiovascular and thoracic surgery, 2013. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed, 9 citations in OpenAlex.
- Assessment of the Graft Quality and Patency during and after Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Review
- Intraoperative graft assessment during coronary artery bypass surgery.General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2015Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectivesIntraoperative transit time flow measurement (TTFM) is widely used to assess anastomotic quality in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). However, in sequential vein grafting, the flow characteristics collected by the conventional TTFM method are usually associated with total graft flow and might not accurately indicate the quality of every distal anastomosis in a sequential graft. The purpose of our study was to examine a new TTFM method that could assess the quality of each distal anastomosis in a sequential graft more reliably than the conventional TTFM approach.
methodsTwo TTFM methods were tested in 84 patients who underwent sequential saphenous off-pump CABG in Beijing An Zhen Hospital between April and August 2012. In the conventional TTFM method, normal blood flow in the sequential graft was maintained during the measurement, and the flow probe was placed a few centimetres above the anastomosis to be evaluated. In the new method, blood flow in the sequential graft was temporarily reduced during the measurement by placing an atraumatic bulldog clamp at the graft a few centimetres distal to the anastomosis to be evaluated, while the position of the flow probe remained the same as in the conventional method. This new TTFM method was named the flow reduction TTFM. Graft flow parameters measured by both methods were compared.
resultsCompared with the conventional TTFM, the flow reduction TTFM resulted in significantly lower mean graft blood flow (P < 0.05); in contrast, yielded significantly higher pulsatility index (P < 0.05). Diastolic filling was not significantly different between the two methods and was >50% in both cases. Interestingly, the flow reduction TTFM identified two defective middle distal anastomoses that the conventional TTFM failed to detect. Graft flows near the defective distal anastomoses were improved substantially after revision.
conclusionsIn this study, we found that temporary reduction of graft flow during TTFM seemed to enhance the sensitivity of TTFM to less-than-critical anastomotic defects in a sequential graft and to improve the overall accuracy of the intraoperative assessment of anastomotic quality in sequential vein grafting.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.