Sequential multidetector computed tomography assessments after venous graft treatment solution in coronary artery bypass grafting.

OBJECTIVES: To assess the effect of DuraGraft (Somahlution Inc, Jupiter, Fla), an intraoperative graft treatment, on saphenous vein grafts in patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting. METHODS: Within patients, 2 saphenous vein grafts were randomized to DuraGraft or heparinized saline. Multidetector computed tomography angiography at 1, 3, and 12 months assessed change in wall thickness (primary end point at 3 months), lumen diameter, and maximum narrowing for the whole graft and the proximal 5-cm segment. Safety end points included graft occlusion, death, myocardial infarction, and repeat revascularization. RESULTS: At 3 months, no significant changes were observed between DuraGraft- and saline-treated grafts (125 each) for wall thickness, lumen diameter, and maximum narrowing. At 12 months, DuraGraft-treated grafts demonstrated smaller mean wall thickness, overall (0.12 ± 0.06 vs 0.20 ± 0.31 mm; P = .02) and in the proximal segment (0.11 ± 0.03 vs 0.21 ± 0.33 mm; P = .01). Changes in wall thickness were greater in the proximal segment of saline-treated grafts (0.09 ± 0.29 vs 0.00 ± 0.03 mm; P = .04). Increase in maximum graft narrowing was larger in the proximal segment in the saline-treated grafts (4.7% ± 12.7% vs 0.2% ± 3.8%; P = .01). Nine DuraGraft and 11 saline grafts had occluded or thrombosed. One myocardial infarction was associated with a saline graft occlusion. No deaths or revascularizations were observed. CONCLUSIONS: DuraGraft demonstrated a favorable effect on wall thickness at 12 months, particularly in the proximal segment. Longer-term follow-up in larger studies is needed to evaluate the effect on clinical outcomes.

DuraGraft vascular conduit preservation solution in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting: rationale and design of a within-patient randomised multicentre trial.

Introduction: Saphenous vein grafts (SVGs) remain the most often used conduits in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). However, they are prone to vein graft disease (VGD) during follow-up, which may compromise clinical outcomes. Injury to the SVG endothelium during harvesting and storage promotes neointimal hyperplasia that can advance to atherosclerosis characterised by SVG failure. This trial investigates the potential benefit of DuraGraft, a novel, one-time intraoperative graft treatment developed to efficiently protect the structural and functional integrity of the vascular endothelium, on the development and progression of VGD in CABG patients. Methods and analysis: This ongoing prospective randomised, double-blinded multicentre trial (NCT02272582/NCT02774824) includes patients undergoing isolated CABG requiring at least two SVGs. It compares the impact of DuraGraft, a novel treatment against VGD versus the standard-of-care (SOC; heparinised saline) using a within-patient randomisation (with one SVG treated with DuraGraft and the other treated with SOC). Besides clinical assessments, patients undergo longitudinal 64-slice or better multidetector CT (MDCT) angiography of paired grafts (within each patient) at 4-6 weeks, 3 months and 12 months. Primary endpoints will be the magnitude of change in mean wall thickness and lumen diameter (stenosis) of paired grafts, at 3 and 12 months, respectively. Besides the evaluation of overall safety, longitudinal assessment of each graft (secondary endpoint) is performed in order to obtain insight into graft behaviour after CABG. Enrolment of 119 patients was successfully completed, and analysis of MDCT angiography follow-up is ongoing with the completed analysis becoming available by end of first quarter of 2018. Ethics and dissemination: The regional ethics committees have approved the trial. Results will be submitted for publication. Clinical trial identifier: NCT02272582 and NCT02774824.

Misconceptions about brain injury: a survey replication study.

PRIMARY OBJECTIVE: The researchers sought to update information about the public's knowledge about brain injury and to document progress made toward correcting misconceptions. RESEARCH DESIGN: Survey replication. METHODS AND PROCEDURES: Three hundred and eighteen respondents from the lay public answered questions about general brain injury knowledge, coma and unconsciousness, memory deficits and brain injury recovery. Chi-square analyses revealed significant differences among respondents based on age, gender, education and personal experience with brain injury or brain injury survivors. Findings were also compared with those reported by previous researchers administering similar questionnaires. MAIN OUTCOMES AND RESULTS: Misconceptions persist regarding some brain injury sequelae. Although most respondents knew general information, large numbers reported incorrect beliefs about memory problems, coma and unconsciousness and recovery. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the frequency with which it occurs, the general public persists in holding misconceptions about brain injury. Greater public awareness is necessary to prompt appropriate health care funding and rehabilitative service decisions.