The efficacy of minimally invasive coronary artery bypass grafting (mics cabg) for patients with coronary artery diseases and diabetes: a single center retrospective study.

BACKGROUND: conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CCABG) tends to cause severe complications in patients with comorbid Coronary Artery Diseases (CAD) and diabetes. On the other hand, the Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting (MICS CABG) via transthoracic incision is associated with rapid recovery and reduced complications. Adding to the limited literature, this study compares CCABG and MICS CABG in terms of efficacy and safety. METHODS: Herein, 104 CCABG and MICS CABG cases (52 cases each) were included. The patients were recruited from the Minimally Invasive Cardiac Surgery Center, Anzhen Hospital, between January 2017 and December 2021 and were selected based on the Propensity Score Matching (PSM) model. The key outcomes included All-cause Death, Myocardial Infarction (MI), Cerebrovascular Events, revascularization, Adverse Wound Healing Events and one-year patency of the graft by coronary CTA. RESULTS: Compared to CCABG, MICS CABG had longer surgical durations [4.25 (1.50) h vs.4.00 (1.13) h, P = 0.028], but showed a reduced intraoperative blood loss [600.00 (400.00) mL vs.700.00 (300.00) mL, P  = 0.032] and a lower secondary incision debridement and suturing rate (5.8% vs.19.2%, P = 0.038). In follow up, no statistically significant differences were found between the two groups in the cumulative Major Adverse Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Events (MACCEs) incidence (7.7% vs. 5.9%), all-cause mortality (0 vs. 0), MI incidence (1.9% vs. 2.0%), cerebral apoplexy incidence (5.8% vs. 3.9%), and repeated revascularization incidence (0 vs. 0) (P > 0.05). Additionally, coronary CTA results revealed that the two groups' one-year graft patency (94.2% vs. 90.2%, P = 0.761) showed no statistically significant difference. CONCLUSION: In patients with comorbid CAD and diabetes, MICS CABG and CCABG had comparable revascularization performances. Moreover, MICS CABG can effectively reduce, if not prevent, poor clinical outcomes/complications, including incision healing, sternal infection and prolonged length of stay in diabetes patients.

Investigation of a New Catheter on Relieving Pain During Male Cystoscopy - A Randomized Clinical Trial.

PURPOSE: To investigate the pain intensity and tolerability of a new catheter applied to urethral surface anesthesia during rigid cystoscopy in male patients, and explore the prospects of its application and the anesthetic method in hospitals at primary levels. MATERIALS AND METHODS: 252 adult male patients were randomly divided into the experimental group and the control group.1% lidocaine solution was irrigated into the posterior urethra of the experimental group using the new catheter before cystoscopy, while the control group was administered with lidocaine gel. Both groups were assessed by visual analogue scale(VAS) with their pain perceived during administration of lidocaine (control group) /during insertion of catheter and administration of lidocaine (experimental group) (T1),during the insertion of cystoscope (T2),at the beginning of cystoscopy (T3),The third minute of cystoscopy (T4), during the first urination after the procedure (T5), as well with the maximum pain(Pmax) perceived during the whole procedure. The fluctuations of blood pressure and heart rate in each group before, after and during the procedure were recorded, and the anesthesia costs in both groups were calculated. RESULTS: Except a slightly higher score in T1, the scores of VAS in experimental group were lower than those of control group in T2,T3 and T4. The Pmax of the control group was 4.92(SD=1.20), which was higher than in the experimental group of 3.89(SD=0.95,P<0.01).There was no significant difference on blood pressure variation in both groups. While heart rate variation in experimental group was lower than that in control group (16.3%,SD=3.4 vs. 22.6%,SD=5.0, P<0.01).No obvious complications were found in both groups. The anesthesia cost of the experimental group is about 1.53 dollars, with 1.75 dollars lower than that of the control group. CONCLUSION: It is tolerable and beneficial to apply the new catheter for male urethral anesthesia. It can significantly relieve the pain during rigid cystoscopy in male patients, and is low in cost and easy in operation. Thus this method is worth being recommended to hospitals, especially at community hospitals or primary hospitals.