Evaluation of the Patients with Recurrent Angina After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting.

INTRODUCTION: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the most common causes of recurrent angina after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and our treatment approaches applied in these patients. METHODS: We included all patients who underwent CABG, with or without percutaneous coronary intervention after CABG, at our hospital from September 2013 to December 2019. Patients were divided into two groups according to the time of onset of anginal pain after CABG. Forty-five patients (58.16 ± 8.78 years) had recurrent angina in the first postoperative year after CABG and were specified as group I (early recurrence). Group II (late recurrence) comprised 82 patients (58.05 ± 8.95 years) with angina after the first year of CABG. RESULTS: The mean preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction was 53.22 ± 8.87% in group I, and 54.7 ± 8.58% in group II (P=0.38). No significant difference was registered between groups I and II regarding preoperative angiographic findings (P>0.05). Failed grafts were found in 27.7% (n=28/101) of the grafts in group I as compared to 26.8% (n=51/190) in group II (P>0.05). Twenty-four (53.3%) patients were treated medically in group I, compared with 54 (65.8%) patients in group II (P=0.098). There was a need for intervention in 46.6% (n=21) of group I patients, and in 34.1% (n=28) of group II patients. CONCLUSION: Recurrent angina is a complaint that should not be neglected because most of the patients with recurrent angina are diagnosed with either native coronary or graft pathology in coronary angiography performed.

Evaluation of the Patients with Recurrent Angina After Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting

ABSTRACT Introduction: In this study, we aimed to evaluate the most common causes of recurrent angina after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) and our treatment approaches applied in these patients. Methods: We included all patients who underwent CABG, with or without percutaneous coronary intervention after CABG, at our hospital from September 2013 to December 2019. Patients were divided into two groups according to the time of onset of anginal pain after CABG. Forty-five patients (58.16 ± 8.78 years) had recurrent angina in the first postoperative year after CABG and were specified as group I (early recurrence). Group II (late recurrence) comprised 82 patients (58.05 ± 8.95 years) with angina after the first year of CABG. Results: The mean preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction was 53.22 ± 8.87% in group I, and 54.7 ± 8.58% in group II (P=0.38). No significant difference was registered between groups I and II regarding preoperative angiographic findings (P>0.05). Failed grafts were found in 27.7% (n=28/101) of the grafts in group I as compared to 26.8% (n=51/190) in group II (P>0.05). Twenty-four (53.3%) patients were treated medically in group I, compared with 54 (65.8%) patients in group II (P=0.098). There was a need for intervention in 46.6% (n=21) of group I patients, and in 34.1% (n=28) of group II patients. Conclusion: Recurrent angina is a complaint that should not be neglected because most of the patients with recurrent angina are diagnosed with either native coronary or graft pathology in coronary angiography performed.

The Effectiveness of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction

ABSTRACT Introduction: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) remains a surgical challenge and is still controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of CABG in patients with LVD. Methods: This retrospective study included a total of 160 consecutive patients (133 males, 27 females, mean age 62.1±10.12 years [range 37 to 86 years]) who had a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 45% determined by echocardiography and underwent elective isolated CABG between September 2013 and December 2018. Preoperative echocardiographic data, such as ejection fraction, left ventricular (LV) end-systolic diameter, and LV end-diastolic diameter, were collected and evaluated. Preoperatively, 85 (53.13%) patients were in New York Heart Association functional class III or IV and the mean LVEF was 38.65±5.72% (range 20 to 45). Results: The overall hospital mortality was 5% (eight patients). Late follow-up was obtained in 152 (90%) cases (median follow-up time was 56,5 [3-87] months postoperatively). During follow-up, mortality developed in 11.3% (16 patients). Mean LVEF increased significantly from 38.78±5.59% before surgery to 43.29±8.46% after surgery (P<0.01). Mean late survival, freedom from coronary reintervention, and congestive heart failure rates were 86.3±3.3%, 88.7±3.9%, and 89.4±3.1%, respectively. Conclusion: In patients with LVD, CABG can be performed with low postoperative morbidity and mortality rates. Patients with LVD could benefit from coronary bypass surgery regarding postoperative LV systolic function and higher quality of life.

The Effectiveness of Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting in Patients with Left Ventricular Dysfunction.

INTRODUCTION: Coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in patients with left ventricular dysfunction (LVD) remains a surgical challenge and is still controversial. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effectiveness of CABG in patients with LVD. METHODS: This retrospective study included a total of 160 consecutive patients (133 males, 27 females, mean age 62.1±10.12 years [range 37 to 86 years]) who had a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 45% determined by echocardiography and underwent elective isolated CABG between September 2013 and December 2018. Preoperative echocardiographic data, such as ejection fraction, left ventricular (LV) end-systolic diameter, and LV end-diastolic diameter, were collected and evaluated. Preoperatively, 85 (53.13%) patients were in New York Heart Association functional class III or IV and the mean LVEF was 38.65±5.72% (range 20 to 45). RESULTS: The overall hospital mortality was 5% (eight patients). Late follow-up was obtained in 152 (90%) cases (median follow-up time was 56,5 [3-87] months postoperatively). During follow-up, mortality developed in 11.3% (16 patients). Mean LVEF increased significantly from 38.78±5.59% before surgery to 43.29±8.46% after surgery (P<0.01). Mean late survival, freedom from coronary reintervention, and congestive heart failure rates were 86.3±3.3%, 88.7±3.9%, and 89.4±3.1%, respectively. CONCLUSION: In patients with LVD, CABG can be performed with low postoperative morbidity and mortality rates. Patients with LVD could benefit from coronary bypass surgery regarding postoperative LV systolic function and higher quality of life.

The effectiveness of dexamethasone on the prognosis of dialysis patients with severe COVID-19.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of dexamethasone in dialysis patients with COVID-19 and whether it predicts mortality. METHODS: This is a comparative cross-sectional study of 113 consecutive patients with COVID-19 with severe pneumonia signs. The patients were divided into two groups according to the use of dexamethasone treatment: group 1 (n=45) included patients who were treated with dexamethasone and group 2 (n=68) who did not receive dexamethasone. RESULTS: The mean age of both groups was 67.0±10.6 and 67.2±13.0 years, respectively (p=0.947). With respect to demographic and laboratory findings, there were no significant differences between the two groups (p>0.05). The hospitalization time of patients in group 1 was longer than that in group 2 (11 [7-17] days vs. 8 [5.3-14] days, p=0.093]. The 28-day survival rate was 54.2% in the group receiving dexamethasone treatment and 79.5% in the group not receiving dexamethasone treatment (p=0.440). CONCLUSION: Dexamethasone did not reduce mortality rates and the requirement for intensive care unit in dialysis patients with COVID-19. Larger prospective randomized clinical trials are required to associate personalized medicine with the corticosteroid treatment to select suitable patients who are more likely to show a benefit.

The effectiveness of dexamethasone on the prognosis of dialysis patients with severe COVID-19

SUMMARY OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to investigate the effectiveness of dexamethasone in dialysis patients with COVID-19 and whether it predicts mortality. METHODS: This is a comparative cross-sectional study of 113 consecutive patients with COVID-19 with severe pneumonia signs. The patients were divided into two groups according to the use of dexamethasone treatment: group 1 (n=45) included patients who were treated with dexamethasone and group 2 (n=68) who did not receive dexamethasone. RESULTS: The mean age of both groups was 67.0±10.6 and 67.2±13.0 years, respectively (p=0.947). With respect to demographic and laboratory findings, there were no significant differences between the two groups (p>0.05). The hospitalization time of patients in group 1 was longer than that in group 2 (11 [7-17] days vs. 8 [5.3-14] days, p=0.093]. The 28-day survival rate was 54.2% in the group receiving dexamethasone treatment and 79.5% in the group not receiving dexamethasone treatment (p=0.440). CONCLUSION: Dexamethasone did not reduce mortality rates and the requirement for intensive care unit in dialysis patients with COVID-19. Larger prospective randomized clinical trials are required to associate personalized medicine with the corticosteroid treatment to select suitable patients who are more likely to show a benefit.

Should sinus of valsalva be replaced in patients with dilated ascending aorta and aortic valve diseases?

Abstract Introduction: The aim of this study is to investigate the change in the dimension of sinus of Valsalva in patients who underwent supracoronary ascending aorta replacement with aortic valve replacement. Methods: A total of 81 patients who underwent supracoronary ascending aorta replacement with aortic valve replacement were included. Ten of 81 patients died during the follow-up. The patients were divided into three groups according to the aortic valve diseases. Group I (n=17) included patients with bicuspid valves, group II (n=30) included patients with stenotic degenerative valves, and patients with aortic regurgitation constituted group III (n=24). In preoperative and follow-up periods, the sinus of Valsalva diameter of the patients was evaluated by echocardiographic examination. The mean age was 54.1±15.1 years. Twenty-eight (34.6%) patients were female and 12 (14.8%) patients were in New York Heart Association functional class III. Results: There was no early mortality. Late mortality was developed in 10 (12.4%) patients, 8 (9.9%) due to non-cardiac reasons. Late follow-up was obtained in 71 patients with a mean of 60±30.1 months postoperatively. During follow-up, the increase in the diameter of the sinus of Valsalva was significant in Group I (P<0.01), while in Group II and III it was insignificant (P>0.05). Conclusion: To avoid the risks associated with sinus of Valsalva dilatation, it is reasonable to replace the sinus of Valsalva in the setting of aortic valve replacement and ascending aorta replacement for bicuspid aortic valve with a dilated ascending aorta and relatively normal sinuses of Valsalva in young patients.

Should Sinus of Valsalva be Replaced in Patients with Dilated Ascending Aorta and Aortic Valve Diseases?

INTRODUCTION: The aim of this study is to investigate the change in the dimension of sinus of Valsalva in patients who underwent supracoronary ascending aorta replacement with aortic valve replacement. METHODS: A total of 81 patients who underwent supracoronary ascending aorta replacement with aortic valve replacement were included. Ten of 81 patients died during the follow-up. The patients were divided into three groups according to the aortic valve diseases. Group I (n=17) included patients with bicuspid valves, group II (n=30) included patients with stenotic degenerative valves, and patients with aortic regurgitation constituted group III (n=24). In preoperative and follow-up periods, the sinus of Valsalva diameter of the patients was evaluated by echocardiographic examination. The mean age was 54.1±15.1 years. Twenty-eight (34.6%) patients were female and 12 (14.8%) patients were in New York Heart Association functional class III. RESULTS: There was no early mortality. Late mortality was developed in 10 (12.4%) patients, 8 (9.9%) due to non-cardiac reasons. Late follow-up was obtained in 71 patients with a mean of 60±30.1 months postoperatively. During follow-up, the increase in the diameter of the sinus of Valsalva was significant in Group I (P<0.01), while in Group II and III it was insignificant (P>0.05). CONCLUSION: To avoid the risks associated with sinus of Valsalva dilatation, it is reasonable to replace the sinus of Valsalva in the setting of aortic valve replacement and ascending aorta replacement for bicuspid aortic valve with a dilated ascending aorta and relatively normal sinuses of Valsalva in young patients.