Abstract
Redo coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is characterized by increased patient risk compared with first-time CABG. The reason for higher risk is not completely understood but it is logically related to inadequate myocardial preservation evidenced by the higher incidence of postoperative low-output syndrome. We compared normothermic cardiopulmonary bypass with cold blood maintenance cardioplegia in both first-time and redo CABGs to determine whether this single approach is appropriate for both instances. Five hundred seventeen consecutive CABG patients were retrospectively reviewed. Four hundred fifty-four first-time CABG procedures were compared with 44 redo procedures. All aspects of the operation were identical including myocardial preservation. Retrospective univariant analysis of both groups followed. Three clinical features distinguished first-time versus redo CABG. These were previous percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (first-time 19% vs redo 71%; P < 0.001), preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump (first-time 38% vs redo 71%; P < 0.001), and Parsonnet risk score (first-time 11.7 ± 8.2 vs redo 19.2 ± 8.8; P < 0.001). Operative mortality for redo CABG was higher than in first-time procedures (3.4% vs 6.4%; P = not significant), although small sample size limited statistical significance. The length of stay was statistically longer in redo patients (8.7 ± 10.8 vs 6.0 ± 5.1 days; P < 0.01) and is related to a higher Parsonnet score, increased postoperative pneumonia, and failed percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty before redo CABG. We conclude that redo CABG is a different operation from first-time procedures and requires enhanced myocardial preservation. Normothermic cardiopulmonary bypass with cold blood maintenance cardioplegia does not appear to achieve this goal.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.