Establishment of a minimally invasive cardiac surgery programme in Singapore

Although minimally invasive cardiac surgery is available in Singapore, it is not widely practised. Local surgeons have pioneered and introduced technologies in Singapore that were launched in the West to address various heart pathologies. However, in spite of the possibilities, the unique position and function of Singapore in the region, the structure and dynamics of cardiothoracic surgery practice in government centres and private practice, and the overall small volume of patients in the country may pose limitations in the thriving and sharing of such new technologies. Herein, we give an account of our progress and accomplishments with regard to minimally invasive cardiac surgery in Singapore and indicate areas of improvement that have further potential for synergy and growth.

Off-pump versus on-pump coronary artery bypass procedures:postoperative renal complications in an Asian population

<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b>Diabetes and habitual smoking cause advanced coronary artery disease (CAD) in Asian patients at a younger age. No definite data exist as to whether off-pump (OPCAB) is better than conventional on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CCAB) in terms of postoperative renal complications. Thus, we aimed to compare the renal outcomes of on-pump and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) on our patients, which constituted a predominantly Asian population.</p><p><b>MATERIALS AND METHODS</b>A cohort of 395 patients following CCAB were compared with 293 patients who underwent OPCAB. Baseline demographics, comorbidities, intraoperative data, intensive care unit stay, number of grafts, New York Heart Association (NYHA) score, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score, EuroSCORE risk assessment model, and postoperative complications particularly renal, were collected and analysed.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>The off-pump group consisted of significantly older patients with higher Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) and ASA scores. Additionally, the off-pump group involved a significantly greater number of smokers and chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) patients. Other demographic parameters were not different between the groups. Postoperative investigations showed a significantly elevated serum creatinine (100.3 +/- 42.5 vs 127.6 +/- 114.2 micromol/L; off-pump vs on-pump; P = 0.039) and urea levels (5.9 +/- 3.1 vs 10.6 +/- 15.6 mg/dL; off-pump vs on-pump; P = 0.006) in the on-pump group. Moreover, there was a high tendency towards a higher rate of renal dysfunction associated death in this group.</p><p><b>CONCLUSIONS</b>OPCAB is a safe and equally efficient operative method compared to CCAB, and has a significant lower risk for postoperative renal complications as a treatment modality for surgical coronary revascularisation.</p>

Off-pump coronary artery bypass is a safe option in patients presenting as emergency

<p><b>INTRODUCTION</b>The applicability of off-pump coronary-artery bypass (OPCAB) in patients who present as emergency remains controversial. Herein, we explore the efficacy and safety of OPCAB in patients who were indicated for emergency surgery.</p><p><b>MATERIALS AND METHODS</b>Between 2002 and 2007, a total of 282 patients underwent OPCAB, of which 68 were presented as emergency. This cohort (group A) was compared to 68 patients who had traditional on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG, group B) under emergency indications during the same period of time. Baseline demographics, intraoperative data and postoperative outcomes were analysed.</p><p><b>RESULTS</b>Preoperative demographics were comparable in both groups. Mortality during the first 30 days was comparable in both groups and no stroke occurred in the whole series. Patients in group A had significantly less pulmonary complications (4.4% vs 14.7%, P = 0.04), less ventilation time (30.3 ± 33.6 hours vs 41.5 ± 55.4 hours, P = 0.18) and were less likely to have prolonged ventilation, (19.1% vs 35.3%, P = 0.03). Similarly, OPCAB patients had less postoperative renal-failure/dysfunction (5.9% vs 8.8%, P = 0.51) and required less inotropic support (66.2% vs 88.2%, P = 0.002), bloodtransfusions (23% vs 86.8%, P <0.0001), and atrial- (17.6% vs 35.3%, P = 0.02) or ventricular-pacing (17.6% vs 41.2%, P = 0.002). Although the number of diseased vessels was comparable in both groups, patients in group A received less distal anastomoses. (2.78 ± 1.19 vs 3.41 ± 0.89, P = 0.002). Similarly, complete revascularisation was achieved less frequently in group A (76.5% vs 94.1%, P = 0.004).</p><p><b>CONCLUSION</b>OPCAB strategy is a safe and efficient in emergency patients with reasonable good short-term postoperative outcomes.</p>