Risk Factors for Deep Sternal Wound Infection after Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: a Case-Control Study

Abstract Introduction: The objective of this study was to identify risk factors for deep sternal wound infection (DSWI) after off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) grafting surgery. Methods: A total of 8,442 patients undergoing OPCAB from April 1, 2009 to December 31, 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 956 were eventually enrolled on this study based on our exclusion criteria. All subjects were divided into two groups: group 1 (n=63) - DSWI; group 2 (n=893) - without DSWI. Patients were excluded if they had one of the following: acute coronary syndrome, conversion to OPCAB grafting surgery, redo procedure, concomitant cardiac surgery procedures. Results: The prevalence of body mass index (BMI) ≥40 kg/m2 (7.9% vs. 1.9%, respectively; P=0.01), lower extremity atherosclerotic artery disease (23.8% vs. 7.2%, respectively; P=0.001) and use of bilateral internal thoracic artery (19.5% vs. 2.5%, respectively; P=0.008) was significantly higher in patients with DSWI. The incidence of morbidities, including reoperation for bleeding (26.4% vs. 2.1%, respectively; P<0.001), stroke (4.8% vs. 0.8%, respectively; P=0.02), acute renal failure (7.9% vs. 0.8%, respectively; P=0.001), delirium (7.9% vs. 1.7%, respectively; P=0.008) and blood transfusion (30.6% vs. 9.8%, respectively; P<0.001) was significantly higher in patients with DSWI. Conclusions: A BMI of >40 kg/m2, lower extremity artery disease, use of bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) graft, postoperative stroke, sepsis, reoperation due to postoperative complications and blood product requirement significantly increased the risk of sternal infection after OPCAB.

Risk Factors for Deep Sternal Wound Infection after Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting: a Case-Control Study.

INTRODUCTION: The objective of this study was to identify risk factors for deep sternal wound infection (DSWI) after off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) grafting surgery. METHODS: A total of 8,442 patients undergoing OPCAB from April 1, 2009 to December 31, 2018 were retrospectively analyzed. A total of 956 were eventually enrolled on this study based on our exclusion criteria. All subjects were divided into two groups: group 1 (n=63) - DSWI; group 2 (n=893) - without DSWI. Patients were excluded if they had one of the following: acute coronary syndrome, conversion to OPCAB grafting surgery, redo procedure, concomitant cardiac surgery procedures. RESULTS: The prevalence of body mass index (BMI) ≥40 kg/m2 (7.9% vs. 1.9%, respectively; P=0.01), lower extremity atherosclerotic artery disease (23.8% vs. 7.2%, respectively; P=0.001) and use of bilateral internal thoracic artery (19.5% vs. 2.5%, respectively; P=0.008) was significantly higher in patients with DSWI. The incidence of morbidities, including reoperation for bleeding (26.4% vs. 2.1%, respectively; P<0.001), stroke (4.8% vs. 0.8%, respectively; P=0.02), acute renal failure (7.9% vs. 0.8%, respectively; P=0.001), delirium (7.9% vs. 1.7%, respectively; P=0.008) and blood transfusion (30.6% vs. 9.8%, respectively; P<0.001) was significantly higher in patients with DSWI. CONCLUSIONS: A BMI of >40 kg/m2, lower extremity artery disease, use of bilateral internal thoracic artery (BITA) graft, postoperative stroke, sepsis, reoperation due to postoperative complications and blood product requirement significantly increased the risk of sternal infection after OPCAB.

Minithoracotomy vs. Conventional Mitral Valve Surgery for Rheumatic Mitral Valve Stenosis: a Single-Center Analysis of 128 Patients.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the in-hospital outcomes of a right-sided anterolateral minithoracotomy with those of median sternotomy in patients who received a mitral valve replacement (MVR) because of rheumatic mitral valve stenosis (RMS). METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis of 128 patients (34% male) with RMS between 2011 and 2015. The median age was 53 years (45; 56). The mean ejection fraction was 58.4±6.3%. All the subjects were divided into two groups - Group 1 contained 78 patients who underwent MVR via minithoracotomy (MT-MVR), while Group 2 contained 50 patients who underwent MVR via median sternotomy (S-MVR). RESULTS: In the MT-MVR group, a mechanical prosthesis was implanted in 72% of cases, while it was implanted in 90% of cases in the S-MVR group (P=0.01). The duration of myocardial ischemia was similar (MT-MVR, 77±24 min; S-MVR, 70±18 min) (P=0.09). However, the cardiopulmonary bypass time was lower in the S-MVR group than in the MT-MVR group (99±24 min and 119±34 min, respectively) (P≤0.001). There was no difference in the duration of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit stay, and hospitalization period. Postoperative blood loss was lower in the MT-MVR group (P≤0.001) than in the S-MVR group. There are no statistically significant differences in postoperative complications (superficial wound infection, stroke, delirium, pericardial tamponade, pleural puncture, acute kidney insufficiency, and implantation of pacemaker). The overall in-hospital mortality was 3.9% (P=0.6). CONCLUSION: The minimally invasive approach for RMS is feasible and has an excellent cosmetic effect without increasing the risk of surgical complications.

Minithoracotomy vs. conventional mitral valve surgery for rheumatic mitral valve stenosis: a single-center analysis of 128 patients

Abstract Objective: To compare the in-hospital outcomes of a right-sided anterolateral minithoracotomy with those of median sternotomy in patients who received a mitral valve replacement (MVR) because of rheumatic mitral valve stenosis (RMS). Methods: This is a retrospective analysis of 128 patients (34% male) with RMS between 2011 and 2015. The median age was 53 years (45; 56). The mean ejection fraction was 58.4±6.3%. All the subjects were divided into two groups - Group 1 contained 78 patients who underwent MVR via minithoracotomy (MT-MVR), while Group 2 contained 50 patients who underwent MVR via median sternotomy (S-MVR). Results: In the MT-MVR group, a mechanical prosthesis was implanted in 72% of cases, while it was implanted in 90% of cases in the S-MVR group (P=0.01). The duration of myocardial ischemia was similar (MT-MVR, 77±24 min; S-MVR, 70±18 min) (P=0.09). However, the cardiopulmonary bypass time was lower in the S-MVR group than in the MT-MVR group (99±24 min and 119±34 min, respectively) (P≤0.001). There was no difference in the duration of mechanical ventilation, intensive care unit stay, and hospitalization period. Postoperative blood loss was lower in the MT-MVR group (P≤0.001) than in the S-MVR group. There are no statistically significant differences in postoperative complications (superficial wound infection, stroke, delirium, pericardial tamponade, pleural puncture, acute kidney insufficiency, and implantation of pacemaker). The overall in-hospital mortality was 3.9% (P=0.6) Conclusion: The minimally invasive approach for RMS is feasible and has an excellent cosmetic effect without increasing the risk of surgical complications.