Off pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) in critical left mainstem stenosis—Our experience

Background Beating heart surgery has now become the commonest technique of doing Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery (CABG) in our country. It is being used even in such high risk situations like diffuse coronary disease and Critical Left Main stem Stenosis (LMCS) with good results. The aim of this study is to retrospectively review our results in Off-Pump Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery (OPCAB) in patients with critical left main stem stenosis. Methods This study is a retrospective analysis of the data of patients who underwent primary coronary artery bypass surgery. During the period from April 2003 to September 2005 a total of 64 patients underwent OPCAB procedure for critical LMCS. During the same period 10 patients underwent CABG on Cardio Pulmonary Bypass (CPB). The age range was 36–77yrs. The sex distribution was M: F 53∶10. Ten patients were done as emergency. 2 of them were on Intra Aortic Balloon Pump (IABP) support preoperatively. 10 patients were high risk with a Euro score of ≥5. Results Left Internal Mammary Artery (LIMA) was used in 78% of cases. Average grafts per patient was 2.96. The median ventilation time was 5.91 hrs. New IABP insertion in postoperative period was required in 1 patient. One patient was reexplored for bleeding. There was one perioperative myocardial infarction. 57% of patients did not need any blood transfusion. There was no conversion to CPB. There was no operative mortality. Inotropes were used in ten cases. Conclusions OPCAB is a safe method of revascularization in patients with critical LMCS. Preoperative IABP is useful in patients with cardiogenic shock. However, there is a place for CPB in patients needing additional procedures like Mitral Valve repair (MV repair) or Dor's procedure or when the vessels are very diffusely diseased. Those patients who are unstable despite IABP support may be managed by Beating heart On Pump (BHOP) technique.     

Body pain and treatment response in late-life depression.

OBJECTIVE: The authors investigated the influence of body pain on 1) time to treatment response and 2) suicidal ideation, in late-life depression. They hypothesized that higher levels of body pain would predict a longer time to and lower likelihood of response, and increased levels of suicidal ideation. METHODS: Subjects (N=187) were older adult outpatients (age > or =69 years), with current episodes of major depression, who were openly treated with paroxetine up to 40 mg daily and weekly interpersonal psychotherapy. Response was defined as 3 consecutive weeks of Hamilton Rating Scale for Depression at < or =10. Body pain was measured with the Bodily Pain Index of the SF-36 quality-of-life assessment. Authors used survival-analysis models on the responder sample to test the effect of body pain on response, after controlling for severity of depression. RESULTS: Overall response rate was 75.4%. Nonresponders reported more severe pain at baseline. After covarying for severity of baseline depression, no effect was found for physical pain on time-to-response or degree of suicidality. Bodily pain remained stable during acute treatment for responders, independent of depression response to combination psychotherapy and antidepressant treatment. CONCLUSIONS: Older adult patients with higher levels of physical pain can still respond to antidepressant treatment; however, reported bodily pain may be associated with a more difficult-to-treat depression.     

Challenges in accessing multidisciplinary pain treatment facilities in Canada

PURPOSE: The objective of this survey was to examine the services offered by multidisciplinary pain treatment facilities (MPTFs) across Canada and to compare access to care at these MPTFs. METHODS: A MPTF was defined as a clinic that advertised specialized multidisciplinary services for the diagnosis and management of patients with chronic pain, having a minimum of three different health care disciplines (including at least one medical speciality) available and integrated within the facility. The search method included approaching all hospital and rehabilitation centre administrators in Canada, the Insurance Bureau of Canada, the Workplace Safety and Insurance Board or similar body in each province. Designated investigators were responsible for confirming and supplementing MPTFs from the preliminary list for each province. Administrative leads at each eligible MPTF were asked to complete a detailed questionnaire regarding their MPTF infrastructure, clinical, research, teaching and administrative activities. RESULTS: Completed survey forms were received from 102 MPTFs (response rate 85%) with 80% concentrated in major cities, and none in Prince Edward Island and the Territories. The MPTFs offer a wide variety of treatments including non-pharmacological modalities such as interventional, physical and psychological therapy. The median wait time for a first appointment in public MPTFs is six months, which is approximately 12 times longer than non-public MPTFs. Eighteen pain fellowship programs exist in Canadian MPTFs and 64% engage in some form of research activities CONCLUSION: Canadian MPTFs are unable to meet clinical demands of patients suffering from chronic pain, both in terms of regional accessibility and reasonable wait time for patients' first appointment.