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.     

Teaching psychiatric ethics

In the last decade, we have witnessed a burgeoning of interest in ethical issues amongst psychiatrists. Teaching of the subject, however, remains at a rudimentary stage. Various approaches to such instruction are available, particularly modelling (students observe their experienced counterpart), the case method (examining specific clinical situations which involve a need for ethical decision-making), and the seminar approach (trainees are exposed to a core body of knowledge, mainly theoretical in nature). Faced with these different teaching models, the University of Oxford Department of Psychiatry has opted for a blend of all three approaches, which incorporates two goals: an increase in the trainees' sensitivity to the many intricate moral dilemmas facing the psychiatric profession; and their familiarity with salient concepts in moral philosophy which constitute a basis for ethical reasoning and which have a bearing on clinical practice. The teaching programme comprises the following: a pair of trainees prepares a presentation on an aspect of psychiatric ethics under the supervision of a senior psychiatrist. A moral philosopher assumes the role of discussant of the ethical problems raised by the trainees; this is followed by a general discussion. Topics have included involuntary hospitalization, dual loyalty, suicide, psychiatric diagnosis, and ethical issues in various spheres of psychiatric practice such as sex therapy, psychotherapy and child psychiatry. The approach has worked effectively and proved rewarding to all participants involved.     

Comparative toxicity of total lymphoid irradiation and immunosuppressive drug treated patients with intractable rheumatoid arthritis

Outcomes were compared between consecutive patients who had received either total lymphoid irradiation (TLI) or immunosuppressant treatment for intractable rheumatoid arthritis (RA). There were 33 TLI and 32 immunosuppressive recipients; all patients had failed standard therapy. Average followup from the start of therapy was 2.7 years for TLI and 5.9 years for immunosuppressive recipients. Final disability levels were the same in both groups; mortality was equal in both groups as well. There were more hospitalizations for infections in the TLI group and the infecting organisms tended to be staphylococcus or gram negative organisms. Apart from infections, there were more adverse effects reported in the immunosuppressive therapy group.