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.     

氟西汀与阿米替林治疗105例抑郁障碍病人的双盲对照试验

目的：评价国产氟西汀的抗抑郁作用及安全性。方法：采用随机、双盲对照、多中心研究，分为国产氟西汀组５７例（男性２２例，女性３５例；年龄４０±ｓ１３ａ），口服氟西汀２０ｍｇ，ｑｄ，阿米替林５７例（男性２７例，女性３０例；年龄４０±１４ａ），口服阿米替林７５ｍｇ，ｂｉｄ，疗程６ｗｋ。结果：氟西汀治疗抑郁障碍的疗效与阿米替林相当，总有效率分别为８５％及９２％（Ｐ＞０．０５）；氟西汀组的主要副作用有口干、便秘、恶心、心动过速等，但较之阿米替林程度轻且发生率低。结论：氟西汀的抗抑郁作用与阿米替林相当，副作用少，服用方便。     

Evaluation of selective actions of dopamine D-1 and D-2 receptor agonists and antagonists on opioid antinociception

The effect of the selective dopamine receptor agonists SKF 38393 (D-1) and quinpirole (D-2) on nociception was studied in the mouse tail immersion test. The D-1 receptor agonist induced mild hyperalgesia whereas the D-2 agonist produced antinociception. Pretreatment with either the selective D-1 receptor antagonist SCH 23390 or the D-2 receptor antagonist (-)-sulpiride converted the hyperalgesia produced by the D-1 agonist into an antinociceptive response whereas the effect of the D-2 receptor agonist was significantly antagonised. The antinociceptive response of selective opioid agonists was also studied in combination with selective dopamine receptor agonists and antagonists. Sufentanil (mu-opioid) antinociception was enhanced in animals pretreated with (-)-sulpiride but not SCH 23390. In animals co-administered sufentanil with SKF 38393 there was a reduced antinociceptive effect whilst quinpirole enhanced the action of sufentanil. Likewise, antinociception induced by the kappa-opioid agonist U50,488H was unaltered in animals pretreated with SCH 23390, increased by (-)-sulpiride, and reduced by SKF 38393. delta-Opioid antinociception induced by [D-Ala2,D-Leu5]enkephaline remained unmodified following pretreatment with either (-)-sulpiride or SCH 23390 but was potentiated in animals which received both the delta-agonist and the D-2 receptor agonist. It is concluded that D-2 receptor agonists not only have intrinsic antinociceptive activity, but can also potentiate opioid-induced antinociception. Similarly, dopamine D-2 receptor antagonists appear to potentiate opioid-induced antinociception in this nociceptive model.     

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.