• Lars Niclauss.
• Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, University Hospital of Lausanne (CHUV), Lausanne, Switzerland lars.niclauss@chuv.ch.
• Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2017 Jan 1; 51 (1): 26-33.

AbstractTransit time flow measurement (TTFM) is a quality control tool for intraoperative graft evaluation in coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery. A critical review of the literature available using TTFM in CABG surgery is the focus of this article. The main objectives will be to detail precise parameters for flow evaluation, to show limitations of TTFM and to prove its predictive impact on postoperative graft failure rate. Publications listed in the PubMed database were reviewed, searching for intraoperative graft verification in coronary surgery by TTFM, with postoperative imaging follow-up (FU) modality and with a special focus on publications released after European guidelines from 2010. Nine included publications revealed an overall graft failure rate of ∼12%. Mean graft flow had a positive predictive value in the largest study, and cut-offs, of at least 20 ml/min for internal mammary artery (IMA) grafts, therein partially confirming guidelines, and 30-40 ml/min for saphenous venous grafts (SVGs) were proposed. An explicit correlation between graft flow, patency rate and severity of coronary stenosis, by indicating the fractional flow reserve, was found for IMA grafts. Increased pulsatility index and increased systolic reverse flow probably predict worse outcome and may help identifying competitive flow. Diastolic filling, rarely indicated, could not be confirmed as the predictive marker. No significant correlation of TTFM and graft failure rate for radial and other arterial grafts could be found, partially due to the small number of these types of grafts analysed. Larger target vessels and lower postoperative CK-MB levels may predict better graft patency rates. Low sensitivity for TTFM to reliably detect graft failure is certainly a major issue, as found in randomized analyses. However, methodical limitations and varying threshold values for TTFM render a general consensus difficult. Influence of quantity (vessel territory distribution) and quality (myocardial scar) of the graft perfusion area, on TTFM and FU outcome, was not included by anyone and should be part of future research. TTFM is probably not the tool of choice to detect progressive late graft failure of SVG. Peroperative TTFM values should be correlated with one type of conduit, differentiating between early and late graft failure (by applying a uniform, appropriated definition), to precise and confirm threshold values.© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the European Association for Cardio-Thoracic Surgery. All rights reserved.

25 keywords...

hide…