FRINK Linked Data Fragments server

Matches in SemOpenAlex for { <https://semopenalex.org/work/W2058372293> ?p ?o ?g. }

• W2058372293 endingPage "1664" @default.
• W2058372293 startingPage "1663" @default.
• W2058372293 abstract "Two articles in your February 2003 issue raise concerns about the Symmetry connector (St Jude Medical, St Paul, Minn) for coronary artery bypass surgery. Hornik and colleagues1Hornik L. Tenderich G. Minami K. et al.First experience with the St Jude Medical, Inc, Symmetry Bypass System (Aortic Connector System).J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003; 125: 414-417Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (13) Google Scholar reported 4 of 70 uses and Reuthebuch and colleagues2Reuthebuch O. Lachat M. Kadner A. Turina M. Early bypass occlusion in patients with the St Jude Medical Symmetry connector.J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2003; 125: 443-444Abstract Full Text Full Text PDF PubMed Scopus (4) Google Scholar reported 7 of 77 uses of Symmetry where severe proximal stenosis occurred. Implicit in both articles is a suggestion that the Symmetry device contributed to proximal graft failures. The observations of Hornik and Reuthebuch, however, cannot be regarded as evidence of such an association for 2 main reasons (neither of which were highlighted in the articles). 1.The practice reported is not typical of that in most cardiac units. For example, in Hornik's group only 18 of 45 patients received internal thoracic artery (ITA) grafts. Also unusual was that none of the 4 patients whose history was detailed received an ITA even though 3 were below 60 years of age and 2 had severely calcified aortas, factors most surgeons would regard as indications for ITA grafting. Also, the 29% conversion rate for their off-pump coronary artery bypass patients is substantially higher than seen in most units. Both reports listed aortic calcification as a principal indication for use of the device. It would not be unreasonable to expect more proximal graft failures in patients with aortic calcification regardless of anastomotic technique. Differences in practice or technique therefore could be an alternative explanation for the proximal failures.2.The authors have not made any comparisons to patients having surgery using conventional techniques. Proximal graft failure is by no means unique to Symmetry and is well documented using standard techniques.3FitzGibbon G.M. Burton J.R. Leach A.J. Coronary bypass graft fate angiographic grading of 1400 consecutive grafts early after operation and of 1132 after one year.Circulation. 1978; 57: 1070-1074Crossref PubMed Scopus (162) Google Scholar Without systematic angiography of all patients, particularly those with aortic calcification, reliable comparisons with standard techniques cannot be made. As presented, neither report is sufficient to caution against use of the device. Also not considered is the benefit of the technique as it is plausible that morbidity due to aortic calcification or aortic clamping (and by extension the net morbidity and mortality) was reduced by use of the device. Adverse events must be weighed against such benefit, as in at least some cases the benefit of a new technology will outweigh any adverse events. What is required are comparisons between grafts done with Symmetry and those done with standard techniques (preferably with the proximal anastomosis constructed first). Only then can any incremental risk (or benefit) be identified and quantified. I have never used the Symmetry device and have no special interest in the device or technique; indeed, there may truly be an association between the Symmetry and proximal graft failure. My concern is in the wider area of dissemination and adoption of new technologies. Without statements on data limitations, publication of biased noncomparative data on any new technology is potentially alarmist (or overoptimistic), may prevent proper evaluation and development, and may unnecessarily hinder (or accelerate) uptake of new technologies, some of which could be potentially beneficial (or harmful). Authors of reports on new technologies should list limitations and highlight any confounding factors or alternative explanations for adverse events (or benefits); otherwise readers could be inadvertently misinformed. Reply to the EditorThe Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular SurgeryVol. 126Issue 5Preview Full-Text PDF" @default.
• W2058372293 created "2016-06-24" @default.
• W2058372293 creator A5019050205 @default.
• W2058372293 date "2003-11-01" @default.
• W2058372293 modified "2023-09-29" @default.
• W2058372293 title "Authors should list confounding factors and alternative explanations for adverse events seen with new technologies" @default.
• W2058372293 cites W182527492 @default.
• W2058372293 cites W1966761698 @default.
• W2058372293 cites W2033848933 @default.
• W2058372293 cites W2150615040 @default.
• W2058372293 doi "https://doi.org/10.1016/s0022-5223(03)01051-1" @default.
• W2058372293 hasPubMedId "https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/14666059" @default.
• W2058372293 hasPublicationYear "2003" @default.
• W2058372293 type Work @default.
• W2058372293 sameAs 2058372293 @default.
• W2058372293 citedByCount "0" @default.
• W2058372293 crossrefType "journal-article" @default.
• W2058372293 hasAuthorship W2058372293A5019050205 @default.
• W2058372293 hasBestOaLocation W20583722931 @default.
• W2058372293 hasConcept C126322002 @default.
• W2058372293 hasConcept C141071460 @default.
• W2058372293 hasConcept C164705383 @default.
• W2058372293 hasConcept C2776820930 @default.
• W2058372293 hasConcept C2779433084 @default.
• W2058372293 hasConcept C2780007028 @default.
• W2058372293 hasConcept C71924100 @default.
• W2058372293 hasConcept C77350462 @default.
• W2058372293 hasConceptScore W2058372293C126322002 @default.
• W2058372293 hasConceptScore W2058372293C141071460 @default.
• W2058372293 hasConceptScore W2058372293C164705383 @default.
• W2058372293 hasConceptScore W2058372293C2776820930 @default.
• W2058372293 hasConceptScore W2058372293C2779433084 @default.
• W2058372293 hasConceptScore W2058372293C2780007028 @default.
• W2058372293 hasConceptScore W2058372293C71924100 @default.
• W2058372293 hasConceptScore W2058372293C77350462 @default.
• W2058372293 hasIssue "5" @default.
• W2058372293 hasLocation W20583722931 @default.
• W2058372293 hasLocation W20583722932 @default.
• W2058372293 hasOpenAccess W2058372293 @default.
• W2058372293 hasPrimaryLocation W20583722931 @default.
• W2058372293 hasRelatedWork W1963647801 @default.
• W2058372293 hasRelatedWork W1991734450 @default.
• W2058372293 hasRelatedWork W2003133864 @default.
• W2058372293 hasRelatedWork W2019048087 @default.
• W2058372293 hasRelatedWork W2350113138 @default.
• W2058372293 hasRelatedWork W2357426568 @default.
• W2058372293 hasRelatedWork W2891587217 @default.
• W2058372293 hasRelatedWork W3012510399 @default.
• W2058372293 hasRelatedWork W3031338959 @default.
• W2058372293 hasRelatedWork W4249999855 @default.
• W2058372293 hasVolume "126" @default.
• W2058372293 isParatext "false" @default.
• W2058372293 isRetracted "false" @default.
• W2058372293 magId "2058372293" @default.
• W2058372293 workType "article" @default.