In 4 centers with beating-heart operation experience, there is an overall early benefit in off-pump surgery, especially in patients traditionally considered at high risk for coronary artery bypass grafting.

No abstract

The present study examined the efficacy of high-intensity, variable stepping training on walking and nonwalking outcomes in individuals 1 to 6 months poststroke as compared with conventional interventions. Methods Individuals with unilateral stroke (mean duration = 101 days) were randomized to receive ≤40, 1-hour experimental or control training sessions over 10 weeks. Experimental interventions consisted only of stepping practice at high cardiovascular intensity (70%-80% heart rate reserve) in variable contexts (tasks or environments). Control interventions were determined by clinical physical therapists and supplemented using standardized conventional strategies. Blinded assessments were obtained at baseline, midtraining, and posttraining with a 2-month follow-up. Results A total of 32 individuals (15 experimental) received different training paradigms that varied in the amount, intensity, and types of tasks performed. Primary outcomes of walking speed (experimental, 0.27 ± 0.22 m/s vs control, 0.09 ± 0.09 m/s) and distances (119 ± 113 m vs 30 ± 32 m) were different between groups, with stepping amount and intensity related to these differences. Gains in temporal gait symmetry and self-reported participation scores were greater following experimental training, without differences in balance or sit-to-stand performance. Conclusion Variable intensive stepping training resulted in greater improvements in walking ability than conventional interventions early poststroke. Future studies should evaluate the relative contributions of these training parameters.

Among 1001 patients with carcinoma of the pancreas, 23 of 912 patients with exocrine carcinomas, 10 of 46 with ampullary carcinomas, and 21 of 43 with malignant islet cell tumors survived 3 years. Of the survivors with exocrine cancers, there were nine of 97 patients who had curative operation, two had had palliative resections only, and one was an incidental microfocal carcinoma; in the remaining 11 patients a histologic origin in the pancreas was not established. Preoperatively suspected and histologically proven 3-year survivors included six patients with ductal adenocarcinomas, three patients with mucinous cystadenocarcinomas, one patient with acinic cell carcinoma, and one patient with microadenocarcinoma. Only two patients can be considered cured. Tumor size and lymph node status did not correlate with survival. Cystadenocarcinomas comprised 1% of cases but one third of 3-year survivors. Long-term survival in histologically confirmed pancreatic carcinoma is a rare event that cannot be predicted in the individual case.

Objective This purpose of this consensus statement was to compare endoscopic vascular graft harvesting (EVH) with conventional open vascular harvesting (OVH) in adults undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery and to determine which resulted in improved clinical and resource outcomes. Methods Before the consensus conference, the consensus panel reviewed the best available evidence, whereby systematic reviews, randomized trials, and nonrandomized trials were considered in descending order of importance. Evidence-based statements were created, and consensus processes were used to determine the ensuing statements. The AHA/ACC system was used to label the level of evidence and class of recommendation. Results The consensus panel agreed upon the following statements: 1. EVH is recommended to reduce wound related complications when compared with OVH (Class I, Level A). 2. Based on quality of conduit harvested, either endoscopic or open vein harvest technique may be used (Class IIa; Level B). 3. Based on major adverse cardiac events and angiographic patency at 6 months, either endoscopic or open vein harvest technique may be used (Class IIa; Level A). 4. EVH is recommended for vein harvesting to improve patient satisfaction and postoperative pain when compared with OVH in CABG surgery (Class I, Level A). 5. EVH is recommended for vein harvesting to reduce postoperative length of stay and outpatient wound management resources (Class I, Level A). Conclusions Given these evidence-based statements, the consensus panel stated that EVH should be the standard of care for patients who require saphenous vein grafts for coronary revascularization (Class I, Level B). Future research should address long-term safety, cost-effectiveness, and endoarterial harvest.