Advanced Search

Home > Journals > The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery > Past Issues > The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 2013 June;54(3) > The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 2013 June;54(3):389-95



A Journal on Cardiac, Vascular and Thoracic Surgery

Indexed/Abstracted in: BIOSIS Previews, Current Contents/Clinical Medicine, EMBASE, PubMed/MEDLINE, Science Citation Index Expanded (SciSearch), Scopus
Impact Factor 1,632

Frequency: Bi-Monthly

ISSN 0021-9509

Online ISSN 1827-191X


The Journal of Cardiovascular Surgery 2013 June;54(3):389-95



Clinical outcome of the PAS-Port® proximal anastomosis system in off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting in 201 patients

Verberkmoes N. J. 1, Mokhles M. M. 2, Bramer S. 1, Van Straten A. H. M. 1, Ter Woorst J. F. 1, Maessen J. G. 3, Berreklouw E. 1

1 Department of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Catharina Hospital, Eindhoven, The Netherlands;
2 Department of Cardio-Thoracic Surgery, Erasmus Medical Center, Rotterdam, The Netherlands;
3 Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Cardiovascular Research Institute Maastricht-CARIM, Maastricht University Medical Center-MUMC, Maastricht, The Netherlands

Aim: The PAS-Port® Proximal Anastomosis System (Cardica, Inc, Redwood City, CA, USA) has been used worldwide since March 2003. The objective of the present study was to evaluate the clinical outcome of the PAS-Port® Proximal Anastomosis System.
Methods: All the patients who underwent off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting in the Catharina Hospital Eindhoven between August 2006 and April 2010 were included in a non-randomized retrospective case-control study, if they had at least one proximal vein graft anastomosis. Study end-points consisted of overall survival, coronary reintervention and postoperative stroke.
Results: The study included 312 patients (201 cases, 111 controls). After 36 months of follow-up there was no difference in survival between cases and controls (92.2% vs. 93.7%, P=0.52). No significant difference could be detected between cases and controls with respect to overall coronary reintervention-free survival (93% vs. 96.4%, P=0.20) and freedom from coronary reintervention due to proximal vein graft failure (98% vs. 100% P=0.14). The use of the PAS-Port system could not be identified as an independent risk factor of coronary reintervention (p=0.21). Postoperative stroke rates of cases and controls (2% vs. 0.9%, P=0.42) were comparable.
Conclusion: The clinical outcomes in patients treated with the PAS-Port® Proximal Anastomosis System were satisfactory compared with those treated with the conventional hand-sewing technique. The use of the PAS-Port system was not associated with higher adverse outcome in terms of overall survival, stroke, coronary reintervention-free survival and freedom from reintervention due to proximal vein graft failure.

language: English


top of page