Interrupted Coalescent Nitinol Clip versus Continuous Suture Coronary Anastomosis: A Comparative Endothelial Function Study


  • Roland G. Demaria
  • Simon Fortier
  • Olivier Malo
  • Michel Carrier
  • Louis P. Perrault



Background: A new penetrating stapled anastomotic system using nitinol microclips (Coalescent Surgical U-Clip) has been developed to facilitate the construction of compliant interrupted sutures for minimally invasive and robotic surgery as well as for conventional procedures. The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of nitinol U-Clips used for coronary anastomosis in the development of endothelial dysfunction, compared with conventional running sutures.

Methods: In a porcine model, both internal thoracic arteries were harvested, and the heart was removed. In a Krebs solution, 2 anastomoses were realized ex vivo between internal thoracic arteries and the left anterior descending artery. One was carried out with 12 Coalescent microclips, and the other used conventional running 7-0 polypropylene suture material (Prolene). Coronary rings on the anastomotic sites were then placed in organ chambers filled with oxygenated Krebs solution. Vascular reactivity studies were performed in standard organ chamber experiments. After the contraction of the coronary arteries in response to prostaglandin F2a, the endothelium-dependent relaxation response to bradykinin was studied. The other coronary arteries served as controls.

Results: There was no statistically significant difference among the groups (P > .05) in the amplitude of the contraction response to KCl and prostaglandin F2a. There were no statistically significant differences in endothelium-dependent relaxation response to bradykinin between the nitinol microclip group and controls, between the suture group and controls, and between the nitinol microclip and suture groups. Conclusions: Coalescent nitinol U-Clips used as anastomotic devices do not induce an endothelial dysfunction and allow a compliant anastomosis under satisfactory conditions.


Cook JW, Schuman ES, Standage BA, Heinl P. 2001. Patency and flow characteristics using stapled vascular anastomoses in dialysis grafts. Am J Surg 181:24-7.nDemaria R, Lhôte F-M, Dauzat M, et al. 2000. Arterial wall compliance after diode laser assisted micro-anastomosis: a comparative study with conventional manual microanastomosis on the rabbit femoral artery. Lasers Med Sci 15:207-13.nHeijmen RH, Hinchliffe P Borst C, et al. 1999. A novel one-shot anastomotic stapler prototype for coronary bypass grafting on the beating heart: feasibility in the pig. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg 117:117-25.nKomori K, Shoji T, Furuyama T, et al. 2001. Non-penetrating vascular clips anastomosis inhibited intimal thickening under poor runoff conditions in canine autogenous vein grafts. Eur J Vasc Endovasc Surg 21:241-7.nLisi G, Perrault LP Menasché P et al. 1998. Nonpenetrating stapling: a valuable alternative for coronary anastomoses? Ann Thorac Surg 66:1705-8.nOkuhn SP Connelly DP Calakos N, Ferrell L, Pan MX, Goldstone J. 1989. Does compliance mismatch alone cause neointimal hyperplasia? J Vasc Surg 9:35-45.nPerrault LP, Demaria RG. 2002. Flow dynamics in ITA grafts after 10 years: invited commentary. Ann Thorac Surg 73:137.nPfister AJ. 1997. The safety of CABG without cardiopulmonary bypass. Ann Thorac Surg 64:590-1.nShimokawa H, Aarhus LL, Vanhoutte PM. 1987. Porcine coronary arteries with regenerated endothelium have a reduced endothelium-dependent responsiveness to aggregating platelets and serotonin. Circ Res 61:256-70.nStewart SFC, Lyman DJ. 1992. Effects of a vascular graft/natural artery compliance mismatch on pulsatile flow. J Biomech 25:297-310.nTozzi P Hayoz D, Ruchat P et al. 2001. Animal model to compare the effects of suture technique on cross-sectional compliance on end-to-side anastomoses. Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 19:477-81.nVanhoutte PM, Shimokawa H. 1989. Endothelium-derived relaxing factor and coronary vasospasm. Circulation 80:1-9.nAbbott WM, Megerman J, Hasson JE, L'Italien G, Warnock DF. 1987. Effect of compliance mismatch on vascular graft patency. J Vasc Surg 5:376-82.nBaguneid MS, Goldner S, Fulford PE, Hamilton G, Walker MG, Seifalian AM. 2001. A comparison of para-anastomotic compliance profiles after vascular anastomosis: nonpenetrating microclips versus standard sutures. J Vasc Surg 33:812-20.nBaird RN, Abbott WM. 1976. Pulsatile blood-flow in arterial grafts. Lancet 2:948-50.nChavanon O, Perrault LP Menasché P Carrier M, Vanhoutte PM. 1999.nEndothelial effects of hemostatic devices for continuous cardioplegia or minimally invasive operations: updated in 1999. Ann Thorac Surg 68:1118-20.n



How to Cite

Demaria, R. G., Fortier, S., Malo, O., Carrier, M., & Perrault, L. P. (2005). Interrupted Coalescent Nitinol Clip versus Continuous Suture Coronary Anastomosis: A Comparative Endothelial Function Study. The Heart Surgery Forum, 6(2), 72-76.