Graft Survival

hi my father is having a triple heart bypass next week. he is 60 years old. last week he had a ANGIOGRAM,AND HIS REPORT IS

CIRCUMFLEX AND BRANCHES ; 99/ JUST AFTER THE. ORIGIN
80/ OSTIUM OF OMI
70/ JUST PROXIMAL TO OM2
RCA AND BRANCHES ; 99/ MID VESSEL,RETROGRADE FLOW TO
LAD
CONCLUSION ; TRIPLE VESSEL DISEASE

what would be the expected average survival rate for someone his age and what complications can occur after op.

The surgeon would of reviewed complication risks with your Dad prior to obtaining his consent for surgery..No surgery is without risks. You have not provided alot of information about your Dad other than he has triple vessel disease. I will list the possible complications. A patients preexisting state of health can affect their risk of certain complications. These include infection, excessive bleeding, stroke, heart attack, pneumonia, kidney failure, arrhythmia and death.CAB surgery has been performed for many years with successful results and limited complications. Take care, Donna

2008-12-29 06:04:40 by sumudu

with cancer detection were reported. - Excellent long term graft survival was achieved - graft survival averaged 85%. - Average increase in breast ...

My mom has had two Aortic Surgeries, we just found out today that she has to go through another becuase the first one is bleeding through a pinhole. The graft has to be redone. I am concerned about her over all safety. IF anyone has any information please forward it to me. Her chances are 10%/90%. 90% is her survival chance.

Yes, I am a nurse and I worked in Vascular Surgery for about three years.
That does happen sometimes after surgery.
The chances of survival are really good. But sometimes there are complications.
For the most part, it depends on where in the aorta the "pinhole" is. If it is in the thoracic area (upper part of the aorta, in the chest area) it is harder, and if it is in the abdominal area it is easier.
One of the most important parts is if it is located before or after where the renal arteries leave the aorta. (That is, the vessels that carry blood to the kidneys) Because if the kidneys go without blood for too long, that is like the number one cause of complications after surgery.

2006-06-26 19:45:56 by Tiffanysogood

Price: $5.95 $5.95

The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law was wrong. This web page will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is called a theory instead of a law.

The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process. The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many regressive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists. Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. Diamond back rattle snakes cannot be selectively bred until you have one with wings that jumps in the air and flies away. Evolution is impossible.

The same process is done with flowers, fruit and vegetables. New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals.

If natural selection were true Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless and everyone else. If natural selection were true humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict. If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes should have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except for the Eskimos. Many evolutionist argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning.

The cheetah in Africa is an example of an animal in the cat family with very limited variety in the DNA. Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical within each animal that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body.

First, nothing is science is 100% correct. In science, there is ALWAYS the possibility of new evidence modifying an existing law, even though that's rare. Evolution (like Newton's theory of gravity) has such a huge body of evidence behind it that it fully deserves the title of scientific law.

Here's some of that evidence:

Apparently you are unaware that there are in fact flying snakes. That do in fact jump from trees and glide through the air.

Apparently you are unaware that speciation, the process of creating new species, has BEEN OBSERVED not just once but many times.

Apparently you are unaware that natural selection ceases to operate on humans when humans take action -- such as wearing clothing -- that negates its effect.

Apparently you are unaware that natural selection is just one part of the theory of evolution, and that mutation is another part.

Write back after you've read more about evolution than you've read about the Bible. Here's a good place to start:

http://www.talkorigins.org

2006-06-28 08:25:13 by 5445

Price: $5.95 $5.95

Morality is clearly part of human nature.
Human nature is the product of evolution.
Evolution is a fact.

Hence what we know, and can prove, is that morality is part of our evolutionary heritage - A useful survival strategy which allows us to live in closely packed and highly organised society, and reap the benefits thereof in terms of reproductive success. The billions of people in the world are testament to that.

All this is true, and undeniable. Religious folks want to graft their beliefs and dogma onto that truth, claiming that morality - the exercise of conscience - is something more, something guided or dictated by a deity. However, they never provide justification for believing in the existence of said deity - No objective evidence, no valid argument, just 'faith' (i.e. wishful thinking).

So my question is this: If you want us to believe that morality is anything more than what we know it to be, where's your argument? Where's your evidence?

I also like to see the answers to this. And "The Bible" is not evidence!

2006-08-12 19:13:29 by Icarus62

pharoahmuhammad
3 minutes ago

Do you believe evolution after you read this?
The Theory of Evolution is not a scientific law or a law of biology. A scientific law must be 100% correct. Failure to meet only one challenge proves the law was wrong. This web page will prove that the Theory of Evolution fails many challenges, not simply one. The Theory of Evolution will never become a law of science because it is wrought with errors. This is why it is called a theory instead of a law.

The process of natural selection is not an evolutionary process. The DNA in plants and animals allows selective breeding to achieve desired results. Dogs are a good example of selective breeding. The DNA in all dogs has many regressive traits. A desired trait can be produced in dogs by selecting dogs with a particular trait to produce offspring with that trait. This specialized selective breeding can continue for generation after generation until a breed of dog is developed. This is the same as the "survival of the fittest" theory of the evolutionists. Many different types of dogs can be developed this way, but they can never develop a cat by selectively breeding dogs. Natural selection can never extend outside of the DNA limit. DNA cannot be changed into a new species by natural selection. Diamond back rattle snakes cannot be selectively bred until you have one with wings that jumps in the air and flies away. Evolution is impossible.

The same process is done with flowers, fruit and vegetables. New variations of the species are possible, but a new species has never been developed by science. In fact, the most modern laboratories are unable to produce a left-hand protein as found in humans and animals.

If natural selection were true Eskimos would have fur to keep warm, but they don't. They are just as hairless and everyone else. If natural selection were true humans in the tropics would have silver, reflective skin to help them keep cool, but they don't. They have black skin, just the opposite of what the theory of natural selection would predict. If natural selection were true humans at northern latitudes should have black skin, but they have white skin instead, except for the Eskimos. Many evolutionist argue that melanin is a natural sunscreen that evolved in a greater amount to protect dark skinned people who live near the Equator. They simply ignore the fact that dark skinned Eskimos live north of the Arctic Circle. Melanin in the skin is not a sound argument in favor of evolution. The theory of natural selection is wrong because it cannot create something in the DNA that wasn't there in the beginning.

The cheetah in Africa is an example of an animal in the cat family with very limited variety in the DNA. Each cheetah looks like an identical twin. The cheetah DNA is so identical within each animal that the skin from one cheetah can be grafted into another cheetah without any rejection by the body.

If you think religion has all the answers - good for you, Just don't use pseudoscientific theories with HUGE logical lacunae to try and disprove anything even remotely scientific alright?

2006-06-28 08:31:34 by 5445