A heart attack may occur as a result of the blocking of the coronary arteries. Its is remedied by a coronary bypass operation. This involves grafting sections of the vein from the patient's leg to the heart.
2007-09-25 00:03:14 · 4 answers · asked by DanielTWD 5 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
the most simple & logical answer is that heart transplant involves more risk than a bypass. often the new heart is rejected by the body. & immunosupressors which are given to keep the new heart safe might themselves prove bad for the heart in the long run.
also getting a new heart from a donor is not that simple. people who undergo transplants sometimes have to wait years to get a donor.
all this makes bypass a much viable & better option.
2007-09-25 00:38:26 · answer #1 · answered by karan s 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
Along with risk of having to go on heart/lung bypass (removal of all blood from heart and lungs and sent to machine), surgery mortality risk being higher, chance of rejection, there is also the fact that transplanted hearts no longer have vagal innervation, and the body therefore has less ability to control heart rate.
Also, bypass is usually performed to prevent (another) heart attack in a sick, but functioning heart. Heart transplants are for those whose hearts are in severe failure. Bypass surgery (if it hasn't already been performed) is no longer an option for these patients.
2007-09-25 02:02:49 · answer #2 · answered by Gemma S 3 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Because you are using part of the patients own body for the transplant there is much less chance of rejectio of the new tissue.
And it's a much less complicated procedure
2007-09-25 00:22:50 · answer #3 · answered by BC 1 · 2⤊ 0⤋
Someone else with the right blood type, etc., has to die before you can get a heart transplant.
Plus all the other reasons already mentioned.
2007-09-25 02:45:19 · answer #4 · answered by Joan H 6 · 2⤊ 1⤋