Coronary artery bypass surgery in high-risk patients.

Alper Sami Kunt, Osman Tansel Darcin, Mehmet Halit Andac
{"title":"Coronary artery bypass surgery in high-risk patients.","authors":"Alper Sami Kunt,&nbsp;Osman Tansel Darcin,&nbsp;Mehmet Halit Andac","doi":"10.1186/1468-6708-6-13","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>In high-risk coronary artery bypass patients; off-pump versus on-pump surgical strategies still remain a matter of debate, regarding which method results in a lower incidence of perioperative mortality and morbidity. We describe our experience in the treatment of high-risk coronary artery patients and compare patients assigned to on-pump and off-pump surgery.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From March 2002 to July 2004, 86 patients with EuroSCOREs > 5 underwent myocardial revascularization with or without cardiopulmonary bypass. Patients were assigned to off-pump surgery (40) or on-pump surgery (46) based on coronary anatomy coupled with the likelihood of achieving complete revascularization.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Those patients undergoing off-pump surgery had significantly poorer left ventricular function than those undergoing on-pump surgery (28.6 +/- 5.8% vs. 40.5 +/- 7.4%, respectively, p < 0.05) and also had higher Euroscore values (7.26 +/- 1.4 vs. 12.1 +/- 1.8, respectively, p < 0.05). Differences between the two groups were nonsignificant with regard to number of grafts per patient, mean duration of surgery, anesthesia and operating room time, length of stay intensive care unit (ICU) and rate of postoperative atrial fibrillation.</p><p><strong>Conclusion: </strong>Utilization of off-pump coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) does not confer significant clinical advantages in all high-risk patients. This review suggest that off-pump coronary revascularization may represent an alternative approach for treatment of patients with Euroscore > or = 10 and left ventricular function < or = 30%.</p>","PeriodicalId":53230,"journal":{"name":"Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine","volume":"6 ","pages":"13"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-08-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1186/1468-6708-6-13","citationCount":"8","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Current Controlled Trials in Cardiovascular Medicine","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/1468-6708-6-13","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 8

Abstract

Background: In high-risk coronary artery bypass patients; off-pump versus on-pump surgical strategies still remain a matter of debate, regarding which method results in a lower incidence of perioperative mortality and morbidity. We describe our experience in the treatment of high-risk coronary artery patients and compare patients assigned to on-pump and off-pump surgery.

Methods: From March 2002 to July 2004, 86 patients with EuroSCOREs > 5 underwent myocardial revascularization with or without cardiopulmonary bypass. Patients were assigned to off-pump surgery (40) or on-pump surgery (46) based on coronary anatomy coupled with the likelihood of achieving complete revascularization.

Results: Those patients undergoing off-pump surgery had significantly poorer left ventricular function than those undergoing on-pump surgery (28.6 +/- 5.8% vs. 40.5 +/- 7.4%, respectively, p < 0.05) and also had higher Euroscore values (7.26 +/- 1.4 vs. 12.1 +/- 1.8, respectively, p < 0.05). Differences between the two groups were nonsignificant with regard to number of grafts per patient, mean duration of surgery, anesthesia and operating room time, length of stay intensive care unit (ICU) and rate of postoperative atrial fibrillation.

Conclusion: Utilization of off-pump coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) does not confer significant clinical advantages in all high-risk patients. This review suggest that off-pump coronary revascularization may represent an alternative approach for treatment of patients with Euroscore > or = 10 and left ventricular function < or = 30%.

高危患者的冠状动脉搭桥手术。
背景:高危冠状动脉搭桥术患者;关于哪一种方法可以降低围手术期死亡率和发病率,非泵手术与非泵手术策略仍然存在争议。我们描述了我们在治疗高危冠状动脉患者方面的经验,并比较了分配给开泵手术和不开泵手术的患者。方法:自2002年3月至2004年7月,86例EuroSCOREs > 5的患者行体外循环或非体外循环心肌血运重建术。根据冠状动脉解剖以及实现完全血运重建的可能性,将患者分配到非泵送手术(40例)或泵送手术(46例)。结果:非泵手术患者左心室功能明显差于有泵手术患者(28.6 +/- 5.8% vs. 40.5 +/- 7.4%, p < 0.05),且Euroscore值较高(7.26 +/- 1.4 vs. 12.1 +/- 1.8, p < 0.05)。两组患者在人均移植物数量、平均手术时间、麻醉和手术室时间、重症监护病房(ICU)住院时间和术后房颤发生率方面差异无统计学意义。结论:非体外循环冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)并不能给所有高危患者带来显著的临床优势。本综述提示,非泵送冠状动脉血运重建术可能是治疗Euroscore > or = 10且左心室功能< or = 30%的患者的一种替代方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
10 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信