Circulation · 2014
Practice patterns and clinical outcomes after hybrid coronary revascularization in the United States: an analysis from the society of thoracic surgeons adult cardiac database.
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Harskamp Ralf E, Brennan J Matthew, Xian Ying, Halkos Michael E, Puskas John D, Thourani Vinod H, Gammie James S, Taylor Bradley S, de Winter Robbert J, Kim Sunghee, O'Brien Sean, Peterson Eric D, Gaca Jeffrey G
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: Hybrid coronary revascularization (HCR) involves a combination of surgical and percutaneous techniques, which in selected patients may present an alternative to conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).
METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients were included who underwent HCR (staged/concurrent) or isolated CABG in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database (July 2011 to March 2013). HCR represented 0.48% (n=950; staged=809, concurrent=141) of the total CABG volume (n=198,622) during the study period, and was performed in one-third of participating centers (n=361). Patients who underwent HCR had higher cardiovascular risk profiles in comparison with patients undergoing CABG. In comparison with CABG, median sternotomy (98.5% for CABG, 61.1% for staged HCR, and 52.5% for concurrent HCR), direct vision harvesting (98.9%, 66.0%, and 68.1%) and cardiopulmonary bypass (83.4%, 45%, and 36.9%) were less frequently used for staged and concurrent HCR, whereas robotic assistance (0.7%, 33.0%, and 30.5%) was more common. After adjustment, no differences were observed for the composite of in-hospital mortality and major morbidity (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.16; P=0.53 for staged HCR, and odds ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.56; P=0.80 for concurrent HCR in comparison with CABG). There was no statistically significant association between operative mortality and either treatment group (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-1.30; P=0.29 for staged HCR, and odds ratio, 2.26; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-5.17; P=0.053 for concurrent HCR in comparison with CABG).
CONCLUSION: HCR, either as a staged or concurrent procedure, is performed in one-third of US hospitals and is reserved for a highly selected patient population. Although HCR may appear to be an equally safe alternative for CABG surgery, further randomized study is warranted.
METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients were included who underwent HCR (staged/concurrent) or isolated CABG in the Society of Thoracic Surgeons Adult Cardiac Surgery Database (July 2011 to March 2013). HCR represented 0.48% (n=950; staged=809, concurrent=141) of the total CABG volume (n=198,622) during the study period, and was performed in one-third of participating centers (n=361). Patients who underwent HCR had higher cardiovascular risk profiles in comparison with patients undergoing CABG. In comparison with CABG, median sternotomy (98.5% for CABG, 61.1% for staged HCR, and 52.5% for concurrent HCR), direct vision harvesting (98.9%, 66.0%, and 68.1%) and cardiopulmonary bypass (83.4%, 45%, and 36.9%) were less frequently used for staged and concurrent HCR, whereas robotic assistance (0.7%, 33.0%, and 30.5%) was more common. After adjustment, no differences were observed for the composite of in-hospital mortality and major morbidity (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% confidence interval, 0.75-1.16; P=0.53 for staged HCR, and odds ratio, 0.94; 95% confidence interval, 0.56-1.56; P=0.80 for concurrent HCR in comparison with CABG). There was no statistically significant association between operative mortality and either treatment group (odds ratio, 0.74; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-1.30; P=0.29 for staged HCR, and odds ratio, 2.26; 95% confidence interval, 0.99-5.17; P=0.053 for concurrent HCR in comparison with CABG).
CONCLUSION: HCR, either as a staged or concurrent procedure, is performed in one-third of US hospitals and is reserved for a highly selected patient population. Although HCR may appear to be an equally safe alternative for CABG surgery, further randomized study is warranted.
Предметные рубрики MeSH
AgedCombined Modality TherapyCoronary Artery BypassCoronary Artery DiseaseDatabases, FactualFemaleHemorrhageHospital MortalityHumansIncidenceLength of StayMaleMiddle AgedOutcome and Process Assessment, Health CarePercutaneous Coronary InterventionProfessional PracticeRisk FactorsStentsStrokeUnited States