Masui. The Japanese journal of anesthesiology · 2004
[A comparison of perioperative factors with two methods of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG): off-pump and conventional].
Сравнительное исследованиеАннотация на английскомСтатьяНазвание и аннотация: Перевод пока не подготовлен
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.
Hirate Hiroyuki, Imura Nami, Doi Rumina, Yamamoto Atsuko, Tanaka Katsuhiro, Kano Masaya, Tabuchi Akihiko, Hatta Makoto, Katsuya Hirotada
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The safety and efficiency of off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (OPCAB) are still controversial. The purpose of this study was to evaluate this approach in comparison with the conventional cardiopulmonary bypass technique (cCABG).
METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who had undergone coronary artery bypass grafting independently without other operations between January 1, 1999 and September 30, 2001 was performed. The patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent OPCAB and the remainder for cCABG. The perioperative factors of the two groups were compared.
RESULTS: A total of 152 OPCAB and 142 cCABG cases were reviewed. Compared with cCABG, OPCAB significantly reduced the amount of catecholamine needed on admission to ICU, intubation time, overall hospital length of stay, and neurologic events. There were also trends for decreases in ICU length of stay, mortality, and renal failure. On the other hand, OPCAB did not affect perioperative blood loss.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall OPCAB is safer and more efficient than cCABG. However, we have to note in anesthetic management that OPCAB does not reduce blood loss.
METHODS: A retrospective review of patients who had undergone coronary artery bypass grafting independently without other operations between January 1, 1999 and September 30, 2001 was performed. The patients were divided into two groups: those who underwent OPCAB and the remainder for cCABG. The perioperative factors of the two groups were compared.
RESULTS: A total of 152 OPCAB and 142 cCABG cases were reviewed. Compared with cCABG, OPCAB significantly reduced the amount of catecholamine needed on admission to ICU, intubation time, overall hospital length of stay, and neurologic events. There were also trends for decreases in ICU length of stay, mortality, and renal failure. On the other hand, OPCAB did not affect perioperative blood loss.
CONCLUSIONS: Overall OPCAB is safer and more efficient than cCABG. However, we have to note in anesthetic management that OPCAB does not reduce blood loss.