The Journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 1986
Can the results of contemporary aortic valve replacement be improved?
СтатьяПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание 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.
Christakis G T, Weisel R D, Fremes S E, Teoh K H, Skalenda J P, Tong C P, Azuma J Y, Schwartz L, Mickleborough L L, Scully H E
Аннотация
Although the results of contemporary aortic valve replacement are excellent, cardiac surgeons must identify the factors that predict postoperative morbidity and mortality to develop alternative strategies for high-risk patients. Two hundred seventy-seven consecutive patients undergoing isolated aortic valve replacement between 1982 and 1984 were evaluated. Thirty-seven clinical and 13 preoperative hemodynamic variables were analyzed by univariate and multivariate statistics to determine the risk factors for postoperative morbidity and mortality. The operative mortality was 3%, the incidence of a postoperative low output syndrome was 12%, and the incidence of a perioperative myocardial infarction was 5%. A multivariate, logistic regression analysis found that age was the only the only independent predictor of mortality. Three factors independently predicted postoperative low output syndrome: age, the presence of coronary artery disease, and the peak systolic gradient in patients with aortic stenosis. Patients with aortic stenosis had a higher incidence of postoperative ventricular dysfunction (17%) than those with mixed valvular disease (9%) or aortic regurgitation (5%). Perioperative myocardial infarction was predicted by the extent of coronary artery disease. The incidence of perioperative myocardial infarction was higher in patients with triple-vessel coronary artery disease (13%) and those with left main stenosis (18%) than in patients with single- or double-vessel disease (4%) or those without coronary artery disease (4%). Because of the higher risk of aortic valve replacement in older patients, the risk-benefit ratio of the operation must be carefully assessed in the elderly. Improved methods of myocardial protection may reduce the risks for patients with aortic stenosis and symptomatic triple-vessel coronary artery disease.