Turk gogus kalp damar cerrahisi dergisi · 2018
Comparison of aortic cross-clamping versus beating heart surgery in tricuspid valve repair.
СтатьяНазвание 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.
Hasde Ali İhsan, Özçınar Evren, Çakıcı Mehmet, Baran Çağdaş, İnan Mustafa Bahadır, Yazıcıoğlu Levent, Eryılmaz Sadık, Akar Ahmet Rüçhan
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to evaluate the clinical outcomes of tricuspid valve repair using aortic cross-clamping versus using beating heart surgery.
METHODS: A total of 208 patients (67 males, 141 females; mean age 61.5±9.2 years; range, 29 to 81 years) who underwent concomitant cardiac surgery and tricuspid valve repair between January 2007 and January 2016 at a single center were included. Two surgical strategies for tricuspid valve repair with aortic cross-clamping (n=102) or on beating heart (n=106) were compared. Primary endpoints were in-hospital mortality and the rate of permanent pacemaker placement after surgery. Secondary endpoints were cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times, postoperative inotropic support, temporary pacemaker requirement, and residual tricuspid regurgitation at discharge and at one year.
RESULTS: Overall hospital mortality was 7% (n=14) (cross-clamping 7% vs. beating heart 7%; p>0.05). The mean cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were significantly longer in the aortic cross-clamping group (p=0.0001). Also, a higher number of patients in this group needed inotropic support (78/102) than the beating heart group (57/106) (p<0.05). The rate of postoperative left bundle branch block was higher in the cross-clamping group (14% vs. 5%, respectively; p<0.05). The rate of permanent pacemaker placement was also significantly higher in the cross-clamping group than the beating heart group (11.8% vs. 2.8%, respectively; p<0.05). At discharge, residual >2 tricuspid regurgitation was more commonly seen in the cross-clamping group (16% vs. 3%, respectively; p=0.0023). At one year of follow-up, residual >2 tricuspid regurgitation was present in 22 patients (23%) in the aortic crossclamping group and in eight patients (8%) in the beating heart group (p=0.0048).
CONCLUSION: Tricuspid valve repair on beating heart offers less inotropic support and a lower rate of postoperative permanent pacemaker placement requirement and residual tricuspid regurgitation, although both techniques yield similar postoperative clinical outcomes. These results support the use of tricuspid valve repair on a beating heart in concomitant left-sided valvular heart surgery.
METHODS: A total of 208 patients (67 males, 141 females; mean age 61.5±9.2 years; range, 29 to 81 years) who underwent concomitant cardiac surgery and tricuspid valve repair between January 2007 and January 2016 at a single center were included. Two surgical strategies for tricuspid valve repair with aortic cross-clamping (n=102) or on beating heart (n=106) were compared. Primary endpoints were in-hospital mortality and the rate of permanent pacemaker placement after surgery. Secondary endpoints were cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times, postoperative inotropic support, temporary pacemaker requirement, and residual tricuspid regurgitation at discharge and at one year.
RESULTS: Overall hospital mortality was 7% (n=14) (cross-clamping 7% vs. beating heart 7%; p>0.05). The mean cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were significantly longer in the aortic cross-clamping group (p=0.0001). Also, a higher number of patients in this group needed inotropic support (78/102) than the beating heart group (57/106) (p<0.05). The rate of postoperative left bundle branch block was higher in the cross-clamping group (14% vs. 5%, respectively; p<0.05). The rate of permanent pacemaker placement was also significantly higher in the cross-clamping group than the beating heart group (11.8% vs. 2.8%, respectively; p<0.05). At discharge, residual >2 tricuspid regurgitation was more commonly seen in the cross-clamping group (16% vs. 3%, respectively; p=0.0023). At one year of follow-up, residual >2 tricuspid regurgitation was present in 22 patients (23%) in the aortic crossclamping group and in eight patients (8%) in the beating heart group (p=0.0048).
CONCLUSION: Tricuspid valve repair on beating heart offers less inotropic support and a lower rate of postoperative permanent pacemaker placement requirement and residual tricuspid regurgitation, although both techniques yield similar postoperative clinical outcomes. These results support the use of tricuspid valve repair on a beating heart in concomitant left-sided valvular heart surgery.