General thoracic and cardiovascular surgery · 2018
Outcomes after aortic valve replacement for aortic valve stenosis, with or without concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting.
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.
Sakakura Reo, Asai Tohru, Suzuki Tomoaki, Kinoshita Takeshi, Enomoto Masahide, Kondo Yasuo, Shiraishi Shoichiro
Аннотация
OBJECTIVES: To assess the effects of concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), we analyzed the outcomes after aortic valve replacement (AVR) for aortic stenosis (AS) with and without coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) at our institution.
METHODS: Between 2002 and 2014, 605 consecutive patients underwent AVR for AS. Of these, the 275 who received isolated AVR (Group A) and the 122 who received both AVR and CABG (Group AC) patients were enrolled, after the exclusion of 8 patients who underwent reoperation and 200 who received other concomitant surgery. AVR and all bypass anastomoses were performed under intermittent retrograde cold blood cardioplegia. Multivariate analysis was used to assess any association of concomitant CABG with morbidity and mortality. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to assess all-cause mortality.
RESULTS: No significant difference in 30-day mortality was found between Group A and Group AC (1.5% vs. 0.8%, P = 1.000). Nor did post-discharge survival differ significantly between the two groups (P = 0.20). Likewise, multivariate analysis showed that concomitant CABG was not associated with significantly greater in-hospital or mid-term mortality. Operative morbidities were comparable between the two groups, in terms of stroke (1.8% vs. 3.3%, P = 0.466), prolonged ventilation (4.0% vs. 5.5%, P = 0.565), deep sternal infection (1.8% vs. 3.3%, P = 0.466), and acute renal failure (0.4% vs. 1.6% P = 0.176).
CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant CABG at the time of AVR was performed without increasing early- or mid-term mortality. This absence of increased risk deserves consideration when choosing between different treatment strategies.
METHODS: Between 2002 and 2014, 605 consecutive patients underwent AVR for AS. Of these, the 275 who received isolated AVR (Group A) and the 122 who received both AVR and CABG (Group AC) patients were enrolled, after the exclusion of 8 patients who underwent reoperation and 200 who received other concomitant surgery. AVR and all bypass anastomoses were performed under intermittent retrograde cold blood cardioplegia. Multivariate analysis was used to assess any association of concomitant CABG with morbidity and mortality. Kaplan-Meier analysis was used to assess all-cause mortality.
RESULTS: No significant difference in 30-day mortality was found between Group A and Group AC (1.5% vs. 0.8%, P = 1.000). Nor did post-discharge survival differ significantly between the two groups (P = 0.20). Likewise, multivariate analysis showed that concomitant CABG was not associated with significantly greater in-hospital or mid-term mortality. Operative morbidities were comparable between the two groups, in terms of stroke (1.8% vs. 3.3%, P = 0.466), prolonged ventilation (4.0% vs. 5.5%, P = 0.565), deep sternal infection (1.8% vs. 3.3%, P = 0.466), and acute renal failure (0.4% vs. 1.6% P = 0.176).
CONCLUSIONS: Concomitant CABG at the time of AVR was performed without increasing early- or mid-term mortality. This absence of increased risk deserves consideration when choosing between different treatment strategies.