Masui. The Japanese journal of anesthesiology · 2017
[Comparison of Aortic Valve Replacement Combined with Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting and Transcatheter Aortic Valve Implantation Combined with Off-pump Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting].
Сравнительное исследованиеСтатьяНазвание 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.
Abe Ryuichiro, Iura Akira, Iritakenishi Takeshi, Imada Tatsuyuki, Fujino Yuji
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to compare the perioperative management of aortic valve replacement combined with coronary artery bypass grafting (AVR+CABG) and transcatheter aortic valve implantation combined with off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (TAVI+OPCAB).
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on patients who had undergone either AVR+CABG or TAVI+OPCAB for AS and CAD in Osaka Univer- sity Medical Hospital from January to October, 2014.
RESULTS: AVR+CABG was performed in 11 pa- tients (group A) and TAVI+OPCAB was performed in 4 patients (group T) in this period. The patients in group T was significantly older than the patients in group A. There were no significant differences in other background factors. Procedure time and postoperative mechanical ventilation time were shorter in group T than in group A. Postoperative recovery was signifi- cantly faster in group T than in group A.
CONCLUSIONS: TAVI+OPCAB is less invasive than AVR+CABG and an effective treatment for high risk patient with AS and CAD.
METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed on patients who had undergone either AVR+CABG or TAVI+OPCAB for AS and CAD in Osaka Univer- sity Medical Hospital from January to October, 2014.
RESULTS: AVR+CABG was performed in 11 pa- tients (group A) and TAVI+OPCAB was performed in 4 patients (group T) in this period. The patients in group T was significantly older than the patients in group A. There were no significant differences in other background factors. Procedure time and postoperative mechanical ventilation time were shorter in group T than in group A. Postoperative recovery was signifi- cantly faster in group T than in group A.
CONCLUSIONS: TAVI+OPCAB is less invasive than AVR+CABG and an effective treatment for high risk patient with AS and CAD.