The Annals of thoracic surgery · 2005
Impact of concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting on hospital survival after aortic root replacement.
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.
Byrne John G, Karavas Alexandros N, Leacche Marzia, Unic Daniel, Rawn James D, Couper Gregory S, Mihaljevic Tomislav, Rizzo Robert J, Aranki Sary F, Cohn Lawrence H
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We examined the impact of concomitant coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) on hospital survival after aortic root replacement. We sought to determine whether CABG procedures that were not originally planned but rather added after the aortic root procedure was completed (CABG/bailout) skewed the results to shift patients with bad outcomes to the CABG group, making the non-CABG group appear undeservedly low risk.
METHODS: Between May 1992 and January 2001, 369 consecutive patients underwent aortic root replacement. Concomitant CABG was required in 95 patients (26%). Indications for CABG were significant coronary artery disease in 73 patients (20%), active endocarditis or acute aortic dissection involving the coronary orifices in 14 patients (4%), and difficulty weaning from bypass because of regional wall motion abnormality from presumed but unconfirmed coronary artery disease or technical error at coronary ostial reimplantation (CABG/bailout) in 8 patients (2%).
RESULTS: Operative mortality for the entire cohort was 5.7% (21 patients). The operative mortality rate for the non-CABG group was 0.4% (1 of 274 patients), and for the CABG group, 21% (20 of 95 patients; p < 0.001). Independent predictors of operative mortality in the CABG group were New York Heart Association functional class III or IV (odds ratio, 3.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.07 to 14.5), active endocarditis (odds ratio, 9.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.06 to 41.5), acute aortic dissection (odds ratio, 7.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.81 to 32.0), and failure to use retrograde cardioplegia (odds ratio, 6.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.06 to 38.8). The use of CABG/bailout was not a predictor.
CONCLUSIONS: Adding CABG at the end of an aortic root procedure is a rare event, and because it is rare, there is no significant shift of risk as a result of the CABG/bailout patients on the overall CABG group.
METHODS: Between May 1992 and January 2001, 369 consecutive patients underwent aortic root replacement. Concomitant CABG was required in 95 patients (26%). Indications for CABG were significant coronary artery disease in 73 patients (20%), active endocarditis or acute aortic dissection involving the coronary orifices in 14 patients (4%), and difficulty weaning from bypass because of regional wall motion abnormality from presumed but unconfirmed coronary artery disease or technical error at coronary ostial reimplantation (CABG/bailout) in 8 patients (2%).
RESULTS: Operative mortality for the entire cohort was 5.7% (21 patients). The operative mortality rate for the non-CABG group was 0.4% (1 of 274 patients), and for the CABG group, 21% (20 of 95 patients; p < 0.001). Independent predictors of operative mortality in the CABG group were New York Heart Association functional class III or IV (odds ratio, 3.9; 95% confidence interval, 1.07 to 14.5), active endocarditis (odds ratio, 9.2; 95% confidence interval, 2.06 to 41.5), acute aortic dissection (odds ratio, 7.6; 95% confidence interval, 1.81 to 32.0), and failure to use retrograde cardioplegia (odds ratio, 6.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.06 to 38.8). The use of CABG/bailout was not a predictor.
CONCLUSIONS: Adding CABG at the end of an aortic root procedure is a rare event, and because it is rare, there is no significant shift of risk as a result of the CABG/bailout patients on the overall CABG group.