The Journal of international medical research · 2014
Does posterior pericardial window technique prevent pericardial tamponade after cardiac surgery?
СтатьяРандомизированное исследованиеНазвание 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.
Zhao Jian, Cheng Zhaoyun, Quan Xiaoqiang, Zhao Ziniu
Аннотация
OBJECTIVE: To investigate the efficacy of the intraoperative posterior pericardial window technique in preventing pericardial tamponade following open heart surgery.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult patients undergoing coronary and/or valve surgery were randomly divided into a control (traditional) or a pericardial window (PW) technique group. Pre-, intra-, peri- and postoperative clinical data were collected prospectively, including incidence of pericardial tamponade, cardiac arrest, drainage volume, ventilation assistance time and moderate-to-large pericardial effusion.
RESULTS: In total, 458 patients were included: 230 controls and 228 in the PW group. The incidence of pericardial tamponade in the PW group was significantly lower than in controls. Cardiac arrest occurred in one patient (0.4%) in the PW group and five (2.2%) controls; this difference was not statistically significant. Moderate-to-large pericardial effusion after drainage extubation and new-onset atrial fibrillation were significantly more common in controls than in the PW group. After stratification by age (≤ 70 versus > 70 years), there was no between-group difference in duration of endotracheal intubation, although in the PW group, after removal of the tracheal cannula, duration of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation was significantly longer in older patients.
CONCLUSIONS: The pericardial window procedure did not increase the rate or severity of procedure-related complications. This simple technique significantly decreased the incidence of postoperative pericardial tamponade and new-onset atrial fibrillation.
PATIENTS AND METHODS: Adult patients undergoing coronary and/or valve surgery were randomly divided into a control (traditional) or a pericardial window (PW) technique group. Pre-, intra-, peri- and postoperative clinical data were collected prospectively, including incidence of pericardial tamponade, cardiac arrest, drainage volume, ventilation assistance time and moderate-to-large pericardial effusion.
RESULTS: In total, 458 patients were included: 230 controls and 228 in the PW group. The incidence of pericardial tamponade in the PW group was significantly lower than in controls. Cardiac arrest occurred in one patient (0.4%) in the PW group and five (2.2%) controls; this difference was not statistically significant. Moderate-to-large pericardial effusion after drainage extubation and new-onset atrial fibrillation were significantly more common in controls than in the PW group. After stratification by age (≤ 70 versus > 70 years), there was no between-group difference in duration of endotracheal intubation, although in the PW group, after removal of the tracheal cannula, duration of noninvasive positive pressure ventilation was significantly longer in older patients.
CONCLUSIONS: The pericardial window procedure did not increase the rate or severity of procedure-related complications. This simple technique significantly decreased the incidence of postoperative pericardial tamponade and new-onset atrial fibrillation.