The early outcome in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: our experience.

Monica Gianoli, Francesco Formica, Orazio Ferro, Luisa Colagrande, Daniela Gastaldi, Paolo Chiodini, Giovanni Paolini
{"title":"The early outcome in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting: our experience.","authors":"Monica Gianoli,&nbsp;Francesco Formica,&nbsp;Orazio Ferro,&nbsp;Luisa Colagrande,&nbsp;Daniela Gastaldi,&nbsp;Paolo Chiodini,&nbsp;Giovanni Paolini","doi":"","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Many studies confirm that beating heart surgery is an alternative to on-pump myocardial revascularization. However, the clinical conditions of patients are currently considered as a major landmark in the indication for beating heart surgery. This retrospective non-randomized study was carried out to evaluate the efficacy and the advantages of this surgical technique when anatomical criteria are used to choose the surgical strategy.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>From February to December 2003, 222 consecutive patients underwent isolated myocardial revascularization: 76 (34%) with an off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) and 146 (66%) with an on-pump coronary artery bypass (ONCAB) procedure. Selection for surgical treatment was based on coronary anatomy. All patients were stratified for mortality risk class according to the EuroSCORE system. Operative and postoperative data were analyzed.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>Morbidity and mortality did not differ significantly between the two groups but the release of creatine kinase-MB fraction was significantly higher in the ONCAB group (48.7 +/- 55.3 vs 20.8 +/- 16.6 U/ml, p < 0.001). Patients at high surgical risk were dealt with a more complicated clinical outcome; logistic regression analysis showed that this class was an independent risk factor for postoperative complications in both groups.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>We did not find any statistical difference in hospital mortality and morbidity either using ONCAB or OPCAB; however a lower release of creatine kinase-MB in beating heart revascularization group suggests that OPCAB reduces myocardial injury and preserves cardiac function when anatomical criteria are considered for patient selection.</p>","PeriodicalId":80289,"journal":{"name":"Italian heart journal : official journal of the Italian Federation of Cardiology","volume":"6 8","pages":"640-6"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2005-08-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Italian heart journal : official journal of the Italian Federation of Cardiology","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Many studies confirm that beating heart surgery is an alternative to on-pump myocardial revascularization. However, the clinical conditions of patients are currently considered as a major landmark in the indication for beating heart surgery. This retrospective non-randomized study was carried out to evaluate the efficacy and the advantages of this surgical technique when anatomical criteria are used to choose the surgical strategy.

Methods: From February to December 2003, 222 consecutive patients underwent isolated myocardial revascularization: 76 (34%) with an off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) and 146 (66%) with an on-pump coronary artery bypass (ONCAB) procedure. Selection for surgical treatment was based on coronary anatomy. All patients were stratified for mortality risk class according to the EuroSCORE system. Operative and postoperative data were analyzed.

Results: Morbidity and mortality did not differ significantly between the two groups but the release of creatine kinase-MB fraction was significantly higher in the ONCAB group (48.7 +/- 55.3 vs 20.8 +/- 16.6 U/ml, p < 0.001). Patients at high surgical risk were dealt with a more complicated clinical outcome; logistic regression analysis showed that this class was an independent risk factor for postoperative complications in both groups.

Conclusions: We did not find any statistical difference in hospital mortality and morbidity either using ONCAB or OPCAB; however a lower release of creatine kinase-MB in beating heart revascularization group suggests that OPCAB reduces myocardial injury and preserves cardiac function when anatomical criteria are considered for patient selection.

分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
非体外循环冠状动脉旁路移植术患者的早期预后:我们的经验。
背景:许多研究证实,心脏跳动手术是非泵送心肌血运重建术的替代方法。然而,患者的临床状况目前被认为是心脏手术适应症的主要标志。本回顾性非随机研究旨在评估在解剖学标准选择手术策略时该手术技术的疗效和优势。方法:2003年2月至12月,222例患者连续接受孤立心肌血运重建术:76例(34%)采用非体外循环冠状动脉搭桥术(OPCAB), 146例(66%)采用体外循环冠状动脉搭桥术(ONCAB)。选择手术治疗是基于冠状动脉解剖。根据EuroSCORE系统对所有患者进行死亡风险分级。分析手术和术后资料。结果:两组之间的发病率和死亡率无显著差异,但ONCAB组肌酸激酶- mb组分的释放量显著高于对照组(48.7 +/- 55.3 vs 20.8 +/- 16.6 U/ml, p < 0.001)。手术风险高的患者的临床结果更为复杂;Logistic回归分析显示,该级别是两组术后并发症的独立危险因素。结论:我们没有发现使用ONCAB或OPCAB的医院死亡率和发病率有统计学差异;然而,搏动心脏血运重建术组肌酸激酶mb的释放较低表明,在考虑患者选择的解剖标准时,OPCAB减少了心肌损伤并保留了心功能。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
期刊最新文献
Evidence for a "gender paradox" in diabetic patients undergoing percutaneous coronary intervention: adverse preprocedural risk but favorable long-term clinical outcome in women. Ectasia of the ascending aorta at the time of aortic valve surgery: replace or relax? A clinical approach for cardiovascular monitoring of HIV-infected patients. Results from an observational cohort study. Surgical treatment of an aneurysm originating from a Kommerell's diverticulum in the right-sided aortic arch with retroesophageal component. Double aneurysm of the left ventricular wall following cardiac perforation after aortic valvuloplasty.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1