Bilateral Internal Mammary Artery Bypass Grafting: Sternal Wound Infection in High-Risk Population. Should Sternal Infection Scare Us?

Open journal of cardiovascular surgery Pub Date : 2018-07-23 eCollection Date: 2018-01-01 DOI:10.1177/1179065218789375
Justine Mafalda Ravaux, Thami Guennaoui, Christian Mélot, Peter Schraverus
{"title":"Bilateral Internal Mammary Artery Bypass Grafting: Sternal Wound Infection in High-Risk Population. Should Sternal Infection Scare Us?","authors":"Justine Mafalda Ravaux,&nbsp;Thami Guennaoui,&nbsp;Christian Mélot,&nbsp;Peter Schraverus","doi":"10.1177/1179065218789375","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Bilateral internal mammary arteries (BIMAs) remain underused in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), especially in elderly, diabetic, and obese patients. This study investigated incidence of sternal wound infection (SWI), sternal instability (SI), and reintervention for bleeding (RIB) in this high-risk population.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>A single-center retrospective observational study was performed in \"Grand Hôpital de Charleroi, Gilly, Belgium.\" A total of 319 patients undergoing CABG from December 2011 to December 2015 were included. Three main outcome measures (SWI, SI, and RIB) were investigated in obese vs nonobese, diabetic vs nondiabetic, and elderly vs younger patients.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>In all, 14 SWI, 11 SI, and 6 RIB were discounted. Death rate was as follows: SWI: 2/14 vs 17/305 (<i>P</i> = .178), SI: 2/11 vs 17/308 (<i>P</i> = .081), and RIB: 2/6 vs 17/313 (<i>P</i> = .004). In obese (n = 113) vs nonobese (n = 206) patients, there was no difference for SWI (<i>P</i> = .263), SI (<i>P</i> = .565), and RIB (<i>P</i> = .332). In diabetic (n = 118) vs nondiabetic (n = 201) patients, there was no difference for SWI (<i>P</i> = .642), SI (<i>P</i> = .497), and RIB (<i>P</i> = .298). In elderly (n = 62) vs younger (n = 257) patients, there was no difference for SWI (<i>P</i> = .619), SI (<i>P</i> = .915), and RIB (<i>P</i> = .385).</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Obesity, age, and diabetes treated by insulin (or not) do not seem to be risk factors for developing SWI, SI, or RIB in patients receiving a CABG using BIMA. Nevertheless, mortality was higher in RIB group.</p>","PeriodicalId":90668,"journal":{"name":"Open journal of cardiovascular surgery","volume":"10 ","pages":"1179065218789375"},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2018-07-23","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://sci-hub-pdf.com/10.1177/1179065218789375","citationCount":"5","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Open journal of cardiovascular surgery","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/1179065218789375","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2018/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"","JCRName":"","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 5

Abstract

Background: Bilateral internal mammary arteries (BIMAs) remain underused in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), especially in elderly, diabetic, and obese patients. This study investigated incidence of sternal wound infection (SWI), sternal instability (SI), and reintervention for bleeding (RIB) in this high-risk population.

Methods: A single-center retrospective observational study was performed in "Grand Hôpital de Charleroi, Gilly, Belgium." A total of 319 patients undergoing CABG from December 2011 to December 2015 were included. Three main outcome measures (SWI, SI, and RIB) were investigated in obese vs nonobese, diabetic vs nondiabetic, and elderly vs younger patients.

Results: In all, 14 SWI, 11 SI, and 6 RIB were discounted. Death rate was as follows: SWI: 2/14 vs 17/305 (P = .178), SI: 2/11 vs 17/308 (P = .081), and RIB: 2/6 vs 17/313 (P = .004). In obese (n = 113) vs nonobese (n = 206) patients, there was no difference for SWI (P = .263), SI (P = .565), and RIB (P = .332). In diabetic (n = 118) vs nondiabetic (n = 201) patients, there was no difference for SWI (P = .642), SI (P = .497), and RIB (P = .298). In elderly (n = 62) vs younger (n = 257) patients, there was no difference for SWI (P = .619), SI (P = .915), and RIB (P = .385).

Conclusions: Obesity, age, and diabetes treated by insulin (or not) do not seem to be risk factors for developing SWI, SI, or RIB in patients receiving a CABG using BIMA. Nevertheless, mortality was higher in RIB group.

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
双侧乳腺内动脉旁路移植术:高危人群胸骨伤口感染。胸骨感染应该吓到我们吗?
背景:双侧乳腺内动脉(BIMAs)在冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)中的应用仍然不足,特别是在老年人、糖尿病和肥胖患者中。本研究调查了这一高危人群中胸骨伤口感染(SWI)、胸骨不稳定(SI)和出血再干预(RIB)的发生率。方法:在“Grand Hôpital de Charleroi, Gilly, Belgium”进行单中心回顾性观察研究。2011年12月至2015年12月,共纳入319例接受CABG的患者。研究了肥胖与非肥胖、糖尿病与非糖尿病、老年与年轻患者的三个主要结局指标(SWI、SI和RIB)。结果:SWI 14例,SI 11例,RIB 6例。死亡率分别为:SWI: 2/14 vs 17/305 (P = 0.178), SI: 2/11 vs 17/308 (P = 0.081), RIB: 2/6 vs 17/313 (P = 0.004)。在肥胖(n = 113)和非肥胖(n = 206)患者中,SWI (P = 0.263)、SI (P = 0.565)和RIB (P = 0.332)没有差异。在糖尿病患者(n = 118)和非糖尿病患者(n = 201)中,SWI (P = 0.642)、SI (P = 0.497)和RIB (P = 0.298)没有差异。在老年(n = 62)和年轻(n = 257)患者中,SWI (P = .619)、SI (P = .915)和RIB (P = .385)没有差异。结论:肥胖、年龄和接受胰岛素治疗(或不接受胰岛素治疗)的糖尿病似乎不是使用BIMA进行CABG的患者发生SWI、SI或RIB的危险因素。但RIB组死亡率较高。
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
A Retrospective Analysis of Facial Fractures in Kuwait Head Injury as a Risk Factor for Inpatient Mortality Among Fall Patients in Malawi Can the Risk of the N Diseases Development be Related to the Degree of Differentiation of Tumor Cells and the Presence of Peritumoral Lymphocytic Infiltration in the Non Small Cell Lung Cancer Effectiveness of Efferent Loop Stimulation Prior to Protective Ileostomy Closure Short Profile of Children with Recurrent Inguinal Hernia in a Teaching Hospital in Enugu, Nigeria
×
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