Peric M S, Huskic R, Gradinac S, Kapelak B, Neskovic A N, Bojic M
Dedinje Institute of Cardiologic Diseases, Belgrade.
Srp Arh Celok Lek. 2001 May-Jun;129(5-6):119-23.
In most prospective, randomized studies, severely depressed left ventricular function is found to be the independent predictor of increased morbidity and mortality after myocardial revascularization [3]. Surgical treatment in this particular group of patients results in superior long-term results [1, 2]. Internal thoracic artery (ITA) is considered to be superior compared to venous grafts in myocardial revascularization for the majority of patients with ischaemic heart disease. However, its value in patients with already severely depressed left ventricular function (EF < or = 30%) is still a matter of debate. There are no prospective, randomized studies, so far. In some studies it was shown that revascularization with ITA graft resulted in superior long-term results (10- and 15-year follow-up) in all subgroups of patients, including those with severely depressed left ventricular function [4, 5]. Some authors find it still unacceptable, if this result would be possible at the expense of higher early mortality (due to use of ITA). The purpose of this study is to analyze the early and long-term results of myocardial revascularization using ITA graft in patients with severely depressed left ventricular function (EF < 30%).
Over the period from November 1986 through March 1999, 2860 pts have received ITA (alone or with additional vein grafts) for myocardial revascularization. In 431 pts EF was < or = 30% (15.1%), average EF being 25.7% (by echocardiography); 33 were women, 29 were diabetics, while average age was 56.7 +/- 8.4 years. The control group consisted of 430 pts, with similar preoperative characteristics, who received vein grafts alone.
Operative mortality in the ITA group was 2.55% (11/431), and postoperative morbidity was 7.4% (32/431). In the group with vein grafts only the mortality was 3.25% (14/430) and morbidity 6.7% (29/430)--Table 2. The average postoperative hospital stay was 9.1 days (range 7-32). There was no difference in operative and postoperative parameters (extracorporeal time, ischaemic time, duration of mechanical ventilation, need for inotropic support, mortality, morbidity and hospital stay) compared to the group with vein grafts alone, except for the blood drainage--significantly higher in the ITA group--p < 0.00001)--Table 3. Multivariate analysis showed that independent predictors of unfavorable outcome were the presence of peripheral vascular disease (beta--0.9; p = 0.02) and aortic cross-clamp time (beta--0.02; p = 0.01). Long-term results in 14 pts with ITA graft operated on from 1986 to 1992 (6-12 years of follow-up) showed the survival of 92.7%.
Superior long-term patency of ITA graft resulted in its practically routine use in myocardial revascularization. However, in some studies it was shown that ITA flow might be insufficient during the maximal effort [6]. This may result in hypoperfusion, low cardiac output syndrome and cardiac arrest. This frequently happens at the end of the operation, and may be accentuated with the use of vasopressors that can further decrease the ITA flow [9]. In patients with already severely depressed left ventricular function preoperatively, the use of vasopressors at the end of procedure when the myocardium may be quite vulnerable, is to be expected. Friesewinkel et al., [18] showed that there was an impairment of the regional contractility of the left ventricle early (up to 4 hours) after myocardial revascularization, when one or both ITA grafts were used. Since this was not the case if vein grafts were used, they advised to be careful in patients with "depressed left ventricular function". However, Elefteriades et al., [1] found no higher mortality in patients with "bad left ventricle" in whom ITA was used, but point out that patients with elective operation and without need for intensive care treatment preoperatively had much better outcome. Jagaden et al., [19] found very good results in these patients, after the routine use of ITA, during a 20-year follow-up. In our study EF < or = 30% was present in 861 patients, 431 with ITA graft and 430 with vein grafts only. There was no difference between groups considering all possible preoperative and operative factors of importance for the outcome. We found no increased early morbidity and mortality in patients in whom ITA was used compared to patients with vein grafts only. In patients operated on from 1986-1992 (follow-up of 6-12 years), we noted the survival of 92.7%. This was not statistically different compared to patients with vein grafts (survival of 88.9%). Despite the small number of patients, we found these long-term results very encouraging.
ITA graft is a very good and absolutely acceptable choice in patients with severely damaged left ventricular function, particularly if we consider its long-term superiority. These pts should not be deprived of the long-term benefit of ITA graft, since early results are very good.
在大多数前瞻性随机研究中,严重受损的左心室功能被发现是心肌血运重建术后发病率和死亡率增加的独立预测因素[3]。对这一特定患者群体进行手术治疗可获得更好的长期效果[1,2]。对于大多数缺血性心脏病患者,在心肌血运重建中,胸廓内动脉(ITA)被认为优于静脉移植物。然而,其在左心室功能已严重受损(射血分数[EF]≤30%)患者中的价值仍存在争议。目前尚无前瞻性随机研究。一些研究表明,使用ITA移植物进行血运重建在所有患者亚组中都能带来更好的长期效果(10年和15年随访),包括左心室功能严重受损的患者[4,5]。一些作者认为,如果以更高的早期死亡率(由于使用ITA)为代价换取这一结果,仍然是不可接受的。本研究的目的是分析在左心室功能严重受损(EF<30%)的患者中使用ITA移植物进行心肌血运重建的早期和长期效果。
在1986年11月至1999年3月期间,2860例患者接受了ITA(单独或联合其他静脉移植物)进行心肌血运重建。其中431例患者的EF≤30%(15.1%),通过超声心动图测得平均EF为25.7%;女性33例,糖尿病患者29例,平均年龄为56.7±8.4岁。对照组由430例术前特征相似、仅接受静脉移植物的患者组成。
ITA组的手术死亡率为2.55%(11/431),术后发病率为7.4%(32/431)。仅接受静脉移植物组的死亡率为3.25%(14/430),发病率为6.7%(29/430)——表2。术后平均住院天数为9.1天(范围7 - 32天)。与仅接受静脉移植物组相比,ITA组在手术及术后参数(体外循环时间、缺血时间、机械通气时间、使用血管活性药物支持的需求、死亡率、发病率和住院时间)方面无差异,但引流量——ITA组显著更高——p<0.00001——表3。多因素分析显示,不良结局的独立预测因素为外周血管疾病(β=-0.9;p = 0.02)和主动脉阻断时间(β=-0.02;p = 0.01)。对1986年至1992年接受ITA移植物手术的14例患者进行长期随访(6 - 12年),生存率为92.7%。
ITA移植物长期通畅率高,因此在心肌血运重建中几乎被常规使用。然而,一些研究表明,在最大负荷时ITA血流量可能不足[6]。这可能导致灌注不足、低心排血量综合征和心脏骤停。这种情况常在手术结束时发生,使用血管升压药可能会加重这种情况,因为血管升压药会进一步降低ITA血流量[9]。对于术前左心室功能已严重受损的患者,在手术结束时心肌可能非常脆弱的情况下使用血管升压药是可以预料的。Friesewinkel等人[18]表明,在使用一根或两根ITA移植物进行心肌血运重建后早期(长达4小时),左心室区域收缩功能会受损。而使用静脉移植物则不会出现这种情况,因此他们建议对“左心室功能受损”的患者要谨慎。然而,Elefteriades等人[1]发现,使用ITA的“左心室功能差”患者的死亡率并未升高,但指出术前进行择期手术且无需重症监护治疗的患者预后要好得多。Jagaden等人[19]在20年的随访中发现,常规使用ITA后这些患者的效果非常好。在我们的研究中,861例患者的EF≤30%,其中431例接受ITA移植物,430例仅接受静脉移植物。考虑到所有可能影响结局的术前和手术因素,两组之间没有差异。我们发现,与仅接受静脉移植物的患者相比,使用ITA的患者早期发病率和死亡率并未增加。对1986 - 1992年接受手术的患者进行随访(6 - 12年),我们注意到生存率为92.7%。与接受静脉移植物的患者(生存率88.9%)相比,这一结果无统计学差异。尽管患者数量较少,但我们发现这些长期结果非常令人鼓舞。
对于左心室功能严重受损的患者,ITA移植物是一个非常好且完全可以接受的选择,特别是考虑到其长期优势。这些患者不应被剥夺ITA移植物带来的长期益处,因为早期效果非常好。