Caputo Massimo, Reeves Barnaby C, Rajkaruna Chanaka, Awair Hazaim, Angelini Gianni D
Heart Institute, University of Bristol, Bristol Royal Infirmary, Bristol, United Kingdom.
Ann Thorac Surg. 2005 Dec;80(6):2141-7. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2005.05.077.
The aim of this study was to compare early and mid-term outcome in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery who have had complete revascularizations and incomplete revascularizations (IRs).
Patient and operative data were collected prospectively for all patients who had off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery. Patients with multivessel disease were classified as having IR if the number of diseased coronary systems (left anterior descending coronary artery, circumflex and right coronary artery) exceeded the number of distal anastomoses. In-hospital outcomes, survival, and event-free survival were compared between patients with complete revascularization and IR using propensity scores to take account of differences in prognostic factors.
There were 1,479 off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery patients between April 1996 and December 2002 (30% of all coronary artery bypass graft patients), and 16.0% (237 patients) had IRs. Patients with IRs tended to be older and were female, had more extensive disease, worse dyspnea, a higher Parsonnet score, poorer ejection fraction, congestive cardiac failure, asthma or chronic obstructive airways disease, and previous cardiac surgery. The adjusted hazard ratio for patient survival with IRs versus complete revascularizations was 1.56 (95% confidence interval, 1.19 to 2.06; p = 0.001). Analyses for multiple time periods confirmed that IRs had a significantly increased risk of death, but also that the risk disappeared after the first 4 to 6 months of follow-up (p < 0.0001).
Compared with off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery patients with complete revascularizations, those with IRs have reduced survival, but only in the first 4 to 6 months after surgery. Patients' preoperative condition, rather than IR itself, may explain these findings because IRs should have mid-term as well as early effects.
本研究旨在比较接受非体外循环冠状动脉搭桥手术且实现完全血运重建和未实现完全血运重建(IR)患者的早期和中期结果。
前瞻性收集所有接受非体外循环冠状动脉搭桥手术患者的患者及手术数据。多支血管病变患者若病变冠状动脉系统(左前降支冠状动脉、回旋支和右冠状动脉)数量超过远端吻合口数量,则分类为IR。使用倾向评分比较完全血运重建和IR患者的院内结局、生存率和无事件生存率,以考虑预后因素的差异。
1996年4月至2002年12月期间有1479例非体外循环冠状动脉搭桥手术患者(占所有冠状动脉搭桥移植患者的30%),16.0%(237例患者)存在IR。IR患者往往年龄较大且为女性,疾病范围更广,呼吸困难更严重,Parsonnet评分更高,射血分数更低,有充血性心力衰竭、哮喘或慢性阻塞性气道疾病,且既往有心脏手术史。IR患者与完全血运重建患者相比,调整后的患者生存风险比为1.56(95%置信区间为1.19至2.06;p = 0.001)。多个时间段的分析证实,IR患者死亡风险显著增加,但在随访的前4至6个月后风险消失(p < 0.0001)。
与接受完全血运重建的非体外循环冠状动脉搭桥手术患者相比,IR患者生存率降低,但仅在术后前4至6个月。患者的术前状况而非IR本身可能解释这些发现,因为IR应具有中期以及早期影响。