Ngaage Dumbor L, Cowen Michael E, Griffin Steve, Guvendik Levant, Cale Alexander R
Cardiothoracic Centre, Castle Hill Hospital, Cottingham, East Yorkshire, United Kingdom.
Eur J Cardiothorac Surg. 2007 Oct;32(4):623-8. doi: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2007.07.004. Epub 2007 Aug 8.
Operative mortality is comparatively higher for coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) or valve reoperations. Studies of reoperative risk have focussed on surgical techniques. We sought to determine the risk and predictors of poor outcome in current practice, and the influence of preoperative symptoms.
For every redo patient (n=289), we selected the best-matched pair of patients who underwent a primary operation (n=578) between 1998 and 2006. Matching variables were age, gender, left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and type of operation. Poor outcome was defined as operative mortality or major morbidity.
Median age was 68 (interquartile range 62-73) years and 28% were female for both groups. Severe symptoms and cardiac morbidity dominated the presentation of redo patients. CABG (53%), valve repair/replacement (34%) and combined CABG and valve (12%) were performed with overall operative mortality of 6.6% (median additive EuroScore 7.0) for redo versus 1.6% (median additive EuroScore 4.0) for primary groups (p<.0001). Whereas no significant difference was observed between primary (1.6%) and redo CABG (3.9%, p=.19), valve reoperations had higher operative mortality (9.6% vs 1.5%, p<.0001). Major complications occurred more frequently after redo valve compared to primary valve operations (28% vs 14%, p=.001). Reoperation (odds ratio [OR] 1.26, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.66-2.42, p=.48) was not a predictor of major adverse event after CABG or valve surgery. Determinants of poor outcome after valve reoperations were New York Heart Association class III/IV (OR 6.86, 95% CI 2.29-12.11, p=.03), duration of extracorporeal circulation (OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.02-1.35, p=.03) and mitral valve replacement (OR 4.07, 95% CI 1.83-36.01, p=.04). The predictors of major adverse events after redo CABG were congestive heart failure (OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.04-8.98, p=.006) chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (OR 17.5, 95% CI 1.87-35.21, p=.05) and interval from prior surgery (OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.09-1.92, p=.01).
In the current era, redo CABG is nearly as safe as the primary operation. A valve reoperation, on the contrary, is higher risk due, partly, to severe symptoms at presentation. Patients should be referred and operated on early before they develop severe symptoms.
冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)或瓣膜再次手术的手术死亡率相对较高。关于再次手术风险的研究主要集中在手术技术方面。我们试图确定当前实践中不良结局的风险及预测因素,以及术前症状的影响。
对于每一位再次手术患者(n = 289),我们选择了1998年至2006年间接受初次手术的最佳匹配患者对(n = 578)。匹配变量包括年龄、性别、左心室射血分数(LVEF)和手术类型。不良结局定义为手术死亡率或严重并发症。
两组患者的年龄中位数均为68岁(四分位间距62 - 73岁),女性占28%。再次手术患者的临床表现以严重症状和心脏并发症为主。实施了CABG(53%)、瓣膜修复/置换术(34%)以及CABG与瓣膜联合手术(12%),再次手术组的总体手术死亡率为6.6%(欧洲心脏手术风险评估系统[EuroScore]中位数为7.0),而初次手术组为1.6%(EuroScore中位数为4.0)(p <.0001)。虽然初次CABG(1.6%)和再次CABG(3.9%,p = 0.19)之间未观察到显著差异,但瓣膜再次手术的手术死亡率更高(9.6%对1.5%,p <.0001)。与初次瓣膜手术相比,再次瓣膜手术后严重并发症的发生更为频繁(28%对14%,p = 0.001)。再次手术(比值比[OR] 1.26,95%置信区间[CI] 0.66 - 2.42,p = 0.48)并非CABG或瓣膜手术后主要不良事件的预测因素。瓣膜再次手术后不良结局的决定因素包括纽约心脏协会心功能Ⅲ/Ⅳ级(OR 6.8, 95% CI 2.29 - 12.11, p = 0.03)、体外循环时间(OR 1.17, 95% CI 1.^{0}2 - 1.35, p = 0.03)和二尖瓣置换术(OR 4.07, 95% CI 1.83 - 36.01, p = 0.04)。再次CABG后主要不良事件的预测因素包括充血性心力衰竭(OR 1.85, 95% CI 1.04 - 8.98, p = 0.006)、慢性阻塞性肺疾病(OR 17.5, 95% CI 1.87 - 35.21, p = 0.05)以及距上次手术的时间间隔(OR 1.37, 95% CI 1.09 - 1.92, p = 0.01)。
在当前时代,再次CABG几乎与初次手术一样安全。相反,瓣膜再次手术风险更高,部分原因是就诊时症状严重。患者应在出现严重症状之前尽早转诊并接受手术。