Miyahara Ken, Matsuura Akio, Takemura Haruki, Saito Shunei, Sawaki Sadanari, Yoshioka Teruaki, Ito Hideki
Division of Cardiovascular Surgery, Aichi Cardiovascular and Respiratory Center, Ichinomiya, Aichi, Japan.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2008 Mar;135(3):521-6. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2007.10.006.
The mortality of conventional coronary artery bypass grafting after acute myocardial infarction remains high. This study compared the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing conventional and on-pump beating-heart coronary artery bypass grafting and evaluated the efficacy of an on-pump beating-heart technique for the surgical treatment of these critically ill patients.
Between January 1999 and March 2005, 61 patients underwent emergency coronary artery bypass grafting for acute myocardial infarction. In the first 23 patients, the conventional cardioplegic method was performed. In the most recent 38 patients, the on-pump beating-heart procedure was used without cardioplegic arrest.
A significant reduction occurred in the observed mortality between the conventional and on-pump beating groups (21.7% vs 2.6%, P = .04), despite a higher predicted mortality risk calculated by using EuroSCORE (9.0 +/- 1.6 vs 9.6 +/- 1.6, P = .048) and a greater use of a preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump (43.5% vs 78.9%, P = .005). On-pump beating-heart patients received fewer bypass grafts than conventional patients (2.0 vs 2.9, P = .001), but the internal thoracic artery was used more often in on-pump beating-heart patients (P = .014). Three patients in the conventional coronary artery bypass grafting group required new insertion of an intra-aortic balloon pump, whereas no patients required this in the on-pump beating-heart group (P = .220). Postoperative renal failure requiring hemodialysis occurred in 2 patients in the conventional coronary artery bypass grafting group but in no patients in the on-pump beating-heart group (P = .138).
On-pump beating-heart coronary artery bypass grafting is the preferred method of emergency myocardial revascularization for patients with acute myocardial infarction who might tolerate cardioplegic arrest poorly. It has lower postoperative mortality and morbidity than conventional coronary artery bypass grafting.
急性心肌梗死后传统冠状动脉搭桥术的死亡率仍然很高。本研究比较了接受传统体外循环心脏不停跳冠状动脉搭桥术和体外循环心脏停跳冠状动脉搭桥术患者的临床结局,并评估了体外循环心脏不停跳技术对这些重症患者手术治疗的疗效。
1999年1月至2005年3月期间,61例患者因急性心肌梗死接受了急诊冠状动脉搭桥术。前23例患者采用传统心脏停搏法。最近的38例患者采用体外循环心脏不停跳手术,未进行心脏停搏。
尽管使用欧洲心脏手术风险评估系统(EuroSCORE)计算出的预测死亡风险较高(9.0±1.6 vs 9.6±1.6,P = 0.048),且术前主动脉内球囊反搏的使用率更高(43.5% vs 78.9%,P = 0.005),但传统组和体外循环心脏不停跳组之间观察到的死亡率仍显著降低(21.7% vs 2.6%,P = 0.04)。体外循环心脏不停跳患者接受的搭桥血管比传统患者少(2.0 vs 2.9,P = 0.001),但体外循环心脏不停跳患者更常使用胸廓内动脉(P = 0.014)。传统冠状动脉搭桥术组有3例患者需要重新插入主动脉内球囊反搏,而体外循环心脏不停跳组无患者需要(P = 0.220)。传统冠状动脉搭桥术组有2例患者发生需要血液透析的术后肾衰竭,而体外循环心脏不停跳组无患者发生(P = 0.138)。
对于可能难以耐受心脏停搏的急性心肌梗死患者,体外循环心脏不停跳冠状动脉搭桥术是急诊心肌血运重建的首选方法。它比传统冠状动脉搭桥术具有更低的术后死亡率和发病率。