Biancari Fausto, Mahar Muhammad Ali Asim, Mosorin Martti, Heikkinen Jouni, Pokela Matti, Taskinen Panu, Anttila Vesa, Lahtinen Jarmo, Lepojärvi Martti
Division of Cardiothoracic and Vascular Surgery, Department of Surgery, Oulu University Hospital, Oulu, Finland.
Ann Thorac Surg. 2008 Oct;86(4):1147-52. doi: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2008.05.037.
We have evaluated the immediate and intermediate outcome after off-pump (OPCAB) and conventional on-pump coronary artery bypass surgery (CCAB) in patients with unstable angina pectoris requiring nitrates infusion until arrival in the operating room.
A consecutive series of 153 and 161 patients with unrelenting angina pectoris underwent CCAB and OPCAB, respectively. Conversion from OPCAB to beating heart surgery with perfusion occurred in 4 patients.
The OPCAB patients had a significantly higher operative risk than CCAB patients (logistic European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation [EuroSCORE]: 13.8 +/- 12.8% vs 10.5 +/- 10.0%, p = 0.005). In the overall series, a lower 30-day postoperative mortality was observed among OPCAB patients (1.9% vs 3.9%, p = 0.33), the difference increased along the logistic EuroSCORE tertiles (upper tertile: 3.2% vs 9.5%, p = 0.14), but failed to reach statistical significance. Similar results have been observed among one-to-one propensity score matched pairs. The results of three surgeons who treated most of their patients (96.9%) with OPCAB were compared with those of three surgeons who used, in most of cases (97.1%), the CCAB technique. When adjusted for logistic EuroSCORE, patients operated on by CCAB surgeons had a significantly higher 30-day postoperative mortality (7.1% vs 2.1%, p = 0.04; odds ratio [OR] 10.143; 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.084 to 94.945) as well as a higher risk of combined adverse events (47.1% vs. 35.1%, p = 0.009; OR 2.586; 95% CI 1.274 to 5.250).
This study provided further evidence on the safety and efficacy of OPCAB in the treatment of high-risk patients. A dedicated approach to OPCAB seems to provide particularly good results. Such findings further support a more confident approach with OPCAB in these patients.
我们评估了在手术室接受硝酸酯类药物输注治疗的不稳定型心绞痛患者,非体外循环冠状动脉搭桥术(OPCAB)和传统体外循环冠状动脉搭桥术(CCAB)后的近期和中期结果。
分别对连续的153例和161例顽固性心绞痛患者进行了CCAB和OPCAB手术。4例患者由OPCAB转为心脏跳动下灌注手术。
OPCAB患者的手术风险显著高于CCAB患者(逻辑欧洲心脏手术风险评估系统[EuroSCORE]:13.8±12.8%对10.5±10.0%,p = 0.005)。在整个系列中,OPCAB患者术后30天死亡率较低(1.9%对3.9%,p = 0.33),差异在逻辑EuroSCORE三分位数中增大(上三分位数:3.2%对9.5%,p = 0.14),但未达到统计学意义。在一对一倾向评分匹配对中也观察到了类似结果。比较了三位主要采用OPCAB治疗大部分患者(96.9%)的外科医生与三位在大多数情况下(97.1%)采用CCAB技术的外科医生的结果。经逻辑EuroSCORE调整后,CCAB外科医生手术的患者术后30天死亡率显著更高(7.1%对2.1%,p = 0.04;优势比[OR] 10.143;95%置信区间[CI] 1.084至至94.945),以及合并不良事件风险更高(47.1%对35.1%,p = 0.009;OR 2.586;95% CI 1.274至5.250)。
本研究为OPCAB治疗高危患者的安全性和有效性提供了进一步证据。专门的OPCAB方法似乎能提供特别好的结果。这些发现进一步支持了在这些患者中对OPCAB采取更有信心的方法。