Suppr超能文献

非体外循环冠状动脉搭桥手术的手术量与手术效果:这重要吗?

Surgical volume and outcomes of off-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery: Does it matter?

作者信息

Konety Suma H, Rosenthal Gary E, Vaughan-Sarrazin Mary S

机构信息

Division of Cardiovascular Diseases, Department of Internal Medicine, University of California San Francisco, San Francisco, Calif., USA.

出版信息

J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2009 May;137(5):1116-23.e1. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2008.12.038. Epub 2009 Mar 25.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Coronary artery bypass grafting performed off-pump has emerged in recent years as a less morbid alternative to on-pump bypass grafting. However, the impact of hospital volume on the outcomes of off-pump relative to on-pump bypass grafting has not been evaluated.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective study of patients undergoing off-pump (n = 26,011) and on-pump (n = 99,344) coronary artery bypass grafting during 2000 through 2004 in 124 California hospitals, using the California Patient Discharge Database. Generalized linear mixed models were used to compare in-hospital mortality and postoperative complications in patients undergoing on-pump versus off-pump bypass grafting, accounting sequentially for differences in patient characteristics and hospital-level effects. The relative mortality and complication rates for patients undergoing on-pump versus off-pump coronary bypass were evaluated across hospital volume quartiles.

RESULTS

Mean length of stay was lower for patients who underwent off-pump compared with on-pump bypass grafting (8.7 vs 9.6 days; P < .001), as were unadjusted mortality and complication rates (2.2% vs 3.3%; 10.1% vs 11.6%, respectively; P < .001). For hospitals in the highest percent off-pump bypass quartile, adjusted mortality and complication rates for patients having off-pump bypass were significantly lower than for the on-pump group (odds ratio [OR] = 0.50; 95% confidence intervals [CI], 0.41-0.61; OR = 0.73; 95% CI, 0.66-0.81, respectively; P < .001); by contrast, for hospitals in the lowest percent off-pump bypass quartile, mortality and complications were similar in off-pump and on-pump groups (OR = 1.10; 95% CI, 0.75-1.63; OR = 0.92; 95% CI, 0.72-1.16, respectively; P > .05).

CONCLUSIONS

Outcomes were significantly better for off-pump compared with on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Although the benefit of off-pump bypass grafting increased as the relative use of the procedure at a hospital increased, off-pump bypass grafting can be safely implemented across numerous hospitals.

摘要

目的

近年来,非体外循环冠状动脉搭桥术已成为体外循环搭桥术的一种低创伤替代方法。然而,相对于体外循环搭桥术,医院手术量对非体外循环手术结果的影响尚未得到评估。

方法

我们利用加利福尼亚州患者出院数据库,对2000年至2004年期间在加利福尼亚州124家医院接受非体外循环(n = 26,011)和体外循环(n = 99,344)冠状动脉搭桥术的患者进行了一项回顾性研究。使用广义线性混合模型比较体外循环与非体外循环搭桥术患者的住院死亡率和术后并发症,并依次考虑患者特征和医院层面效应的差异。在医院手术量四分位数范围内评估体外循环与非体外循环冠状动脉搭桥术患者的相对死亡率和并发症发生率。

结果

与体外循环搭桥术患者相比,非体外循环患者的平均住院时间更短(8.7天对9.6天;P <.001),未调整的死亡率和并发症发生率也更低(分别为2.2%对3.3%;10.1%对11.6%;P <.001)。对于非体外循环搭桥术比例最高的四分位数医院,非体外循环搭桥术患者的调整后死亡率和并发症发生率显著低于体外循环组(优势比[OR] = 0.50;95%置信区间[CI],0.41 - 0.61;OR = 0.73;95% CI,0.66 - 0.81,P <.001);相比之下,对于非体外循环搭桥术比例最低的四分位数医院,非体外循环组和体外循环组的死亡率和并发症相似(OR = 1.10;95% CI,0.75 - 1.63;OR = 0.92;95% CI,0.72 - 1.16,P >.05)。

结论

与体外循环冠状动脉搭桥术相比,非体外循环手术的结果明显更好。尽管随着医院非体外循环手术相对使用量的增加,非体外循环搭桥术的益处增加,但非体外循环搭桥术可以在众多医院安全实施。

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验