Ivaskeviciene Loreta, Nogiene Giedre, Butkuviene Irena, Kalinauskas Gintaras, Valaika Arūnas, Veriznikovas Jurgis, Uzdavinys Giedrius
Center of Cardiac Surgery, Vilnius University, Vilnius, Lithuania.
Medicina (Kaunas). 2009;45(11):848-54.
Benefits of off-pump surgery are still widely debated in the literature comparing with conventional coronary artery bypass grafting. The aim of our study was to compare the late outcomes of patients who underwent on-pump redo coronary artery bypass surgery with those who had off-pump redo coronary artery bypass surgery.
Two groups of patients were compared. Group 1 consisted of 34 patients who underwent off-pump redo coronary artery bypass surgery, and Group 2 included 160 patients who underwent on-pump redo coronary artery bypass surgery. Both groups of patients were operated on by the same team of surgeons at the same time period. Groups did not differ by age, gender, functional class, preoperative myocardial infarction rate, and left ventricular function. More patients with hypertension were in the off-pump group. Significantly more grafts were performed in the on-pump group. Survival, presence of angina, reoccurrence of postoperative myocardial infarction, necessity of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty and reoperations were evaluated in late follow-up period. The duration of follow-up was 3.37+/-2.15 years in the off-pump group and 3.27+/-2.36 years in the on-pump group.
Survival after 6 years in the off-pump and on-pump redo coronary artery bypass surgery groups was 85.3% and 83.6%, respectively (P=0.758). Five years after redo operation, 54.9% of patients who underwent off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery and 69.3% of patients who underwent on-pump coronary artery bypass surgery had no angina (P=0.174). There were no major cardiac events (percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty, death, myocardial infarction, and reoperations) after 6 years in 69.7% of patients in the off-pump group and 76.9% of patients in the on-pump group (P=0.343). Five years after redo surgery, 79.4% of patients in the off-pump group and 91.9% in the on-pump group were free of percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (P<0.02).
There was no difference in survival despite the fact that patients in the on-pump group received more grafts than those in the off-pump group. Recurrence of angina and incidence of major cardiac events were almost equal in both the groups. Percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty was more frequently performed in the patients of off-pump group at late follow-up.
与传统冠状动脉旁路移植术相比,非体外循环手术的益处仍在文献中广泛争论。我们研究的目的是比较接受体外循环再次冠状动脉旁路移植手术的患者与接受非体外循环再次冠状动脉旁路移植手术的患者的远期结局。
比较两组患者。第1组由34例接受非体外循环再次冠状动脉旁路移植手术的患者组成,第2组包括160例接受体外循环再次冠状动脉旁路移植手术的患者。两组患者由同一组外科医生在同一时期进行手术。两组在年龄、性别、心功能分级、术前心肌梗死发生率和左心室功能方面无差异。非体外循环组高血压患者更多。体外循环组进行的移植血管显著更多。在远期随访期评估生存率、心绞痛的存在、术后心肌梗死的复发、经皮冠状动脉腔内血管成形术的必要性和再次手术情况。非体外循环组的随访时间为3.37±2.15年,体外循环组为3.27±2.36年。
非体外循环和体外循环再次冠状动脉旁路移植手术组6年后的生存率分别为85.3%和83.6%(P=0.758)。再次手术后5年,接受非体外循环冠状动脉旁路移植手术的患者中有54.9%无心绞痛,接受体外循环冠状动脉旁路移植手术的患者中有69.3%无心绞痛(P=0.174)。非体外循环组69.7%的患者和体外循环组76.9%的患者在6年后无重大心脏事件(经皮冠状动脉腔内血管成形术、死亡、心肌梗死和再次手术)(P=0.343)。再次手术后5年,非体外循环组79.4%的患者和体外循环组91.9%的患者无需进行经皮冠状动脉腔内血管成形术(P<0.02)。
尽管体外循环组患者接受的移植血管比非体外循环组多,但生存率无差异。两组心绞痛的复发率和重大心脏事件的发生率几乎相等。在远期随访中,非体外循环组患者更频繁地进行经皮冠状动脉腔内血管成形术。