Department of Surgery, National University of Singapore, Singapore, Singapore.
Ann Acad Med Singap. 2010 Aug;39(8):607-12.
The applicability of off-pump coronary-artery bypass (OPCAB) in patients who present as emergency remains controversial. Herein, we explore the efficacy and safety of OPCAB in patients who were indicated for emergency surgery.
Between 2002 and 2007, a total of 282 patients underwent OPCAB, of which 68 were presented as emergency. This cohort (group A) was compared to 68 patients who had traditional on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG, group B) under emergency indications during the same period of time. Baseline demographics, intraoperative data and postoperative outcomes were analysed.
Preoperative demographics were comparable in both groups. Mortality during the first 30 days was comparable in both groups and no stroke occurred in the whole series. Patients in group A had significantly less pulmonary complications (4.4% vs 14.7%, P = 0.04), less ventilation time (30.3 ± 33.6 hours vs 41.5 ± 55.4 hours, P = 0.18) and were less likely to have prolonged ventilation, (19.1% vs 35.3%, P = 0.03). Similarly, OPCAB patients had less postoperative renal-failure/dysfunction (5.9% vs 8.8%, P = 0.51) and required less inotropic support (66.2% vs 88.2%, P = 0.002), bloodtransfusions (23% vs 86.8%, P <0.0001), and atrial- (17.6% vs 35.3%, P = 0.02) or ventricular-pacing (17.6% vs 41.2%, P = 0.002). Although the number of diseased vessels was comparable in both groups, patients in group A received less distal anastomoses. (2.78 ± 1.19 vs 3.41 ± 0.89, P = 0.002). Similarly, complete revascularisation was achieved less frequently in group A (76.5% vs 94.1%, P = 0.004).
OPCAB strategy is a safe and efficient in emergency patients with reasonable good short-term postoperative outcomes.
非体外循环冠状动脉旁路移植术(OPCAB)在急诊患者中的适用性仍存在争议。本文旨在探讨 OPCAB 在有急诊手术适应证的患者中的疗效和安全性。
2002 年至 2007 年间,共有 282 例患者接受了 OPCAB 手术,其中 68 例为急诊患者。该队列(A 组)与同期 68 例因急诊指征行传统体外循环冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG,B 组)的患者进行比较。分析了两组患者的基线人口统计学、术中数据和术后结果。
两组患者的术前人口统计学特征无显著差异。两组患者术后 30 天死亡率相当,且均未发生卒中。A 组患者肺部并发症发生率显著低于 B 组(4.4% vs. 14.7%,P = 0.04),通气时间显著短于 B 组(30.3 ± 33.6 小时 vs. 41.5 ± 55.4 小时,P = 0.18),且机械通气时间延长的发生率也显著低于 B 组(19.1% vs. 35.3%,P = 0.03)。同样,OPCAB 组患者术后肾功能衰竭/功能障碍的发生率也较低(5.9% vs. 8.8%,P = 0.51),需要的正性肌力药物支持(66.2% vs. 88.2%,P = 0.002)、输血(23% vs. 86.8%,P <0.0001)、心房(17.6% vs. 35.3%,P = 0.02)或心室(17.6% vs. 41.2%,P = 0.002)起搏也较少。虽然两组患者的病变血管数量相当,但 A 组患者的远端吻合口数量较少(2.78 ± 1.19 个 vs. 3.41 ± 0.89 个,P = 0.002)。同样,A 组患者完全血运重建的比例也较低(76.5% vs. 94.1%,P = 0.004)。
OPCAB 策略在急诊患者中是一种安全有效的方法,且具有合理良好的短期术后效果。