Suppr超能文献

非体外循环或体外循环冠状动脉旁路移植术 30 天。

Off-pump or on-pump coronary-artery bypass grafting at 30 days.

机构信息

Population Health Research Institute, Hamilton Health Sciences, McMaster University, Hamilton, ON, Canada.

出版信息

N Engl J Med. 2012 Apr 19;366(16):1489-97. doi: 10.1056/NEJMoa1200388. Epub 2012 Mar 26.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The relative benefits and risks of performing coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG) with a beating-heart technique (off-pump CABG), as compared with cardiopulmonary bypass (on-pump CABG), are not clearly established.

METHODS

At 79 centers in 19 countries, we randomly assigned 4752 patients in whom CABG was planned to undergo the procedure off-pump or on-pump. The first coprimary outcome was a composite of death, nonfatal stroke, nonfatal myocardial infarction, or new renal failure requiring dialysis at 30 days after randomization.

RESULTS

There was no significant difference in the rate of the primary composite outcome between off-pump and on-pump CABG (9.8% vs. 10.3%; hazard ratio for the off-pump group, 0.95; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.14; P=0.59) or in any of its individual components. The use of off-pump CABG, as compared with on-pump CABG, significantly reduced the rates of blood-product transfusion (50.7% vs. 63.3%; relative risk, 0.80; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.85; P<0.001), reoperation for perioperative bleeding (1.4% vs. 2.4%; relative risk, 0.61; 95% CI, 0.40 to 0.93; P=0.02), acute kidney injury (28.0% vs. 32.1%; relative risk, 0.87; 95% CI, 0.80 to 0.96; P=0.01), and respiratory complications (5.9% vs. 7.5%; relative risk, 0.79; 95% CI, 0.63 to 0.98; P=0.03) but increased the rate of early repeat revascularizations (0.7% vs. 0.2%; hazard ratio, 4.01; 95% CI, 1.34 to 12.0; P=0.01).

CONCLUSIONS

There was no significant difference between off-pump and on-pump CABG with respect to the 30-day rate of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, or renal failure requiring dialysis. The use of off-pump CABG resulted in reduced rates of transfusion, reoperation for perioperative bleeding, respiratory complications, and acute kidney injury but also resulted in an increased risk of early revascularization. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research; CORONARY ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00463294.).

摘要

背景

与体外循环(on-pump,即使用心肺机)下进行冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)相比,心脏不停跳技术(off-pump CABG)的相对益处和风险尚不明确。

方法

在 19 个国家的 79 个中心,我们将计划进行 CABG 的 4752 例患者随机分配至 off-pump 或 on-pump 组。主要复合终点为随机分组后 30 天内死亡、非致死性卒、非致死性心肌梗死或新出现需要透析的肾功能衰竭。

结果

off-pump CABG 与 on-pump CABG 的主要复合终点发生率无显著差异(9.8% vs. 10.3%;off-pump 组的危险比为 0.95;95%置信区间[CI]为 0.79 至 1.14;P=0.59),或任何单一终点发生率也无显著差异。与 on-pump CABG 相比,off-pump CABG 可显著降低输血率(50.7% vs. 63.3%;相对风险,0.80;95%CI,0.75 至 0.85;P<0.001)、围术期出血需再次手术率(1.4% vs. 2.4%;相对风险,0.61;95%CI,0.40 至 0.93;P=0.02)、急性肾损伤发生率(28.0% vs. 32.1%;相对风险,0.87;95%CI,0.80 至 0.96;P=0.01)和呼吸系统并发症发生率(5.9% vs. 7.5%;相对风险,0.79;95%CI,0.63 至 0.98;P=0.03),但增加了早期再次血运重建率(0.7% vs. 0.2%;危险比,4.01;95%CI,1.34 至 12.0;P=0.01)。

结论

off-pump CABG 与 on-pump CABG 在 30 天死亡率、心肌梗死、卒中和需要透析的肾衰竭发生率方面无显著差异。off-pump CABG 可降低输血、围术期出血需再次手术、呼吸系统并发症和急性肾损伤发生率,但增加了早期再次血运重建的风险。(加拿大卫生研究院资助;CORONARY ClinicalTrials.gov 注册号:NCT00463294。)

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