Suppr超能文献

经导管主动脉瓣植入术患者的麻醉管理

Anesthetic management of patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

作者信息

Balanika Marina, Smyrli Anna, Samanidis George, Spargias Kostantinos, Stavridis George, Karavolias George, Khoury Mazen, Voudris Vasilios, Lacoumenta Stavroula

机构信息

Department of Anesthesiology, Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center, Athens, Greece.

Department of Anesthesiology, Onassis Cardiac Surgery Center, Athens, Greece.

出版信息

J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2014 Apr;28(2):285-9. doi: 10.1053/j.jvca.2013.07.010. Epub 2013 Dec 7.

Abstract

OBJECTIVE

To compare 2 anesthetic techniques, general anesthesia or monitored anesthesia care, performed by the same cardiac anesthesiologists for transcatheter aortic valve implantation in the authors' institution.

DESIGN

A retrospective study.

SETTING

A single specialized cardiac surgery center.

PARTICIPANTS

Ninety-eight patients with severe aortic valve stenosis and a high logistic EuroSCORE considered not eligible to undergo conventional aortic valve replacement.

INTERVENTION

General anesthesia or monitored anesthesia care.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

General anesthesia was used in 57 and monitored anesthesia care in 41 patients. The authors compared the following parameters: Duration of procedure, transfusion requirements, cardiac indices, superior vena cava saturation (ScVO2) before and after the aortic valve implantation, hospital length of stay and 30-day mortality. The only significant differences between the groups concerned were the duration of anesthesia (p<0.001) and ScVO2 values. Anesthesia duration was prolonged significantly when general anesthesia was administered, and ScVO2 was significantly higher both before and after the valve implantation in the general anesthesia group. Thirty-day mortality was 5.3% in the general anesthesia group and 4.9% in the monitored anesthesia group.

CONCLUSIONS

It would appear that both anesthetic techniques may be used for patients with a high logistic EuroSCORE undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation.

摘要

目的

在作者所在机构中,比较由同一心脏麻醉医生实施的两种麻醉技术——全身麻醉或监护麻醉,用于经导管主动脉瓣植入术的情况。

设计

一项回顾性研究。

地点

一个单一的专业心脏外科中心。

参与者

98例重度主动脉瓣狭窄且欧洲心脏手术风险评估系统(EuroSCORE)高危、被认为不适合接受传统主动脉瓣置换术的患者。

干预措施

全身麻醉或监护麻醉。

测量指标及主要结果

57例患者采用全身麻醉,41例患者采用监护麻醉。作者比较了以下参数:手术时长、输血需求、心脏指数、主动脉瓣植入前后上腔静脉血氧饱和度(ScVO2)、住院时间和30天死亡率。两组之间唯一显著的差异在于麻醉时长(p<0.001)和ScVO2值。实施全身麻醉时麻醉时长显著延长,全身麻醉组瓣膜植入前后的ScVO2均显著更高。全身麻醉组30天死亡率为5.3%,监护麻醉组为4.9%。

结论

对于欧洲心脏手术风险评估系统(EuroSCORE)高危且接受经导管主动脉瓣植入术的患者,这两种麻醉技术似乎均可使用。

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