Miranda Matheus, Branco João Nelson Rodrigues, Vargas Guilherme Flora, Hossne Nelson Americo, Yoshimoto Michele Costa, Fonseca José Honorio de Almeida Palma da, Pestana José Osmar Medina de Abreu, Buffolo Enio
Hospital do Rim e Hipertensão, Escola Paulista de Medicina, Universidade Federal de São Paulo, Brazil.
Universidade Federal de São Paulo, São Paulo, SP, Brazil.
Arq Bras Cardiol. 2016 Dec;107(6):518-522. doi: 10.5935/abc.20160180.
Myocardial revascularization surgery is the best treatment for dyalitic patients with multivessel coronary disease. However, the procedure still has high morbidity and mortality. The use of extracorporeal circulation (ECC) can have a negative impact on the in-hospital outcomes of these patients.
To evaluate the differences between the techniques with ECC and without ECC during the in-hospital course of dialytic patients who underwent surgical myocardial revascularization.
Unicentric study on 102 consecutive, unselected dialytic patients, who underwent myocardial revascularization surgery in a tertiary university hospital from 2007 to 2014.
Sixty-three patients underwent surgery with ECC and 39 without ECC. A high prevalence of cardiovascular risk factors was found in both groups, without statistically significant difference between them. The group "without ECC" had greater number of revascularizations (2.4 vs. 1.7; p <0.0001) and increased need for blood components (77.7% vs. 25.6%; p <0.0001) and inotropic support (82.5% vs 35.8%; p <0.0001). In the postoperative course, the group "without ECC" required less vasoactive drugs, (61.5% vs. 82.5%; p = 0.0340) and shorter time of mechanical ventilation (13.0 hours vs. 36,3 hours, p = 0.0217), had higher extubation rates in the operating room (58.9% vs. 23.8%, p = 0.0006), lower infection rates (7.6% vs. 28.5%; p = 0.0120), and shorter ICU stay (5.2 days vs. 8.1 days; p = 0.0054) as compared with the group with ECC surgery. No difference in mortality was found between the groups.
Myocardial revascularization with ECC in patients on dialysis resulted in higher morbidity in the perioperative period in comparison with the procedure without ECC, with no difference in mortality though.
心肌血运重建手术是患有多支冠状动脉疾病的透析患者的最佳治疗方法。然而,该手术仍具有较高的发病率和死亡率。体外循环(ECC)的使用可能会对这些患者的院内结局产生负面影响。
评估接受外科心肌血运重建的透析患者在院内病程中使用ECC和不使用ECC的技术之间的差异。
对2007年至2014年在一所三级大学医院接受心肌血运重建手术的102例连续、未选择的透析患者进行单中心研究。
63例患者接受了ECC手术,39例未接受ECC手术。两组中心血管危险因素的患病率均较高,且两组之间无统计学显著差异。“不使用ECC”组的血运重建次数更多(2.4次对1.7次;p<0.0001),对血液成分的需求增加(77.7%对25.6%;p<0.0001)以及对血管活性药物支持的需求增加(82.5%对35.8%;p<0.0001)。在术后病程中,“不使用ECC”组需要的血管活性药物较少(61.5%对82.5%;p=0.0340),机械通气时间较短(13.0小时对36.3小时,p=0.0217),手术室拔管率较高(58.9%对23.8%,p=0.0006),感染率较低(7.6%对28.5%;p=0.0120),与接受ECC手术的组相比,重症监护病房(ICU)住院时间较短(5.2天对8.1天;p=0.0054)。两组之间在死亡率方面未发现差异。
与不使用ECC的手术相比,透析患者使用ECC进行心肌血运重建在围手术期导致更高的发病率,不过在死亡率方面没有差异。