Suppr超能文献

缩窄性心包炎的心包切除术:一家机构的21年经验

Pericardiectomy for Constrictive Pericarditis: An Institution's 21 Years Experience.

作者信息

Rupprecht Leopold, Putz Christina, Flörchinger Bernhard, Zausig York, Camboni Daniele, Unsöld Bernhard, Schmid Christof

机构信息

Department of Cardiothoracic Surgery, University Medical Center Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.

Department of Anesthesiology, University Medical Center Regensburg, Regensburg, Germany.

出版信息

Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2018 Nov;66(8):645-650. doi: 10.1055/s-0037-1604303. Epub 2017 Aug 6.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate our experience with the surgical pericardiectomy procedure for patients suffering from isolated severe constrictive pericarditis.

METHODS

From 1995 to 2016, 39 patients underwent isolated pericardiectomy for constrictive pericarditis. Fifteen patients were excluded because of concomitant surgery. There were 31 male (79.5%) patients and 8 female (20.5%) patients, 28 to 76 years old (mean, 56.6 ± 13.6 years). The underlying etiologies were idiopathic pericarditis (74.5%), infection (10%), rheumatic disorders (8%), status post cardiac surgery (2.5%), tuberculosis (2.5%), and status post mediastinal irradiation (2.5%).

RESULTS

Pericardiectomy was performed through midline sternotomy in all cases. Sixteen patients (41%) underwent pericardiectomy electively employing cardiopulmonary bypass with the heart beating, and 23 patients (59%) had surgery without extracorporeal circulation (ECC). The overall 30-day mortality rate was 50% if cardiopulmonary bypass was used (13.8% since 2007). If surgery was performed without a heart-lung machine, mortality was 0%. On-pump patients had a significantly longer intensive care unit (ICU) stay (12 ± 9 vs. 4 ± 4 days,  = 0.013). Likewise, the duration of mechanical ventilation was much longer (171 ± 246 vs. 21 ± 40 hours,  = 0.04). The hospital stay was comparable with 28 ± 10 and 24 ± 18 days ( = 0.21).

CONCLUSION

The present study demonstrates that pericardiectomy, without the use of cardiopulmonary bypass as treatment for constrictive pericarditis, is a safe procedure with an excellent outcome in critically ill patients.

摘要

背景

这项回顾性研究的目的是评估我们对孤立性严重缩窄性心包炎患者进行外科心包切除术的经验。

方法

1995年至2016年,39例患者因缩窄性心包炎接受了孤立性心包切除术。15例患者因同时进行其他手术而被排除。共有31例男性(79.5%)和8例女性(20.5%)患者,年龄在28至76岁之间(平均56.6±13.6岁)。潜在病因包括特发性心包炎(74.5%)、感染(10%)、风湿性疾病(8%)、心脏手术后状态(2.5%)、结核病(2.5%)和纵隔放疗后状态(2.5%)。

结果

所有病例均通过正中胸骨切开术进行心包切除术。16例患者(41%)在心脏跳动的情况下选择性地采用体外循环进行心包切除术,23例患者(59%)在没有体外循环(ECC)的情况下进行手术。如果使用体外循环,总体30天死亡率为50%(自2007年以来为13.8%)。如果在没有心肺机的情况下进行手术,死亡率为0%。使用体外循环的患者在重症监护病房(ICU)的住院时间明显更长(12±9天对4±4天,P=0.013)。同样,机械通气时间也长得多(171±246小时对21±40小时,P=0.04)。住院时间相当,分别为28±10天和24±18天(P=0.21)。

结论

本研究表明,不使用体外循环的心包切除术作为缩窄性心包炎的治疗方法,对重症患者是一种安全的手术,效果良好。

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验