Suppr超能文献

单纯股静脉引流与双腔静脉引流在孤立性再次三尖瓣手术中的应用比较

Single Femoral Venous Drainage Versus Both Vena Cava Drainage in Isolated Repeat Tricuspid Valve Surgery.

作者信息

Peng Runsheng, Shi Hui, Ba Jun, Wang Chunsheng

机构信息

Shanghai Institute of Cardiovascular Disease and Department of Cardiovascular Surgery, Zhongshan Hospital, Fudan University.

出版信息

Int Heart J. 2018 May 30;59(3):518-522. doi: 10.1536/ihj.17-169. Epub 2018 May 20.

Abstract

To assess the potential advantages of minimally invasive surgery using a single femoral venous drainage method versus femoral venous and superior vena cava or jugular venous drainage method during repeat tricuspid valve surgery.From January 2010 to December 2016, 50 repeat tricuspid valve procedures were performed using a minimally invasive approach without aortic cross-clamping at our institution. The arterial cannula was inserted into the femoral artery, and at the same time, the venous cannula was placed in the femoral vein in 28 patients (FV group) during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). The venous cannula was inserted into the femoral vein and the superior vena cava or jugular vein in 22 patients (FSV group).Overall, 36 patients underwent tricuspid valve replacement (TVR) and 14 patients underwent tricuspid valvuloplasty (TVP). The CPB time and operation time, respectively, were 72.96 ± 25.90 minutes versus 78.59 ± 31.95 minutes (P = 0.495) and 170.75 ± 73.31 minutes versus 228.87 ± 61.45 minutes (P = 0.004) in the FV group versus the FVS group. There were no significant differences in the ventilator-assisted time, the first-day LVEF, and the intensive care unit (ICU) stay between the FV group and the FSV group.Both types of drainage were effective and could ensure safety during the operative procedure. The vacuum-assisted single femoral venous drainage method simplified the minimally invasive isolated repeat tricuspid valve surgical process more significantly and is the more appropriate choice.

摘要

评估在再次进行三尖瓣手术时,使用单股静脉引流方法的微创手术相对于股静脉与上腔静脉或颈静脉引流方法的潜在优势。2010年1月至2016年12月,在我们机构对50例患者进行了再次三尖瓣手术,采用微创方法且未进行主动脉阻断。在体外循环(CPB)期间,将动脉插管插入股动脉,同时,28例患者(FV组)的静脉插管置于股静脉。22例患者(FSV组)的静脉插管插入股静脉和上腔静脉或颈静脉。总体而言,36例患者接受了三尖瓣置换术(TVR),14例患者接受了三尖瓣成形术(TVP)。FV组与FSV组的CPB时间分别为72.96±25.90分钟和78.59±31.95分钟(P = 0.495),手术时间分别为170.75±73.31分钟和228.87±61.45分钟(P = 0.004)。FV组和FSV组在呼吸机辅助时间、第一天左心室射血分数(LVEF)和重症监护病房(ICU)住院时间方面无显著差异。两种引流方式均有效,且可确保手术过程中的安全性。真空辅助单股静脉引流方法更显著地简化了微创孤立再次三尖瓣手术过程,是更合适的选择。

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