Department of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, Heart and Vascular Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
Department of Quantitative Health Sciences, Research Institute, Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, Ohio.
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019 May;157(5):1891-1903.e9. doi: 10.1016/j.jtcvs.2018.10.152. Epub 2018 Nov 27.
The objective of this study was to compare safety and clinical effectiveness of negative-pressure wound therapy (NPWT) with traditional wound therapy for managing noninfected open chests with delayed sternal closure after cardiac surgery.
From January 2000 to July 2015, 452 of 47,325 patients who underwent full sternotomy left the operating room with a noninfected open chest (0.96%), managed using NPWT in 214-with frequency of use rapidly increasing to near 100%-and traditionally in 238. Predominant indications for open-chest management were uncontrolled coagulopathy or hemodynamic compromise on attempted chest closure. Weighted propensity-score matching was used to assess in-hospital complications and time-related survival.
NPWT and traditionally managed patients had similar high-risk preoperative profiles. Most underwent reoperations (63% of the NPWT group and 57% of the traditional group), and 21% versus 25% were emergency procedures. Reexplorations for bleeding were less common with NPWT versus traditional wound therapy (n = 63 [29%] vs 104 [44%], P = .002). Median duration of open-chest to definitive sternal closure was 3.5 days for NPWT versus 3.1 for traditionally managed patients (P[log rank] = .07). Seven patients (3.3%) were converted from NPWT to traditional therapy because of hemodynamic intolerance and 6 (2.5%) from traditional to NPWT. No NPWT-related cardiovascular injuries occurred. Among matched patients, NPWT was associated with better early survival (61% vs 44% at 6 months; P = .02).
NPWT is safe and effective for managing noninfected open chests after cardiac surgery. By facilitating open-chest management and potentially improving outcomes, it has become our therapy of choice and perhaps has lowered our threshold for leaving the chest open after cardiac surgery.
本研究旨在比较负压伤口疗法(NPWT)与传统伤口疗法在心脏手术后非感染性开胸伴延迟胸骨闭合中的安全性和临床疗效。
2000 年 1 月至 2015 年 7 月,47325 例行全胸骨切开术的患者中,452 例(0.96%)术后离开手术室时存在非感染性开胸,214 例采用 NPWT 治疗(使用率迅速增加至近 100%),238 例采用传统方法治疗。开胸管理的主要指征为试图关胸时存在无法控制的凝血功能障碍或血流动力学不稳定。采用加权倾向评分匹配评估住院并发症和时间相关生存率。
NPWT 组和传统组患者术前高危特征相似。大多数患者均接受再次手术(NPWT 组 63%,传统组 57%),急诊手术占 21%和 25%。NPWT 组与传统伤口疗法相比,因出血再次探查的比例较低(n=63[29%] vs 104[44%],P=0.002)。NPWT 组开胸至确定性胸骨闭合的中位时间为 3.5 天,传统组为 3.1 天(P[log rank] =.07)。7 例(3.3%)患者因血流动力学不耐受从 NPWT 转为传统治疗,6 例(2.5%)从传统转为 NPWT。未发生与 NPWT 相关的心血管损伤。在匹配患者中,NPWT 组早期生存率更高(6 个月时 61% vs 44%;P=0.02)。
NPWT 治疗心脏手术后非感染性开胸安全有效。NPWT 通过促进开胸管理,可能改善预后,已成为我们的首选治疗方法,可能降低了心脏手术后开胸的门槛。