Rajakumar Anjith Prakash, Ravikumar Mithun Sundararaaja, Palanisamy Vijayanand, Raman Karthik, Mohanraj Anbarasu, Jamesraj Jacob, Kurian Valikapthalil Mathew, Ajit Mullasari, Sethuratnam Rajan
Department of Cardiac Surgery, Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, The Madras Medical Mission, 4A, Dr. J.J. Nagar, Mogappair, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600037 India.
Department of Cardiology, Institute of Cardiovascular Diseases, The Madras Medical Mission, 4A, Dr. J.J. Nagar, Mogappair, Chennai, Tamil Nadu 600037 India.
Indian J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 2019 Apr;35(2):175-185. doi: 10.1007/s12055-018-0748-6. Epub 2018 Nov 5.
To compare the outcomes of isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) versus surgical ventricular restoration (SVR) with or without CABG for patients with ischemic cardiomyopathy (ICM).
Retrospectively, 49 patients with ICM and severe LV dysfunction (LVEF < 35%) who underwent SVR with or without CABG from January 2009 to December 2016 at a single institution was compared with 49 patients who underwent isolated CABG. The two groups were matched for preoperative clinical and echocardiographic parameters including left ventricular end-diastolic diameter (LVIDd), left ventricular end-systolic diameter (LVIDs), left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF), left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDV), and left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESV). Primary outcomes analyzed included early mortality, late mortality, and major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCE). Secondary outcomes analyzed included echocardiographic parameters of left ventricular volume and function-indexed left ventricular end-diastolic volume (LVEDVi), indexed left ventricular end-systolic volume (LVESVi), and LVEF. Cox and survival analysis was performed.
Early and late mortality in SVR vs. CABG groups were 4 (8.1%) and 6 (12.2%) vs. 1 (2%) and 5 (10.2%) respectively. Mean improvement in LVEF was 3.39 ± 7.51 compared to 4.97 ± 5.45 between the two groups at 3-month follow-up. Mean improvement in LVEF was 5.1 ± 8.3 in the SVR group vs 5.9 ± 7.1 in the CABG group at the last follow-up. There was no statistically significant improvement between the two groups in terms of LVEF at 3 months or the last follow-up. There were statistically significant differences between LVEDVi and LVESVi between the two groups at 3 months and the last follow-up. The 5-year rates of survival were 85 ± 6 and 82 ± 9% for SVR and CABG groups respectively. The 5-year rates of freedom from MACCE were 75 ± 7 and 60 ± 11% for SVR and CABG groups respectively.
Compared with isolated CABG, SVR plus CABG results in equivalent late mortality and better left ventricular reverse remodeling (as evidenced by LV volume reduction) and better freedom from MACCE at 5-year follow-up.
比较单纯冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)与缺血性心肌病(ICM)患者接受或不接受CABG的手术心室修复术(SVR)的疗效。
回顾性分析2009年1月至2016年12月在单一机构接受SVR联合或不联合CABG的49例ICM和严重左心室功能不全(左心室射血分数[LVEF]<35%)患者,并与49例接受单纯CABG的患者进行比较。两组患者在术前临床和超声心动图参数上进行匹配,包括左心室舒张末期内径(LVIDd)、左心室收缩末期内径(LVIDs)、左心室射血分数(LVEF)、左心室舒张末期容积(LVEDV)和左心室收缩末期容积(LVESV)。分析的主要结局包括早期死亡率、晚期死亡率和主要不良心脏或脑血管事件(MACCE)。分析的次要结局包括左心室容积和功能指标左心室舒张末期容积(LVEDVi)、左心室收缩末期容积(LVESVi)和LVEF的超声心动图参数。进行Cox生存分析。
SVR组与CABG组的早期和晚期死亡率分别为4例(8.1%)和6例(12.2%),对比1例(2%)和5例(10.2%)。在3个月随访时,两组LVEF的平均改善分别为3.39±7.51和4.97±5.45。在末次随访时,SVR组LVEF的平均改善为5.1±8.3,CABG组为5.9±7.1。两组在3个月或末次随访时LVEF方面无统计学显著改善。两组在3个月和末次随访时LVEDVi和LVESVi之间存在统计学显著差异。SVR组和CABG组的5年生存率分别为85±6%和82±9%。SVR组和CABG组的5年无MACCE生存率分别为75±7%和60±11%。
与单纯CABG相比,SVR联合CABG在5年随访时导致相当的晚期死亡率,更好的左心室逆向重构(以左心室容积减小为证)和更好的无MACCE生存率。