Suppr超能文献

顺行性与顺行/逆行冷血心脏停搏液用于心肌血运重建的比较。

Comparison of antegrade with antegrade/retrograde cold blood cardioplegia for myocardial revascularization.

作者信息

Cernaianu A C, Flum D R, Maurer M, Cilley J H, Grosso M A, Browstein L, DelRossi A J

机构信息

Department of Surgery, Cooper Hospital/University Medical Center, University of Medicine and Dentistry of New Jersey, Robert Wood Johnson Medical School, Camden 08103, USA.

出版信息

Tex Heart Inst J. 1996;23(1):9-14.

Abstract

There has been increasing interest in the use of retrograde coronary sinus perfusion for delivery of cardioplegic solution during myocardial revascularization. Despite evidence of improved cardiac protection, it is unclear if a combined antegrade/retrograde approach to myocardial preservation offers significant clinical benefits. One hundred twenty patients undergoing elective 1st-time coronary bypass surgery for 3-or-more-vessel disease received aortic root, antegrade cold blood cardioplegia (Group I, n=52) or combined antegrade/retrograde cardioplegia via coronary sinus cannulation (Group II, n=68). All preoperative variables were similar, including age, severity of coronary artery disease, functional status, and ejection fraction. Intraoperative and postoperative variables, including the degree of hypothermia, temperature of infusion solution, number of bypass grafts, defibrillation attempts and spontaneous return to sinus rhythm, the use of intraaortic balloon pump counterpulsation, and inotropic support during weaning from cardiopulmonary bypass, were not statistically different. Cardioplegia infusion time was longer in Group II than in Group I (2.5 +/- 0.8 vs 1.7 +/- 0.7 min, p < 0.05). The postoperative cardia output, electrocardiographic and cardiac enzyme evidence of ischemia, the need for temporary pacing, and 30-day morbidity were similar for both groups. The data indicate that in this non-risk-stratified group of patients, the route of cardioplegia administration is not a determinant of clinical outcome.

摘要

在心肌血运重建过程中,逆行冠状静脉窦灌注用于输送心脏停搏液的应用越来越受到关注。尽管有证据表明心脏保护得到改善,但尚不清楚顺行/逆行联合心肌保护方法是否能带来显著的临床益处。120例因三支或更多支血管疾病接受择期首次冠状动脉搭桥手术的患者,接受主动脉根部顺行冷血心脏停搏液(I组,n = 52)或通过冠状静脉窦插管进行顺行/逆行联合心脏停搏液灌注(II组,n = 68)。所有术前变量相似,包括年龄、冠状动脉疾病严重程度、功能状态和射血分数。术中及术后变量,包括体温降低程度、灌注液温度、旁路移植数量、除颤尝试次数和窦性心律自发恢复情况、主动脉内球囊泵反搏的使用以及体外循环撤离期间的正性肌力支持,均无统计学差异。II组的心脏停搏液灌注时间比I组长(2.5±0.8 vs 1.7±0.7分钟,p<0.05)。两组术后心输出量、缺血的心电图和心肌酶证据、临时起搏的需求以及30天发病率相似。数据表明,在这个未进行风险分层的患者群体中,心脏停搏液的给药途径不是临床结果的决定因素。

相似文献

7
Retrograde cardioplegia does not adequately perfuse the right ventricle.逆行性心脏停搏不能充分灌注右心室。
J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg. 1995 Jun;109(6):1116-24; discussion 1124-6. doi: 10.1016/S0022-5223(95)70195-8.

本文引用的文献

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