Sundt T M, Murphy S F, Barzilai B, Schuessler R B, Mendeloff E N, Huddleston C B, Pasque M K, Gay W A
Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, St. Louis, Missouri 63110-1013, USA.
Ann Thorac Surg. 1997 Sep;64(3):651-7; discussion 657-8. doi: 10.1016/s0003-4975(97)00622-x.
The risk of aortic valve replacement (AVR) after previous coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is controversial. Its magnitude influences the threshold for recommending this procedure and has been cited in arguments regarding the optimal management of mild aortic stenosis at primary CABG. We therefore reviewed our experience with reoperative AVR +/- CABG and the primary combined procedure.
Between January 1, 1985, and June 30, 1996, 427 patients underwent primary AVR+CABG, and 52 underwent AVR +/- CABG after prior CABG. Demographics, operative characteristics, and operative results were compared between groups. Data for all patients were pooled and analyzed collectively for risk factors influencing mortality.
The extent of native coronary artery disease and the incidence of prior myocardial infarction and stroke were greater in the reoperative group. Aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times were slightly shorter, and fewer distal anastomoses were performed in the reoperative group. Operative mortality (primary group, 6.3% versus reoperative group, 7.4%) and morbidity were similar. Stepwise multivariate logistic regression analysis identified age, perioperative myocardial infarction, intraaortic balloon support, ventricular arrhythmia, perioperative stroke, and development of renal failure or acute respiratory distress syndrome, but not reoperative status, as predictors of mortality.
The risk of AVR after previous CABG is similar to that for primary AVR+CABG. Valve replacement should, therefore, be pursued despite prior CABG when hemodynamically significant aortic stenosis develops. Furthermore, a circumspect approach to "prophylactic" AVR for mild aortic stenosis at primary CABG seems warranted.
既往冠状动脉旁路移植术(CABG)后行主动脉瓣置换术(AVR)的风险存在争议。其风险程度影响推荐该手术的阈值,并且在关于初次CABG时轻度主动脉瓣狭窄的最佳管理的争论中被提及。因此,我们回顾了再次手术AVR±CABG及初次联合手术的经验。
在1985年1月1日至1996年6月30日期间,427例患者接受了初次AVR+CABG,52例患者在既往CABG后接受了AVR±CABG。比较两组患者的人口统计学、手术特征和手术结果。汇总所有患者的数据并共同分析影响死亡率的危险因素。
再次手术组患者的自身冠状动脉疾病程度、既往心肌梗死和中风的发生率更高。再次手术组的主动脉阻断和体外循环时间略短,远端吻合术的数量更少。手术死亡率(初次手术组为6.3%,再次手术组为7.4%)和发病率相似。逐步多因素逻辑回归分析确定年龄、围手术期心肌梗死、主动脉内球囊支持、室性心律失常、围手术期中风以及肾衰竭或急性呼吸窘迫综合征的发生为死亡率的预测因素,但再次手术状态不是。
既往CABG后行AVR的风险与初次AVR+CABG相似。因此,当出现血流动力学显著的主动脉瓣狭窄时,尽管既往有CABG史,仍应进行瓣膜置换。此外,对于初次CABG时轻度主动脉瓣狭窄的“预防性”AVR采取谨慎的方法似乎是合理的。