4.2 Article

A comparison of neuropsychologic deficits after extracardiac and intracardiac surgery

Journal

Publisher

W B SAUNDERS CO
DOI: 10.1053/jcan.2001.20210

Keywords

neuropsychologic deficits; intracardiac surgery; extracardiac surgery

Ask authors/readers for more resources

Objective: To compare the incidence of neuropsychologic deficits 1 week and 6 months after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery (extracardiac) and valve surgery with or without CABG surgery (intracardiac) using reliable change indices to define the incidence of neuropsychologic deficits. Design: Prospective study. Setting: Cardiac surgical unit in a university teaching hospital. Participants: Patients scheduled for elective multiple-graft (greater than or equal to3 grafts) CABG surgery (n = 59), or elective valve surgery (with or without concomitant CABG surgery) (n = 50) and a matched sample of nonsurgical controls (n = 53). Interventions: Neuropsychologic assessments were performed 1 day before surgery, 7 days and 6 months after surgery. Measurements and Main Results: The 7-day assessment showed no significant differences between valve surgery patients and CABG surgery patients in the incidence of neuropsychologic deficits. When reassessed 6 months postoperatively, the valve group displayed a significantly higher incidence of deficits on the digit symbol test compared with the CABG group (valve 26.7% v CABG 6.8%). In the CABG group, there was a significant change in the incidence of deficits per patient from 7 days to 6 months (p = 0.03) that was not evident in the valve group. Conclusion: There are some differences in the neuropsychologic outcome of extracardiac and intracardiac surgery. Patients undergoing isolated CABG surgery showed a greater reduction in the incidence of persisting deficits at 6 months than patients undergoing valve surgery with or without CABG surgery. This finding warrants further investigation, with particular attention to patients undergoing combined valve and coronary artery procedures. Copyright (C) 2001 by W.B. Saunders Company.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.2
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available