4.3 Article

Early and mid term mortality after coronary artery bypass grafting in women depends on the surgical protocol: retrospective analysis of 3441 on- and off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting procedures

期刊

出版社

BMC
DOI: 10.1186/1749-8090-5-90

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Since 2002 MI and stroke, not cancer, are leading causes of death in women. We studied 30-days and 1 year mortality of 3441 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) operations in our institution performed either conventionally or off pump (OPCAB). Our objective was to investigate the gender-related mortality in both groups. Patients and Methods: Between 2004 and 2008, 3441 patients (733 women, 2708 men) underwent CABG. 252 women and 854 men were operated using OPCAB, 481 women and 1854 men using extracorporeal circulation (ECC). Medical data was prospectively entered and retrospectively reviewed. 30-days and one year mortality rates were analyzed with Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox proportional hazards models. Linear and logistic regression models were used to test gender differences. Results: a) 30-day mortality using ECC: 5.2% in women vs. 2.5% in men (p = 0.001). One year ECC mortality: 8.7% in women vs. 4.8% in men (p = 0.0008). b) OPCAB: 30-days and 1 year mortality in women measured 1.7%. Mortality in men was 2.1% after 30 days and 3.7% after one year c) gender specific mortality: 30 days mortality in women was 1.7% using OPCAB and 5.2% using ECC (p = 0.002), one year mortality in women was 1.7% using OPCAB vs. 8.7% using ECC (p = 0.0004). In men, 30-days mortality in OPCAB was 2.1%, one year mortality was 3.7%; using ECC early and late mortality was 2.5% and 4.8%. Conclusions: Female gender is a strong independent predictor and risk factor of increased early and midterm postoperative mortality rates when ECC is used. OPCAB significantly reduces early and midterm postoperative mortality in women and may therefore be proposed as the preferred revascularization technique in female patients.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.3
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据