4.4 Review

Unchanged high mortality rates from acute occlusive intestinal ischemia: six year review

期刊

LANGENBECKS ARCHIVES OF SURGERY
卷 393, 期 2, 页码 163-171

出版社

SPRINGER
DOI: 10.1007/s00423-007-0263-5

关键词

intestinal ischemia; thrombosis; embolism; bowel infarction; surgery; mortality

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective Acute intestinal ischemia (AII) is an uncommon surgical emergency that has been increasing in incidence and remains a highly lethal condition with a difficult diagnosis. We undertook this study to evaluate our experience in treating this condition with a view to expand the cumulative information in the literature. Materials and methods Between January 2000 and December 2006, 60 patients with AII caused by thrombotic vascular event underwent surgery at our surgical center. The patients' medical records including data covering demographic features, comorbid medical conditions, medical risk factors, clinical symptoms, history and physical examination findings, and biochemical and radiologic examinations were reviewed. Operative records, the American Society of Anesthesiology physical status classification (ASA-PS), postoperative complications, duration of hospital stay, and final outcome were also considered. Results Of the 60 patients with primary thrombotic vascular event, 20 patients had embolism and 19 patients arterial thrombosis. In 21 patients, mesenteric venous thrombosis was the etiology of AII. The median age was 73 years (range, 43-96). Higher ASA classification, age >70 years, late presentation, and high serum lactate levels were predictors of adverse outcome. The overall death rate was 60% (36/60), which was within the range of that observed in the published series. Conclusion AII remains a highly lethal condition. Mortality rates remain as high as they did decades ago due in part to advanced presentation and advanced age with multiple associated conditions and risk factors, all of which are independent predictors of adverse outcome.

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

4.4
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