4.0 Article

Preoperative evaluation of patients with liver cirrhosis undergoing open heart surgery

期刊

GENERAL THORACIC AND CARDIOVASCULAR SURGERY
卷 57, 期 6, 页码 293-297

出版社

SPRINGER JAPAN KK
DOI: 10.1007/s11748-008-0374-0

关键词

Open heart surgery; Liver cirrhosis; Child-Pugh classification

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective. Clinical outcomes after open heart surgery in patients with liver cirrhosis are not satisfactory. For evaluating hepatic function, the Child-Pugh classification has been widely used. It has been reported that open heart surgery can be performed safely in patients with mild liver cirrhosis. In this study, we examined the clinical outcomes after open heart surgery in patients with liver cirrhosis and evaluated the usefulness of the Child-Pugh classification. Methods. There were 12 liver cirrhosis patients who underwent open heart surgery between January 2002 and December 2006 at our institution. The severity of cirrhosis was graded according to the Child-Pugh classification. We reviewed clinical outcomes, such as postoperative mortality and morbidity, and tried to determine the risk factors. Finally, we assessed the usefulness of the Child-Pugh classification. Results. Six patients were classified as having Child class A, and the other six patients were classified as B. The overall mortality of group A was 50%, and that of group B was 17%. Postoperative major morbidities occurred in half of the patients of Child class A and in all of the patients of Child class B. Patients who experienced major morbidities had markedly lower levels of serum cholinesterase (106 +/- 46 vs. 199 +/- 72 IU/l; P = 0.02) and lower platelet level (7.5 +/- 2.9 vs. 11.9 +/- 3.6 x 104/mu l; P = 0.04). Conclusion. The mortality and morbidity rates were high even in the Child class A patients. The Child classifi cation may be an insuffi cient method for evaluating hepatic function. We have to assess other factors, such as the serum cholinesterase level or the platelet count.

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

4.0
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