4.4 Article Proceedings Paper

A multimodal approach to the prevention of postoperative stroke in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery

期刊

AMERICAN JOURNAL OF SURGERY
卷 197, 期 5, 页码 587-590

出版社

EXCERPTA MEDICA INC-ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.amjsurg.2008.12.008

关键词

Stroke; Coronary artery bypass; Off-pump coronary artery bypass

类别

向作者/读者索取更多资源

BACKGROUND: Stroke is known to be multifactorial in origin. This study was designed to assess the effectiveness of a multimodal approach to preventing this complication in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass. METHODS: One thousand five hundred thirty consecutive coronary artery bypass patients operated oil by a single Surgeon from July 1994 to April 2008 were studied. Group I patients (n = 1,214) were operated on before 2004. Group 2 patients (n = 316) were operated oil after 2004. In group 2 patients, epiaortic scanning, selective use of proximal anastomotic devices, and alternative cannulation were used. Off-pump coronary artery bypass (OPCAB) was used in 730 patients. On-PUMP coronary artery bypass (ONCAB) was used in 800 patients. Preoperative risk factors including age, cerebrovascular disease, peripheral vascular disease, hypertension, and diabetes were examined in all patients. The incidence of postoperative stroke was determined for group 1 and 2 patients and the individual cohorts of OPCAB and ONCAB patients. RESULTS: The overall incidence of stroke was 1.6% (25/1,530). The postoperative incidence of stroke was 1.7% (21/1,214) in group I patients as compared with 1.3% (4/316) in group 2 patients, The incidence of postoperative stroke was 2.4% (19/800) in ONCAB patients as compared with 0.8% (6/730) in OPCAB patients (P <.05). CONCLUSIONS: OPCAB is all important tool for the prevention of postoperative stroke. Adjunctive techniques for the prevention of emboli from the ascending aorta may also reduce the risk of stroke in OPCAB and ONCAB patients. (C) 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

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