4.6 Article

Contemporary Results Show Repeat Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Remains a Risk Factor for Operative Mortality

期刊

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
卷 87, 期 5, 页码 1386-1391

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2009.02.006

关键词

-

资金

  1. Department of Human Services, Victoria
  2. Greater Metropolitan Clinical Taskforce, NSW

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Reoperative coronary artery bypass grafting (redo CABG) shows improving outcomes, but with varying degrees of improvement. We assessed contemporary outcomes after redo CABG to determine if redo status is still a risk factor for early postoperative complications and midterm survival. Methods. Isolated CABG procedures (June 1, 2001 to May 31, 2008) within the Australasian Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons Cardiac Surgery Database were included. Redo status as a predictor for early outcomes was assessed with logistic regression analysis. Midterm survival was determined from the National Death Index. Effect of redo status on midterm survival was assessed using a Cox proportional hazards model. Results. Inclusion criteria were met by 13,436 patients, and 458 (3.4%) underwent redo CABG. Operative mortality was 4.8% for redo CABG and 1.8% for first-time CABG (p < 0.001). After adjustment, redo status remained a predictor for operative mortality (odds ratio [OR], 2.1; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.3 to 3.6), myocardial infarction (OR, 2.8; 95% CI, 1.6 to 6.0), and prolonged ventilation (OR, 1.5; 95% CI, 1.1 to 2.0). Unadjusted survival was lower for the redo CABG group vs the first-time CABG group at up to 6 years (p = 0.01, log-rank test. After adjusting for differences in patient variables, redo status was not a predictor of midterm survival (OR, 1.03; 95% CI, 0.78 to 1.35; p = 0.85). Conclusions. Early postoperative outcomes of redo CABG are encouraging. Midterm survival is excellent; however, redo remains a significant risk factor for operative mortality in contemporary practice.

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

4.6
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