4.6 Article

Recovery of Cognitive Function After Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Operations

期刊

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
卷 95, 期 4, 页码 1306-1314

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2012.11.021

关键词

-

资金

  1. Australian Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons
  2. New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. The effect of coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) operations on cognition was examined after controlling for the operation, emotional state, preexisting cognitive impairment, and repeated experience with cognitive tests. Methods. On-pump CABG patients (n = 16), thoracic surgical patients (n = 15), and a nonsurgical control group (n = 15) were tested preoperatively, and at 1 and 8 weeks postoperatively, using a battery of cognitive tests and an emotional state assessment. Patient groups were similar in age, sex, level of education, and premorbid intelligence quotient score. Surgical group data were normalized against data from the nonsurgical control group before statistical analysis. Results. CABG patients performed worse on every subtest before the operation, and this disadvantage persisted after the operation. Anxiety, depression, and stress were associated with impaired cognitive performance in the surgical groups 1 week after the operation: 44% of CABG patients and 33% of surgical control patients were significantly impaired; yet, by 8 weeks, nearly all patients had recovered to preoperative levels, with 25% of CABG and 13% of surgical control patients improving beyond their preoperative performance. Conclusions. Stress, anxiety, and depression impair cognitive performance in association with CABG and thoracic operations. Most patients recover to, or exceed, preoperative levels of cognition within 8 weeks. Thus, after controlling for nonsurgical factors, the prospects of a tangible improvement in cognition after CABG are high. (Ann Thorac Surg 2013;95:1306-14) (C) 2013 by The Society of Thoracic Surgeons

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