4.6 Article Proceedings Paper

Is reoperation still a risk factor in coronary artery bypass surgery?

期刊

ANNALS OF THORACIC SURGERY
卷 80, 期 5, 页码 1719-1727

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.athoracsur.2005.04.033

关键词

-

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background. Hospital mortality for reoperative coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) is approaching that of primary CABG. This raises two questions: (1) has experience neutralized the risk of reoperation attributable to its greater difficulty, or (2) has experience neutralized the risk attributable to the higher-risk profile of reoperative patients? Methods. From 1990 to 2003, 21,568 CABG procedures were performed, of which 4,518 (21%) were reoperations: 3,919 first, 552 second, 43 third, 3 fourth, and 1 fifth. Reoperative patients had a higher-risk profile than primary patients, with more vascular disease, left ventricular dysfunction, and coronary artery disease (all p < 0.0001). Logistic regression was used to identify factors associated with hospital death and to develop a propensity score for reoperation, which was used to (1) adjust multivariable analyses of death and (2) compare outcomes in matched patients. Results. Hospital mortality was 4.3% (168 of 3,919) for first reoperation, 5.1% (28 of 552) for second, and 6.4% (3 of 47) for third or more, compared with 1.5% (263 of 17,050) for primary operations. Risk of both primary and reoperative CABG decreased with experience (p > 0.0002); however, reoperative risk fell markedly in the mid-1990s. In both the overall and matched-pairs analyses, reoperation was a risk factor before 1997 (p <= 0.008), but not after (p = 0.2). Reoperation within 1 year of previous CABG increased risk (p < 0.0001). Risk attributable to left ventricular dysfunction decreased with experience (p = 0.05). Conclusions. Hospital mortality for reoperative CABG has been consistently higher than for primary operation, but this difference has narrowed considerably. Patient characteristics, not reoperation itself, now have greater influence.

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