4.6 Article

Valvular surgery in octogenarians: operative risks factors, evaluation of Euroscore and long term results

期刊

EUROPEAN JOURNAL OF CARDIO-THORACIC SURGERY
卷 27, 期 2, 页码 276-280

出版社

OXFORD UNIV PRESS INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.ejcts.2004.10.041

关键词

valvular surgery; octogenarian; Euroscore

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives: In the last decade, cardiac surgery in octogenarians is becoming a routinely performed procedure in our Western countries. The functional benefit of this surgery had already been proved. The aim of this study was to evaluate operative mortality, to identify pre- and postoperative risk factors of early and late mortality, to assess the Euroscore count in this high-risk group of patient and to evaluate [ate results of this surgery. Methods: We reviewed 215 consecutive patients with a mean age of 83 +/- 2 years having undergone valvular surgery. There were 127 female patients (57.1%) and 88 mates (42.9%). One hundred and fifty-nine patients (74%) underwent aortic valve replacement 42 (19.5%) mitral surgery and 14 (6.5%) double valve surgery. There were 32 (14.9%) re-operative cases. Twenty-seven patients (12.6%) were operated on in emergency. There were 32 re-operations (14%). The EuroSCORE was used to assess predicted operative risk. Mean Euroscore additive count was 9.5 +/- 2.3 and mean logistic Euroscore was 15.1%. Results: Operative mortality was 8.8% (19 patients). Left ventricular dysfunction was the only pre-operative significant risk factors of mortality (P=0.05). Low cardiac output (P<0.001), gastrointestinal complications (P=0.03) and surgical reexploration (P=0.001) were significant risk factors of mortality. Mean survival was 84% after one year and 56% after 5 years. Conclusions: Valvular surgery in octogenarians is a safe and low risk procedure compared to functional benefit and long-term survival. Our data how that logistic Euroscore overestimates the mortality in this high-risk group of patients. (C) 2004 Elsevier B.V. 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

4.6
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