4.2 Article

A comparison of neuropsychologic deficits after extracardiac and intracardiac surgery

期刊

出版社

W B SAUNDERS CO
DOI: 10.1053/jcan.2001.20210

关键词

neuropsychologic deficits; intracardiac surgery; extracardiac surgery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To compare the incidence of neuropsychologic deficits 1 week and 6 months after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery (extracardiac) and valve surgery with or without CABG surgery (intracardiac) using reliable change indices to define the incidence of neuropsychologic deficits. Design: Prospective study. Setting: Cardiac surgical unit in a university teaching hospital. Participants: Patients scheduled for elective multiple-graft (greater than or equal to3 grafts) CABG surgery (n = 59), or elective valve surgery (with or without concomitant CABG surgery) (n = 50) and a matched sample of nonsurgical controls (n = 53). Interventions: Neuropsychologic assessments were performed 1 day before surgery, 7 days and 6 months after surgery. Measurements and Main Results: The 7-day assessment showed no significant differences between valve surgery patients and CABG surgery patients in the incidence of neuropsychologic deficits. When reassessed 6 months postoperatively, the valve group displayed a significantly higher incidence of deficits on the digit symbol test compared with the CABG group (valve 26.7% v CABG 6.8%). In the CABG group, there was a significant change in the incidence of deficits per patient from 7 days to 6 months (p = 0.03) that was not evident in the valve group. Conclusion: There are some differences in the neuropsychologic outcome of extracardiac and intracardiac surgery. Patients undergoing isolated CABG surgery showed a greater reduction in the incidence of persisting deficits at 6 months than patients undergoing valve surgery with or without CABG surgery. This finding warrants further investigation, with particular attention to patients undergoing combined valve and coronary artery procedures. Copyright (C) 2001 by W.B. Saunders Company.

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

4.2
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