4.8 Article Proceedings Paper

Performance of cavopulmonary palliation at elevated altitude - Midterm outcomes and risk factors for failure

期刊

CIRCULATION
卷 118, 期 14, 页码 S177-S181

出版社

LIPPINCOTT WILLIAMS & WILKINS
DOI: 10.1161/CIRCULATIONAHA.107.751784

关键词

Fontan procedure; single ventricle; altitude

资金

  1. NHLBI NIH HHS [P50 HL084923, P50 HL084923-02] Funding Source: Medline

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background-Outcomes of patients undergoing cavopulmonary palliation for single ventricle physiology may be impacted by living at altitude, as the passive pulmonary circulation is dependent on the resistance of the pulmonary vascular bed. The objective of this study is to identify risk factors for failure of cavopulmonary palliation at elevated altitude. Methods and Results-Between January 1995 and March 2007, 122 consecutive patients living at a mean altitude of 1600 m (range 305 to 2570) underwent a bidirectional Glenn (BDG). There was one in-hospital mortality and 7 late deaths. 52 have proceeded to the Fontan procedure. Survival after BDG was 92.4% at 5 years. Freedom from palliation failure, defined as death, transplant, BDG/Fontan takedown, or revision was 81% at 5 years. At a mean follow-up of 39.8 months, 90 patients (75%) were in New York Heart Association class I. Patients with failing cavopulmonary circulation had higher pre-BDG pulmonary artery pressure (PAP) (18.3 +/- 6.1 mm Hg versus 14.8 +/- 5.1 mm Hg, P = 0.016) and higher pre-BDG transpulmonary gradient (TPG) (11.2 +/- 6.2 mm Hg versus 7.7 +/- 4.3 mm Hg, P = 0.014). Post-BDG, patients with palliation failure had increased PAP (15.0 +/- 5.7 mm Hg versus 10.8 +/- 2.8 mm Hg, P = 0.008) and indexed pulmonary vascular resistance (PVRI) (2.43 +/- 1.0 Wood U.m(2) versus 1.52 +/- 0.9 Wood U.m(2), P = 0.007). Conclusions-The majority of patients at moderate altitude have favorable outcomes after BDG or Fontan palliation. Risk factors for palliation failure at elevated altitude include PAP > 15 mm Hg, TPG > 8 mm Hg, and PVRI > 2.5 Wood U.m(2).

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

4.8
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