4.5 Article

Impact of Preoperative Fibrinogen Concentration on Postoperative Outcome in Patients Who Received Dual Antiplatelet Therapy in Proximity to Off-Pump Coronary Bypass Surgery

期刊

CIRCULATION JOURNAL
卷 78, 期 7, 页码 1661-1666

出版社

JAPANESE CIRCULATION SOC
DOI: 10.1253/circj.CJ-14-0161

关键词

Antiplatelet therapy; Coronary artery bypass; Fibrinogen; Outcome

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: Preoperative fibrinogen concentration is associated with increased blood loss at the lower end, and with hypercoagulability-related ischemic event at the higher end in cardiac patients. We evaluated the influence of preoperative fibrinogen concentration on blood loss and outcome in patients who received clopidogrel in proximity to off-pump coronary artery bypass surgery (OPCAB). Methods and Results: Medical records of 538 patients who received clopidogrel within 5 days of OPCAB (April 2007 to March 2012) were retrospectively reviewed. Perioperative bleeding and composite of morbidity endpoints including myocardial infarction were compared in relation to the tertile distribution of the fibrinogen concentration. The amount of blood loss was significantly larger in the first tertile, whereas the incidence of composite of morbidity endpoints was significantly higher in the third tertile. In multivariate analysis for risk factors of perioperative blood loss, body mass index and duration of surgery were identified as independent risk factors but not the fibrinogen level. And hypertension and preoperative fibrinogen level were identified as independent risk factors about composite of morbidity. The third tertile was associated with a 2-fold increased risk of developing composite of morbidity endpoints. Conclusions: In patients who received dual antiplatelet therapy in proximity to OPCAB, increased preoperative fibrinogen concentration could serve as a valuable predictor for composite of morbidity endpoints, whereas low fibrinogen concentration was not found to be a risk factor of bleeding.

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

4.5
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