4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Book Chapter: not found
      Risiko und Qualität in der Herzchirurgie 

      Qualitätsindikatoren in der Diskussion von Beating-heart-Prozeduren und konventioneller Bypasschirurgie

      other

      Read this book at

      Buy book Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this book yet. Authors can add summaries to their books on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Related collections

          Most cited references27

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          Off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting provides complete revascularization with reduced myocardial injury, transfusion requirements, and length of stay: a prospective randomized comparison of two hundred unselected patients undergoing off-pump versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting.

          Retrospective comparisons of selected patients undergoing off-pump versus conventional on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting have yielded inconsistent results and raised concerns about completeness of revascularization in off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Two hundred unselected patients referred for elective primary coronary artery bypass grafting were randomly assigned to undergo off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting with an Octopus tissue stabilizer (Medtronic, Inc, Minneapolis, Minn) or conventional coronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass by a single surgeon. Revascularization intent determined before random assignment was compared with the revascularization performed. All management followed strict, unbiased, criteria-driven protocols. Patients and nonoperative care providers were blinded to surgical group. Baseline characteristics were similar. The number of grafts performed per patient (mean +/- SD 3.39 +/- 1.04 for off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting, 3.40 +/- 1.08 for conventional coronary artery bypass grafting) and the index of completeness of revascularization (number of grafts performed/number of grafts intended, 1.00 +/- 0.18 for off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting, 1.01 +/- 0.09 for conventional coronary artery bypass grafting) were similar. Likewise, the index of completeness of revascularization was similar between groups for the lateral wall. Combined hospital and 30-day mortalities and stroke rates were similar. Postoperative myocardial serum enzyme measures were significantly lower after off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting, suggesting less myocardial injury. Adjusted postoperative thromboelastogram indices, fibrinogen, international normalized ratio, and platelet levels all showed significantly less coagulopathy after off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting received fewer units of blood, were more likely to avoid transfusion altogether, and had a higher hematocrit at discharge. Cardiopulmonary bypass was an independent predictor of transfusion (odds ratio 2.42, P =.0073) by multivariate analysis. More patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting were extubated in the operating room and within 4 hours. Postoperative length of stay (in days) was shorter for off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting (5.1 +/- 6.5 for off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting, 6.1 +/- 8.2 for conventional coronary artery bypass grafting, P =.005 by Wilcoxon test). One patient (in the conventional coronary artery bypass grafting group) required angioplasty for graft closure within 30 days. When compared with conventional coronary artery bypass grafting with cardiopulmonary bypass, off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting achieved similar completeness of revascularization, similar in-hospital and 30-day outcomes, shorter length of stay, reduced transfusion requirement, and less myocardial injury.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: not found

            The effect of bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting on survival during 20 postoperative years.

            To compare survival of patients receiving bilateral internal thoracic artery grafts and single internal thoracic artery grafts more than 20 postoperative years, assess magnitude of benefit, and identify predictors of benefit. From cohorts of 8123 patients receiving single internal thoracic artery grafts and 2001 receiving bilateral internal thoracic artery grafts during primary isolated bypass operations for multivessel coronary disease between 1971 and 1989, we identified 1152 propensity-matched pairs. Mean follow-up of survivors was 16.5 years, with 51 patients followed for 20 years or more. Hazard function methodology was used to identify risk factors for mortality, compare survival, and assess magnitude of benefit. Comparison of the matched pairs showed survival of the bilateral internal thoracic artery and single internal thoracic artery groups at 7, 10, 15, and 20 years was 89% versus 87%, 81% versus 78%, 67% versus 58%, and 50% versus 37%, respectively (p < 0.0001). Divergence of bilateral internal thoracic artery and single internal thoracic artery hazard function curves continued to widen through 20 postoperative years. At 20 years, bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting was predicted to produce worse survival in 2.8% of patients, a survival advantage of less than 5% in 12.9%, greater than 10% in 52%, and greater than 15% in 7.6%. Combinations of cardiac and noncardiac descriptors were used to define higher and lower risk patient subsets. Advanced age, abnormal left ventricular function and noncardiac risk factors decreased overall survival but the incremental benefit of bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting persisted. Bilateral internal thoracic artery grafting produces improved survival compared with single internal thoracic artery grafting during the second postoperative decade, and the magnitude of that benefit increases through 20 postoperative years.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Early outcome after off-pump versus on-pump coronary bypass surgery: results from a randomized study.

              The use of cardiopulmonary bypass during coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) has been associated with substantial morbidity. The recent introduction of cardiac stabilizers facilitates CABG without cardiopulmonary bypass (off-pump CABG), but it is unknown whether cardiac outcome after off-pump surgery is similar to that for the on-pump procedure. In a multicenter trial, 281 patients (mean age 61 years, SD 9 years) were randomly assigned to off-pump or on-pump CABG. In-hospital results and cardiac outcome and quality of life after 1 month are presented. Cardiac outcome was defined as survival free of stroke, myocardial infarction, and coronary reintervention. The mean numbers of distal anastomoses per patient were 2.4 (SD 1.0) and 2.6 (SD 1.1) in the off-pump and on-pump groups, respectively. Completeness of revascularization was similar in both groups. Blood products were needed during 3% of the off-pump procedures and 13% of the on-pump procedures (P<0.01). Release of creatine kinase muscle-brain isoenzyme was 41% less in the off-pump group (P<0.01). Otherwise, no differences in complications were found postoperatively. Off-pump patients were discharged 1 day earlier. At 1 month, operative mortality was zero in both groups, and quality of life had improved similarly. In both groups, 4% of the patients had recurrent angina. The proportions of patients surviving free of cardiovascular events were 93.0% in the off-pump group and 94.2% in the on-pump group (P=0.66). In selected patients, off-pump CABG is safe and yields a short-term cardiac outcome comparable to that of on-pump CABG.
                Bookmark

                Author and book information

                Book Chapter
                2006
                : 144-151
                10.1007/3-7985-1651-0_17
                4cb426a0-a804-447a-93a4-6d128105f222
                History

                Comments

                Comment on this book

                Book chapters

                Similar content3,172