ObjectiveTo compare the results of the root reconstruction with the aortic valve-sparing operation versus composite graftvalve replacement.MethodsFrom January 2002 to October 2013, 324 patients underwent aortic root reconstruction. They were 263 composite graft-valve replacement and 61 aortic valve-sparing operation (43 reimplantation and 18 remodeling). Twenty-six percent of the patients were NYHA functional class III and IV; 9.6% had Marfan syndrome, and 12% had bicuspid aortic valve. There was a predominance of aneurysms over dissections (81% vs. 19%), with 7% being acute dissections. The complete follow-up of 100% of the patients was performed with median follow-up time of 902 days for patients undergoing composite graft-valve replacement and 1492 for those undergoing aortic valve-sparing operation.ResultsIn-hospital mortality was 6.7% and 4.9%, respectively for composite graft-valve replacement and aortic valve-sparing operation (ns). During the late follow-up period, there was 0% moderate and 15.4% severe aortic regurgitation, and NYHA functional class I and II were 89.4% and 94%, respectively for composite graft-valve replacement and aortic valve-sparing operation (ns). Root reconstruction with aortic valve-sparing operation showed lower late mortality (P=0.001) and lower bleeding complications (P=0.006). There was no difference for thromboembolism, endocarditis, and need of reoperation.ConclusionThe aortic root reconstruction with preservation of the valve should be the operation being performed for presenting lower late mortality and survival free of bleeding events.
ObjectiveReport initial experience with the Frozen Elephant Trunk technique.MethodsFrom July 2009 to October 2013, Frozen Elephant Trunk technique was performed in 21 patients (66% male, mean age 56 ±11 years). They had type A aortic dissection (acute 9.6%, chronic 57.3%), type B (14.3%, all chronic) and complex aneurysms (19%). It was 9.5% of reoperations and 38% of associated procedures (25.3% miocardial revascularization, 25.3% replacement of aortic valve and 49.4% aortic valved graft). Aortic remodeling was evaluated comparing preoperative and most recent computed tomography scans. One hundred per cent of complete follow-up, mean time of 28 months.ResultsIn-hospital mortality of 14.2%, being 50% in acute type A aortic dissection, 8.3% in chronic type A aortic dissection, 33.3% in chronic type B aortic dissection and 0% in complex aneurysms. Mean times of cardiopulmonary bypass (152±24min), myocardial ischemia (115±31min) and selective cerebral perfusion (60±15min). Main complications were bleeding (14.2%), spinal cord injury (9.5%), stroke (4.7%), prolonged mechanical ventilation (4.7%) and acute renal failure (4.7%). The need for second-stage operation was 19%. False-lumen thrombosis was obtained in 80%.ConclusionFrozen Elephant Trunk is a feasible technique and should be considered. The severity of the underlying disease justifies high mortality rates. The learning curve is a reality. This approach allows treatment of more than two segments at once. Nonetheless, if a second stage is made necessary, it is facilitated.
BackgroundRisk scores for cardiac surgery cannot continue to be neglected.ObjectiveTo assess the performance of “Age, Creatinine and Ejection Fraction Score” (ACEF Score) to predict mortality in patients submitted to elective coronary artery bypass graft and/or heart valve surgery, and to compare it to other scores.MethodsA prospective cohort study was carried out with the database of a Brazilian tertiary care center. A total of 2,565 patients submitted to elective surgeries between May 2007 and July 2009 were assessed. For a more detailed analysis, the ACEF Score performance was compared to the InsCor’s and EuroSCORE’s performance through correlation, calibration and discrimination tests.ResultsPatients were stratified into mild, moderate and severe for all models. Calibration was inadequate for ACEF Score (p = 0.046) and adequate for InsCor (p = 0.460) and EuroSCORE (p = 0.750). As for discrimination, the area under the ROC curve was questionable for the ACEF Score (0.625) and adequate for InsCor (0.744) and EuroSCORE (0.763).ConclusionAlthough simple to use and practical, the ACEF Score, unlike InsCor and EuroSCORE, was not accurate for predicting mortality in patients submitted to elective coronary artery bypass graft and/or heart valve surgery in a Brazilian tertiary care center.
Introduction Anemia and blood transfusion are risk factors for morbidity/mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). The objective of this study is to analyze the association of blood transfusion with morbidity/mortality in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) under CPB in the state of São Paulo, Brazil. Methods This is a retrospective analysis using the State of São Paulo Registry of Cardiovascular Surgery from November 2013 to August 2014. Blood transfusion was only considered during surgery or within six hours after surgery. Anemia was defined as hematocrit ≤ 37.5%. Patients < 18 years old were excluded. The sample was divided in four groups - Group I (851, no anemia), Group II (200, anemia without blood transfusion), Group III (181, no anemia and transfusion), and Group IV (258, anemia and transfusion). Results A total of 1,490 patients were included; 639 (42.9%) were anemic and 439 (29.5%) underwent blood transfusion. Group II showed lower composite morbidity (odds ratio [OR] −0.05; confidence interval [CI] −0.27-0.17; P =0.81) than Group III (OR 0.41; CI 0.23-0.59; P =0.018) or Group IV (OR 0.54; CI 0.31-0.77; P =0.016). Group III was at greater risk of mortality (OR 0.73; CI 0.43-1.03; P =0.02) than Group II, which was exposed only to anemia (OR −0.13; CI −0.55-0.29; P =0.75), or Group IV (OR 0.29; CI −0.13-0.71; P =0.539). Conclusion Anemia in patients undergoing CABG with CPB is bad, but blood transfusion can be worse, increasing at least 50% the risk for mortality and/or morbidity.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.