کد مقاله | کد نشریه | سال انتشار | مقاله انگلیسی | نسخه تمام متن |
---|---|---|---|---|
2982149 | 1578636 | 2012 | 6 صفحه PDF | دانلود رایگان |
ObjectiveThe vast majority of reports describing beating heart robotic myocardial revascularization (total endoscopic coronary artery bypass) contain very small numbers of patients undergoing single-vessel bypass. We present a large series of patients undergoing multivessel total endoscopic coronary artery bypass.MethodsWe performed a retrospective clinical review of 106 patients undergoing total endoscopic coronary artery bypass (72% multivessel) at 1 institution by 1 experienced cardiac surgeon/physician assistant team. These results were compared with the expected clinical outcomes from conventional coronary artery bypass grafting calculated using the Society of Thoracic Surgeons risk calculator.ResultsOf the 106 patients, 1% underwent quadruple total endoscopic coronary artery bypass, 8% triple, 63% double, and 28% single. The emergent conversion rate for hemodynamic instability was 6.6%. The postoperative renal failure rate (doubling of baseline serum creatinine or dialysis required) was 7.5%. Overall, 23 patients (21.7%) exhibited at least 1 major morbidity/mortality (4 deaths). The number of vessels bypassed (single/double/triple/quadruple) correlated positively with the surgical/operating room time, the lung separation time, vasoactive medication use, blood use, a postoperative ventilation time longer than 24 hours, intensive care unit length of stay, and hospital length of stay. An increased surgical time was significantly associated with major morbidity (P = .011) and mortality (P = .043). A comparison with the Society for Thoracic Surgeons expected outcomes revealed a similar hospital length of stay but an increased incidence of prolonged ventilation (P = .003), renal failure (P < .001), morbidity (P = .045), and mortality (P = .049).ConclusionsOur results suggest that addressing multivessel coronary artery disease using total endoscopic coronary artery bypass offers no obvious clinical benefits and might increase the morbidity and mortality.
Journal: The Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery - Volume 143, Issue 5, May 2012, Pages 1056–1061