RESUMO

OBJECTIVES: The literature supports the assertion that patients undergoing cardiac surgery who receive perioperative packed red blood cell (pRBC) transfusions have increased associated mortality. The aim of the current study is to assess whether there is an association between non-pRBC blood product transfusions and increased mortality. METHODS: Data from our center's Society of Thoracic Surgeons database included patients who underwent cardiac surgery from 2010 to 2018. Patients with pRBC transfusions or circulatory arrest were excluded. Propensity matching was performed (1:1; caliper = 0.2 times the standard deviation of logit of propensity score). Kaplan-Meier estimates and Cox regression were used. Cardiac transplant, ventricular assist devices, transcatheter aortic valves, and patients who had experienced circulatory arrest were excluded from this analysis. RESULTS: A total of 8042 patients met criteria for analysis. Following propensity matching (1:1), 395 patients requiring perioperative non-pRBC blood products (platelets, fresh-frozen plasma, and cryoprecipitate) were matched with 395 nontransfusion patients, yielding equitable patient cohorts. Median follow-up was 4.5 (3.0-6.4) years. Patients received platelets (327 [82.8%]), fresh-frozen plasma (141 [35.7%]), and cryoprecipitate (60 [15.2%]). There was no significant difference in the postoperative mortality (6 [1.5%] vs 4 [1.0%]; P = .52). Reoperation (20 [5.0%] vs 8 [2.0%]; P < .02) and prolonged ventilation (36 [9.1%] vs 19 [4.8%]; P < .02) were greater in the transfusion group. Emergent operation (odds ratio [OR] 2.86 [1.72-4.78]; P < .001), intra-aortic balloon pump (OR 3.24 [1.64-6.39]; P < .001), and multivalve operation (OR 4.34 [2.83-6.67]; P < .001) were significantly associated with blood product use. Blood product transfusion (hazard ratio; 1.15 [0.89-1.48]; P = .3) was not significantly associated with increased mortality risk. There was no significant long-term survival difference between cohorts. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who undergo cardiac surgery requiring blood products alone, without pRBC transfusion, have similar postoperative and long-term survival compared with patients not requiring blood products. These data are based on a limited patient sample, and future studies will aid in improving the generalizability of these results.

Assuntos

Transfusão de Sangue , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Cardíacos , Humanos , Resultado do Tratamento , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Cardíacos/efeitos adversos , Transfusão de Eritrócitos/efeitos adversos , Plaquetas , Estudos Retrospectivos

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: The study objective was to determine the impact of reoperative aortic root replacement on short-term outcomes and survival. METHODS: This was a retrospective study of aortic root operations from 2010 to 2018. All patients with a complete aortic root replacement were included, and patients undergoing valve-sparing root replacements were excluded. Patients were dichotomized by first-time sternotomy versus redo sternotomy, which was defined as having had a prior sternotomy for whatever reason. Within the redo sternotomy group, reoperative aortic root replacements were identified, being defined as a complete aortic root replacement in patients with a prior aortic root replacement; 1:1 nearest neighbor propensity matching was used to compare outcomes across groups. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates were generated and compared using log-rank statistics. RESULTS: A total of 893 patients undergoing complete ARR were identified, of whom 595 (67%) underwent first-time sternotomy and 298 (33%) underwent redo sternotomy. After matching, postoperative outcomes were similar for the first-time and redo sternotomy groups, including operative mortality. Redo sternotomy was not associated with reduced survival after aortic root replacement compared with first-time sternotomy (P = .084), with 5-year survival of 73.7% for first-time sternotomy and 72.9% for redo sternotomy. In the redo sternotomy group (n = 298), 69 (23%) were reoperative aortic root replacements and 229 (77%) were first-time aortic root replacements. After matching, postoperative outcomes were similar for the first-time and reoperative aortic root replacement groups, including operative mortality. Reoperative aortic root replacement was not associated with reduced survival, compared with first-time aortic root replacement (P = .870), with 5-year survival of 67.9% for first-time aortic root replacement and 72.1% for reoperative aortic root replacement. CONCLUSIONS: Reoperative aortic root replacement can be performed safely and provides similar survival to first-time aortic root replacement.

Assuntos

Aorta Torácica , Implante de Prótese de Valva Cardíaca , Humanos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Aorta Torácica/cirurgia , Fatores de Risco , Aorta/cirurgia , Reoperação , Implante de Prótese de Valva Cardíaca/efeitos adversos , Resultado do Tratamento , Valva Aórtica/diagnóstico por imagem , Valva Aórtica/cirurgia

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: Complete revascularization literature is limited by variance in patient cohorts and inconsistent definitions. The objective of the current study was to provide risk-adjusted outcomes for complete revascularization of significant nonmain-branch and main-branch vessel stenoses. METHODS: All patients that underwent first-time isolated coronary artery bypass grafting procedures were included. Kaplan-Meier survival estimates, cumulative incidence function, and Cox regression were used to analyze outcomes. RESULTS: The total population consisted of 3356 patients that underwent first-time isolated coronary artery bypass grafting. Eight hundred eighty-nine (26.5%) patients had incomplete and 2467 (73.5%) had complete revascularization. For main-branch vessels, 677 (20.2%) patients had incomplete revascularization and 2679 (79.8%) were completely revascularized. Following risk adjustment with inverse probability treatment weighting, all baseline characteristics were balanced (standardized mean difference, ≤ 0.10). On Kaplan-Meier estimates, survival at 1 year (94.6% vs 92.5%) and 5 years (86.5% vs 82.1%) (P = .05) was significantly better for patients who received complete revascularization. Freedom from major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events was significantly higher for the complete revascularization cohort at both 1 year (89.2% vs 84.2%) and 5 years (72.5% vs 66.7%) (P < .001). Complete revascularization (hazard ratio, 0.82; 95% confidence interval, 0.70-0.95; P = .01) was independently associated with a significant reduction in major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events. Incomplete revascularization of nonmain-branch vessels was not associated with mortality (hazard ratio, 1.14; 95% confidence interval, 0.74-1.8; P = .55) or major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events (hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% confidence interval, 0.66-1.24; P = .52). CONCLUSIONS: Complete surgical revascularization of all angiographically stenotic vessels in patients with multivessel coronary artery disease is associated with fewer major adverse events. Incomplete revascularization of nonmain-branch vessels is not associated with survival or major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular events.

Assuntos

Ponte de Artéria Coronária , Doença da Artéria Coronariana , Humanos , Resultado do Tratamento , Ponte de Artéria Coronária/métodos , Doença da Artéria Coronariana/diagnóstico por imagem , Doença da Artéria Coronariana/cirurgia , Doença da Artéria Coronariana/etiologia , Modelos de Riscos Proporcionais , Estimativa de Kaplan-Meier

RESUMO

Objective: Temperature during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) for cardiac surgery has been controversial. The aim of the current study is to compare the outcomes for patients with mild hypothermia versus normothermic CPB temperatures. Methods: All patients who underwent cardiac surgery with CPB and temperatures ≥32°C from 2011 to 2018 were included, which consisted of mild hypothermia (32°C-35°C) and normothermia (>35°C) cohorts. Propensity matching (1:1) was performed for risk adjustment. Primary outcomes included operative and long-term survival. Secondary outcomes included postoperative complications. Results: A total of 6525 patients comprised 2 cohorts: mild hypothermia (32°C-35°C; n = 3148) versus normothermia (>35°C; n = 3377). Following adjustment for surgeon preference, there were 1601 propensity-matched patients who had similar baseline characteristics (standard mean difference, ≤0.10), including CPB time, crossclamp time, and intra-aortic balloon pump placement. Kaplan-Meier analysis showed no difference in long-term survival (82.6% vs 81.6%; P = .81). Over a median follow-up of 4.4 years, there were no differences in overall mortality (18.1% vs 18.1%; P = 1.1) or readmission (50.3% vs 48.3%; P = .2). Acute renal failure (3.7% vs 2.4%; P = .03) and intensive care unit hours (46.5 vs 45.1; P = .04) were significantly higher with hypothermia. There was no difference between cohorts for postoperative stroke (2.0% vs 2.0%; P = 1.0), reoperation (5.9% vs 6.0%; P = .9), or operative intra-aortic balloon pump placement (1.7% vs 1.8%; P = .9). Conclusions: Patients with mild hypothermia during CPB had increased postoperative renal failure and length of intensive care unit stay. Although there was no difference in long-term survival, mild hypothermia does not appear to offer patients appreciable benefits, compared with normothermia.

RESUMO

Background: Permanent pacemaker placement (PPM) is associated with morbidity following cardiac surgery. This study identified associations between PPM placement and 5-year outcomes for patients that require PPM following valvular surgery. Methods: All patients who underwent valvular surgery at our medical center from 2011 to 2018 were considered for analysis. Multivariable analysis identified associations between PPM placement, mortality, and readmissions. Primary outcomes were operative complications and mortality. Secondary outcomes included 5-year survival and readmission. Results: A total of 175 (4.86%) of 3602 valvular surgery patients required postoperative PPM. The PPM cohort had significantly worse baseline comorbidities, including greater Society of Thoracic Surgeons Predicted Risk of Mortality (STS-PROM) scores (3.8 vs 2.4 P < .0001). The PPM cohort had greater rates of blood product transfusion, prolonged ventilation, and new-onset atrial fibrillation. PPM placement was significantly associated with third-degree heart block (5.26; 95% confidence interval [95% CI], 1.00-27.53; P = .0496), ventricular fibrillation/tachycardia (3.90; 95% CI, 1.59-9.59; P = .01), and atrial fibrillation/flutter (1.53; 95% CI, 1.05-2.24; P = .03). On Kaplan-Meier estimates, 5-year survival (68.8% vs 83.1%; P = 01) was significantly reduced in the PPM cohort. Five-year all-cause readmission (60.4% vs 50.04%; P = .01) and heart failure readmission (35.5% vs 20.1%; P < .000) occurred more frequently in the PPM cohort. On multivariable Cox regression analysis, PPM placement (hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.84-1.50; P = .444) was not an independent predictor of mortality. On competing risk analysis, PPM (hazard ratio, 1.33; 95% CI, 0.99-1.80; P = .062) was not a predictor of hospital readmission. Conclusions: Valvular surgery patients who required postoperative PPM had elevated baseline operative risk. However, PPM implantation was not associated with mortality or readmission.