Blog
About

8
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: not found
      • Article: not found

      Emergency coronary artery bypass grafting after failed coronary angioplasty: what has changed in a decade?

      Read this article at

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

          Abstract

          We assessed the impact of patient and procedural characteristics on the outcome after emergency coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) for failed percutaneous transluminal coronary angioplasty (PTCA) and temporal changes in these factors. Patients who underwent PTCA and subsequent emergency CABG were identified from the databases of the Departments of Cardiology and Cardiothoracic Surgery. Two periods of clinical practice were compared. In 1989 to 1993, 2,880 PTCAs were performed, 64 patients underwent emergency CABG (2.3%), and 7 patients died (10.9%). During 1994 to 1998, 46 patients of 3,801 PTCAs underwent emergency CABG (1.2%, p < 0.01), and 7 patients died (15.2%, NS). The average rate of stenting increased from 0.8% to 24% in 1994 to 1998 as well as the frequency of arterial bypass grafts (0% vs 39%). In the latter period, patients were older, were more often females, had more cardiovascular risk factors, a higher Cleveland score (each p < 0.05), and suffered more often from periprocedural myocardial infarctions (p < 0.001) and nonfatal periprocedural complications (p < 0.01). Although the frequency of emergency CABG after failed PTCA declined, perioperative mortality tended to increase according to an unfavorable shift in patient risk factors and morbidity.

          Related collections

          Author and article information

          Journal
          The Annals of Thoracic Surgery
          The Annals of Thoracic Surgery
          Elsevier BV
          00034975
          December 2000
          December 2000
          : 70
          : 6
          : 1997-2003
          Article
          11156109
          © 2000

          https://www.elsevier.com/tdm/userlicense/1.0/

          Comments

          Comment on this article