심장판막치환술 후 재치환술에 관한 임상연구

Background: There are two choices for heart valve replacement-the use of a tissue valve and the use of a mechanical valve. Using a tissue valve, additional surgery will be problematic due to valve degeneration. If the risk of additional surgery could be reduced, the tissue valve could be more widely...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Taehan Hyungbu Oekwa Hakhoe chi 2007, Vol.40 (12), p.817-824
Hauptverfasser: 김혁, 남승혁, 강정호, 김영학, 이철범, 전순호, 신성호, 정원상, Kim, Hyuck, Nam, Seung-Hyuk, Kang, Jeong-Ho, Kim, Young-Hak, Lee, Chul-Burm, Chon, Soon-Ho, Shinn, Sung-Ho, Chung, Won-Sang
Format: Artikel
Sprache:kor
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
container_end_page 824
container_issue 12
container_start_page 817
container_title Taehan Hyungbu Oekwa Hakhoe chi
container_volume 40
creator 김혁
남승혁
강정호
김영학
이철범
전순호
신성호
정원상
Kim, Hyuck
Nam, Seung-Hyuk
Kang, Jeong-Ho
Kim, Young-Hak
Lee, Chul-Burm
Chon, Soon-Ho
Shinn, Sung-Ho
Chung, Won-Sang
description Background: There are two choices for heart valve replacement-the use of a tissue valve and the use of a mechanical valve. Using a tissue valve, additional surgery will be problematic due to valve degeneration. If the risk of additional surgery could be reduced, the tissue valve could be more widely used. Therefore, we analyzed the risk factors and mortality of patients undergoing repeated heart valve replacement and primary replacement. Material and Method: We analyzed 25 consecutive patients who underwent repeated heart valve replacement and 158 patients who underwent primary heart valve replacement among 239 patients that underwent heart vale replacement in out hospital from January 1995 to December 2004. Result: There were no differences in age, sex, and preoperative ejection fraction between the repeated valve replacement group of patients and the primary valve replacement group of patients. In the repeated valve replacement group, the previously used artificial valves were 3 mechanical valves and 23 tissue valves. One of these cases had simultaneous replacement of the tricuspid and aortic valve with tissue valves. The mean duration after a previous operation was 92 months for the use of a mechanical valve and 160 months for the use of a tissue valve. The mean cardiopulmonary bypass time and aortic cross clamp time were 152 minutes and 108 minutes, respectively, for the repeated valve replacement group of patients and 130 minutes and 89 minutes, respectively, for the primary valve replacement group of patients. These results were statistically significant. The use of an intra aortic balloon pump (IABP) was required for 2 cases (8%) in the repeated valve replacement group of patients and 6 cases (3.8%) in the primary valve replacement group of patients. An operative death occurred in one case (4%) in the repeated valve replacement group of patients and occurred in nine cases (5.1%) in the primary valve replacement group of patients. Among postoperative complications, the need for mechanical ventilation over 48 hours was different between the two groups. The mean follow up period after surgery was $6.5{\pm}3.2$ years. The 5-year survival of patients in the repeated valve replacement group was 74% and the 5-year survival of patients in the primary valve replacement group was 95%. Conclusion: The risk was slightly increased, but there was little difference in mortality between the repeated and primary heart valve replacement group of patients. Therefore,
format Article
fullrecord <record><control><sourceid>kisti</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_kisti_ndsl_JAKO200704503683957</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>JAKO200704503683957</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-kisti_ndsl_JAKO2007045036839573</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNpjYeA0MDYw1DWyMLXkYOAtLs5MMjA2MzK3MDU15mSwfdO95s28pW97Jrxe3vlm54y3M2e86Vig8HZ2i8KbeWvgAm-mT1B4taXh7dQ5QOGWN82Nb6ZveLV1DQ8Da1piTnEqL5TmZlB1cw1x9tDNziwuyYzPSynOifdy9PY3MjAwNzAxBdprYWxpam5MrDoAGfVITg</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype></control><display><type>article</type><title>심장판막치환술 후 재치환술에 관한 임상연구</title><source>Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals</source><source>KoreaMed Open Access</source><source>Alma/SFX Local Collection</source><creator>김혁 ; 남승혁 ; 강정호 ; 김영학 ; 이철범 ; 전순호 ; 신성호 ; 정원상 ; Kim, Hyuck ; Nam, Seung-Hyuk ; Kang, Jeong-Ho ; Kim, Young-Hak ; Lee, Chul-Burm ; Chon, Soon-Ho ; Shinn, Sung-Ho ; Chung, Won-Sang</creator><creatorcontrib>김혁 ; 남승혁 ; 강정호 ; 김영학 ; 이철범 ; 전순호 ; 신성호 ; 정원상 ; Kim, Hyuck ; Nam, Seung-Hyuk ; Kang, Jeong-Ho ; Kim, Young-Hak ; Lee, Chul-Burm ; Chon, Soon-Ho ; Shinn, Sung-Ho ; Chung, Won-Sang</creatorcontrib><description>Background: There are two choices for heart valve replacement-the use of a tissue valve and the use of a mechanical valve. Using a tissue valve, additional surgery will be problematic due to valve degeneration. If the risk of additional surgery could be reduced, the tissue valve could be more widely used. Therefore, we analyzed the risk factors and mortality of patients undergoing repeated heart valve replacement and primary replacement. Material and Method: We analyzed 25 consecutive patients who underwent repeated heart valve replacement and 158 patients who underwent primary heart valve replacement among 239 patients that underwent heart vale replacement in out hospital from January 1995 to December 2004. Result: There were no differences in age, sex, and preoperative ejection fraction between the repeated valve replacement group of patients and the primary valve replacement group of patients. In the repeated valve replacement group, the previously used artificial valves were 3 mechanical valves and 23 tissue valves. One of these cases had simultaneous replacement of the tricuspid and aortic valve with tissue valves. The mean duration after a previous operation was 92 months for the use of a mechanical valve and 160 months for the use of a tissue valve. The mean cardiopulmonary bypass time and aortic cross clamp time were 152 minutes and 108 minutes, respectively, for the repeated valve replacement group of patients and 130 minutes and 89 minutes, respectively, for the primary valve replacement group of patients. These results were statistically significant. The use of an intra aortic balloon pump (IABP) was required for 2 cases (8%) in the repeated valve replacement group of patients and 6 cases (3.8%) in the primary valve replacement group of patients. An operative death occurred in one case (4%) in the repeated valve replacement group of patients and occurred in nine cases (5.1%) in the primary valve replacement group of patients. Among postoperative complications, the need for mechanical ventilation over 48 hours was different between the two groups. The mean follow up period after surgery was $6.5{\pm}3.2$ years. The 5-year survival of patients in the repeated valve replacement group was 74% and the 5-year survival of patients in the primary valve replacement group was 95%. Conclusion: The risk was slightly increased, but there was little difference in mortality between the repeated and primary heart valve replacement group of patients. Therefore, it is necessary to reconsider the issue of avoiding the use of a tissue valve due to the risk of additional surgery, and it is encouraged to use the tissue valve selectively, which has several advantages over the use of a mechanical valve. In the case of a repeated replacement, however, the mortality rate was high for a patient whose preoperative status was not poor. A proper as sessment of cardiac function and patient status is required after the primary valve replacement. Subsequently, a secondary replacement could then be considered. 목적: 심장판막치환술 시에 선택하는 판막에는 크게 기계판막과 조직판막이 있다. 두 가지는 각기 피할 수 없는 단점이 있는데 조직판막의 경우 판막의 퇴행성 변화에 따른 재수술이 가장 문제가 되며 판막재치환술의 위험도가 적다면 조직판막의 사용이 증가되리라 생각된다. 이에 저자들은 심장판막치환술 후 재치환술의 위험도 및 사망률을 심장판막 일차치환술과 비교 평가하였다. 대상 및 방법: 1995년 1월부터 2004년 12월까지 최근 10년간 본 병원에서 연속적으로 시행한 심장판막수술 환자 239명 중 심장판막치환술 후 재치환술을 받은 25명과 심장판막일차치환술을 받은 158명의 한자를 후향적으로 비교, 분석하였다. 결과: 심장판막 재치환술군과 심장판막 일차치환술군 간의 나이, 성별, 술전심박출률 등은 통계적으로 큰 차이가 없었다. 재치환군에서 첫 수술의 판막은 기계판막 3예, 조직판막 22예로 이중 대동맥판막과 승모판막을 동시에 조직판막으로 치환한 경우가 1명 있었으며, 재수술까지의 기간은 기계판막의 경우 92개월, 조직판막인 경우 평균 160개월이었다. 체외순환 및 대동맥차단의 평균시간은 재치환술의 경우 152분, 108분, 일차치환술의 경우 130분, 89분으로 통계적인 유의함을 보였다. IABP의 사용은 재치환술의 경우 2예(8%), 일차치환술은 6예(3.8%)로 차이를 보였으며, 수술사망은 재치환술의 경우 1예(4%), 일차치환술의 경우 9예(5.1%)였다. 술 후 합병증 중에서 술 후 48시간 이상의 인공호흡이 재수술에서는 13.6%, 1차 수술에서 5.7%로 차이를 보였고 다른 인자에서는 큰 차이를 보이지 않았다. 수술 후 평균 추적기간은 $6.5{\pm}3.2$년이고 재치환술 환자의 5년 생존율은 74%였으며 일차치환술의 경우 5년 생존율은 95%를 보여 유의한 차이를 보였다. 결론: 심장판막재치환술은 일차치환술과 비교하여 볼 때 수술 위험도는 약간 증가되나 사망률에서는 큰 차이를 보이지 않았다. 따라서 재수술 위험을 고려하여 조직판막을 너무 기피하는 것은 재고되어야 하며 다른 장점이 많은 조직판막의 선택적인 사용이 권장된다. 그러나 재치한술의 경우 술전 상태가 나빴던 환자에서 만기사망률이 높으므로 일차치환술 후 적절한 심장기능 및 환자상태의 평가가 필요하며 너무 늦지 않은 적정한 시기에 재치환술을 고려해야 겠다.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0301-2859</identifier><language>kor</language><ispartof>Taehan Hyungbu Oekwa Hakhoe chi, 2007, Vol.40 (12), p.817-824</ispartof><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,4024</link.rule.ids></links><search><creatorcontrib>김혁</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>남승혁</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>강정호</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>김영학</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>이철범</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>전순호</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>신성호</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>정원상</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Hyuck</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nam, Seung-Hyuk</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kang, Jeong-Ho</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Young-Hak</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Chul-Burm</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chon, Soon-Ho</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shinn, Sung-Ho</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chung, Won-Sang</creatorcontrib><title>심장판막치환술 후 재치환술에 관한 임상연구</title><title>Taehan Hyungbu Oekwa Hakhoe chi</title><addtitle>The Korean journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery</addtitle><description>Background: There are two choices for heart valve replacement-the use of a tissue valve and the use of a mechanical valve. Using a tissue valve, additional surgery will be problematic due to valve degeneration. If the risk of additional surgery could be reduced, the tissue valve could be more widely used. Therefore, we analyzed the risk factors and mortality of patients undergoing repeated heart valve replacement and primary replacement. Material and Method: We analyzed 25 consecutive patients who underwent repeated heart valve replacement and 158 patients who underwent primary heart valve replacement among 239 patients that underwent heart vale replacement in out hospital from January 1995 to December 2004. Result: There were no differences in age, sex, and preoperative ejection fraction between the repeated valve replacement group of patients and the primary valve replacement group of patients. In the repeated valve replacement group, the previously used artificial valves were 3 mechanical valves and 23 tissue valves. One of these cases had simultaneous replacement of the tricuspid and aortic valve with tissue valves. The mean duration after a previous operation was 92 months for the use of a mechanical valve and 160 months for the use of a tissue valve. The mean cardiopulmonary bypass time and aortic cross clamp time were 152 minutes and 108 minutes, respectively, for the repeated valve replacement group of patients and 130 minutes and 89 minutes, respectively, for the primary valve replacement group of patients. These results were statistically significant. The use of an intra aortic balloon pump (IABP) was required for 2 cases (8%) in the repeated valve replacement group of patients and 6 cases (3.8%) in the primary valve replacement group of patients. An operative death occurred in one case (4%) in the repeated valve replacement group of patients and occurred in nine cases (5.1%) in the primary valve replacement group of patients. Among postoperative complications, the need for mechanical ventilation over 48 hours was different between the two groups. The mean follow up period after surgery was $6.5{\pm}3.2$ years. The 5-year survival of patients in the repeated valve replacement group was 74% and the 5-year survival of patients in the primary valve replacement group was 95%. Conclusion: The risk was slightly increased, but there was little difference in mortality between the repeated and primary heart valve replacement group of patients. Therefore, it is necessary to reconsider the issue of avoiding the use of a tissue valve due to the risk of additional surgery, and it is encouraged to use the tissue valve selectively, which has several advantages over the use of a mechanical valve. In the case of a repeated replacement, however, the mortality rate was high for a patient whose preoperative status was not poor. A proper as sessment of cardiac function and patient status is required after the primary valve replacement. Subsequently, a secondary replacement could then be considered. 목적: 심장판막치환술 시에 선택하는 판막에는 크게 기계판막과 조직판막이 있다. 두 가지는 각기 피할 수 없는 단점이 있는데 조직판막의 경우 판막의 퇴행성 변화에 따른 재수술이 가장 문제가 되며 판막재치환술의 위험도가 적다면 조직판막의 사용이 증가되리라 생각된다. 이에 저자들은 심장판막치환술 후 재치환술의 위험도 및 사망률을 심장판막 일차치환술과 비교 평가하였다. 대상 및 방법: 1995년 1월부터 2004년 12월까지 최근 10년간 본 병원에서 연속적으로 시행한 심장판막수술 환자 239명 중 심장판막치환술 후 재치환술을 받은 25명과 심장판막일차치환술을 받은 158명의 한자를 후향적으로 비교, 분석하였다. 결과: 심장판막 재치환술군과 심장판막 일차치환술군 간의 나이, 성별, 술전심박출률 등은 통계적으로 큰 차이가 없었다. 재치환군에서 첫 수술의 판막은 기계판막 3예, 조직판막 22예로 이중 대동맥판막과 승모판막을 동시에 조직판막으로 치환한 경우가 1명 있었으며, 재수술까지의 기간은 기계판막의 경우 92개월, 조직판막인 경우 평균 160개월이었다. 체외순환 및 대동맥차단의 평균시간은 재치환술의 경우 152분, 108분, 일차치환술의 경우 130분, 89분으로 통계적인 유의함을 보였다. IABP의 사용은 재치환술의 경우 2예(8%), 일차치환술은 6예(3.8%)로 차이를 보였으며, 수술사망은 재치환술의 경우 1예(4%), 일차치환술의 경우 9예(5.1%)였다. 술 후 합병증 중에서 술 후 48시간 이상의 인공호흡이 재수술에서는 13.6%, 1차 수술에서 5.7%로 차이를 보였고 다른 인자에서는 큰 차이를 보이지 않았다. 수술 후 평균 추적기간은 $6.5{\pm}3.2$년이고 재치환술 환자의 5년 생존율은 74%였으며 일차치환술의 경우 5년 생존율은 95%를 보여 유의한 차이를 보였다. 결론: 심장판막재치환술은 일차치환술과 비교하여 볼 때 수술 위험도는 약간 증가되나 사망률에서는 큰 차이를 보이지 않았다. 따라서 재수술 위험을 고려하여 조직판막을 너무 기피하는 것은 재고되어야 하며 다른 장점이 많은 조직판막의 선택적인 사용이 권장된다. 그러나 재치한술의 경우 술전 상태가 나빴던 환자에서 만기사망률이 높으므로 일차치환술 후 적절한 심장기능 및 환자상태의 평가가 필요하며 너무 늦지 않은 적정한 시기에 재치환술을 고려해야 겠다.</description><issn>0301-2859</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2007</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>JDI</sourceid><recordid>eNpjYeA0MDYw1DWyMLXkYOAtLs5MMjA2MzK3MDU15mSwfdO95s28pW97Jrxe3vlm54y3M2e86Vig8HZ2i8KbeWvgAm-mT1B4taXh7dQ5QOGWN82Nb6ZveLV1DQ8Da1piTnEqL5TmZlB1cw1x9tDNziwuyYzPSynOifdy9PY3MjAwNzAxBdprYWxpam5MrDoAGfVITg</recordid><startdate>2007</startdate><enddate>2007</enddate><creator>김혁</creator><creator>남승혁</creator><creator>강정호</creator><creator>김영학</creator><creator>이철범</creator><creator>전순호</creator><creator>신성호</creator><creator>정원상</creator><creator>Kim, Hyuck</creator><creator>Nam, Seung-Hyuk</creator><creator>Kang, Jeong-Ho</creator><creator>Kim, Young-Hak</creator><creator>Lee, Chul-Burm</creator><creator>Chon, Soon-Ho</creator><creator>Shinn, Sung-Ho</creator><creator>Chung, Won-Sang</creator><scope>JDI</scope></search><sort><creationdate>2007</creationdate><title>심장판막치환술 후 재치환술에 관한 임상연구</title><author>김혁 ; 남승혁 ; 강정호 ; 김영학 ; 이철범 ; 전순호 ; 신성호 ; 정원상 ; Kim, Hyuck ; Nam, Seung-Hyuk ; Kang, Jeong-Ho ; Kim, Young-Hak ; Lee, Chul-Burm ; Chon, Soon-Ho ; Shinn, Sung-Ho ; Chung, Won-Sang</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-kisti_ndsl_JAKO2007045036839573</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>kor</language><creationdate>2007</creationdate><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>김혁</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>남승혁</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>강정호</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>김영학</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>이철범</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>전순호</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>신성호</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>정원상</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Hyuck</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Nam, Seung-Hyuk</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kang, Jeong-Ho</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Kim, Young-Hak</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Lee, Chul-Burm</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chon, Soon-Ho</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Shinn, Sung-Ho</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Chung, Won-Sang</creatorcontrib><collection>KoreaScience</collection><jtitle>Taehan Hyungbu Oekwa Hakhoe chi</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>김혁</au><au>남승혁</au><au>강정호</au><au>김영학</au><au>이철범</au><au>전순호</au><au>신성호</au><au>정원상</au><au>Kim, Hyuck</au><au>Nam, Seung-Hyuk</au><au>Kang, Jeong-Ho</au><au>Kim, Young-Hak</au><au>Lee, Chul-Burm</au><au>Chon, Soon-Ho</au><au>Shinn, Sung-Ho</au><au>Chung, Won-Sang</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>심장판막치환술 후 재치환술에 관한 임상연구</atitle><jtitle>Taehan Hyungbu Oekwa Hakhoe chi</jtitle><addtitle>The Korean journal of thoracic and cardiovascular surgery</addtitle><date>2007</date><risdate>2007</risdate><volume>40</volume><issue>12</issue><spage>817</spage><epage>824</epage><pages>817-824</pages><issn>0301-2859</issn><abstract>Background: There are two choices for heart valve replacement-the use of a tissue valve and the use of a mechanical valve. Using a tissue valve, additional surgery will be problematic due to valve degeneration. If the risk of additional surgery could be reduced, the tissue valve could be more widely used. Therefore, we analyzed the risk factors and mortality of patients undergoing repeated heart valve replacement and primary replacement. Material and Method: We analyzed 25 consecutive patients who underwent repeated heart valve replacement and 158 patients who underwent primary heart valve replacement among 239 patients that underwent heart vale replacement in out hospital from January 1995 to December 2004. Result: There were no differences in age, sex, and preoperative ejection fraction between the repeated valve replacement group of patients and the primary valve replacement group of patients. In the repeated valve replacement group, the previously used artificial valves were 3 mechanical valves and 23 tissue valves. One of these cases had simultaneous replacement of the tricuspid and aortic valve with tissue valves. The mean duration after a previous operation was 92 months for the use of a mechanical valve and 160 months for the use of a tissue valve. The mean cardiopulmonary bypass time and aortic cross clamp time were 152 minutes and 108 minutes, respectively, for the repeated valve replacement group of patients and 130 minutes and 89 minutes, respectively, for the primary valve replacement group of patients. These results were statistically significant. The use of an intra aortic balloon pump (IABP) was required for 2 cases (8%) in the repeated valve replacement group of patients and 6 cases (3.8%) in the primary valve replacement group of patients. An operative death occurred in one case (4%) in the repeated valve replacement group of patients and occurred in nine cases (5.1%) in the primary valve replacement group of patients. Among postoperative complications, the need for mechanical ventilation over 48 hours was different between the two groups. The mean follow up period after surgery was $6.5{\pm}3.2$ years. The 5-year survival of patients in the repeated valve replacement group was 74% and the 5-year survival of patients in the primary valve replacement group was 95%. Conclusion: The risk was slightly increased, but there was little difference in mortality between the repeated and primary heart valve replacement group of patients. Therefore, it is necessary to reconsider the issue of avoiding the use of a tissue valve due to the risk of additional surgery, and it is encouraged to use the tissue valve selectively, which has several advantages over the use of a mechanical valve. In the case of a repeated replacement, however, the mortality rate was high for a patient whose preoperative status was not poor. A proper as sessment of cardiac function and patient status is required after the primary valve replacement. Subsequently, a secondary replacement could then be considered. 목적: 심장판막치환술 시에 선택하는 판막에는 크게 기계판막과 조직판막이 있다. 두 가지는 각기 피할 수 없는 단점이 있는데 조직판막의 경우 판막의 퇴행성 변화에 따른 재수술이 가장 문제가 되며 판막재치환술의 위험도가 적다면 조직판막의 사용이 증가되리라 생각된다. 이에 저자들은 심장판막치환술 후 재치환술의 위험도 및 사망률을 심장판막 일차치환술과 비교 평가하였다. 대상 및 방법: 1995년 1월부터 2004년 12월까지 최근 10년간 본 병원에서 연속적으로 시행한 심장판막수술 환자 239명 중 심장판막치환술 후 재치환술을 받은 25명과 심장판막일차치환술을 받은 158명의 한자를 후향적으로 비교, 분석하였다. 결과: 심장판막 재치환술군과 심장판막 일차치환술군 간의 나이, 성별, 술전심박출률 등은 통계적으로 큰 차이가 없었다. 재치환군에서 첫 수술의 판막은 기계판막 3예, 조직판막 22예로 이중 대동맥판막과 승모판막을 동시에 조직판막으로 치환한 경우가 1명 있었으며, 재수술까지의 기간은 기계판막의 경우 92개월, 조직판막인 경우 평균 160개월이었다. 체외순환 및 대동맥차단의 평균시간은 재치환술의 경우 152분, 108분, 일차치환술의 경우 130분, 89분으로 통계적인 유의함을 보였다. IABP의 사용은 재치환술의 경우 2예(8%), 일차치환술은 6예(3.8%)로 차이를 보였으며, 수술사망은 재치환술의 경우 1예(4%), 일차치환술의 경우 9예(5.1%)였다. 술 후 합병증 중에서 술 후 48시간 이상의 인공호흡이 재수술에서는 13.6%, 1차 수술에서 5.7%로 차이를 보였고 다른 인자에서는 큰 차이를 보이지 않았다. 수술 후 평균 추적기간은 $6.5{\pm}3.2$년이고 재치환술 환자의 5년 생존율은 74%였으며 일차치환술의 경우 5년 생존율은 95%를 보여 유의한 차이를 보였다. 결론: 심장판막재치환술은 일차치환술과 비교하여 볼 때 수술 위험도는 약간 증가되나 사망률에서는 큰 차이를 보이지 않았다. 따라서 재수술 위험을 고려하여 조직판막을 너무 기피하는 것은 재고되어야 하며 다른 장점이 많은 조직판막의 선택적인 사용이 권장된다. 그러나 재치한술의 경우 술전 상태가 나빴던 환자에서 만기사망률이 높으므로 일차치환술 후 적절한 심장기능 및 환자상태의 평가가 필요하며 너무 늦지 않은 적정한 시기에 재치환술을 고려해야 겠다.</abstract><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record>
fulltext fulltext
identifier ISSN: 0301-2859
ispartof Taehan Hyungbu Oekwa Hakhoe chi, 2007, Vol.40 (12), p.817-824
issn 0301-2859
language kor
recordid cdi_kisti_ndsl_JAKO200704503683957
source Elektronische Zeitschriftenbibliothek - Frei zugängliche E-Journals; KoreaMed Open Access; Alma/SFX Local Collection
title 심장판막치환술 후 재치환술에 관한 임상연구
url https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2025-01-06T17%3A21%3A43IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-kisti&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=%EC%8B%AC%EC%9E%A5%ED%8C%90%EB%A7%89%EC%B9%98%ED%99%98%EC%88%A0%20%ED%9B%84%20%EC%9E%AC%EC%B9%98%ED%99%98%EC%88%A0%EC%97%90%20%EA%B4%80%ED%95%9C%20%EC%9E%84%EC%83%81%EC%97%B0%EA%B5%AC&rft.jtitle=Taehan%20Hyungbu%20Oekwa%20Hakhoe%20chi&rft.au=%EA%B9%80%ED%98%81&rft.date=2007&rft.volume=40&rft.issue=12&rft.spage=817&rft.epage=824&rft.pages=817-824&rft.issn=0301-2859&rft_id=info:doi/&rft_dat=%3Ckisti%3EJAKO200704503683957%3C/kisti%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_id=info:pmid/&rfr_iscdi=true