Does pulsatile perfusion improve outcome after cardiac surgery? a propensity-matched analysis of 1959 patients

Objective: We analyzed the influence of pulsatile perfusion on recovery after coronary bypass grafting (CABG) or aortic valve replacement (AVR). Patients and Methods: Between January 2008 and December 2010, 1959 consecutive patients underwent CABG, AVR, or both. The choice for pulsatile perfusion (P...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:Perfusion 2012-05, Vol.27 (3), p.166-174
Hauptverfasser: Baraki, H, Gohrbandt, B, Del Bagno, B, Haverich, A, Boethig, D, Kutschka, I
Format: Artikel
Sprache:eng
Schlagworte:
Online-Zugang:Volltext
Tags: Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
Beschreibung
Zusammenfassung:Objective: We analyzed the influence of pulsatile perfusion on recovery after coronary bypass grafting (CABG) or aortic valve replacement (AVR). Patients and Methods: Between January 2008 and December 2010, 1959 consecutive patients underwent CABG, AVR, or both. The choice for pulsatile perfusion (PP, n=220) or non-pulsatile perfusion (NPP, n=1739) was made by the surgeon. Patient propensity score to receive PP or NPP was calculated according to 15 preoperative variables. Resulting propensity scores, logistic EuroSCORE, perfusion type and surgeon were analyzed to evaluate their role for mortality, length of postoperative ICU and hospital stay (LOHS), transfusion requirements and renal function. Risk stratified non-parametric univariate analyses and propensity adjusted multivariate analyses were performed. Results: EuroSCORE and hospital mortality did not differ significantly between PP and NPP. EuroSCORE was the best predictive factor for all examined variables (p
ISSN:0267-6591
1477-111X
DOI:10.1177/0267659112437419