Surgical myocardial revascularization versus stents

Detalhes bibliográficos
Autor(a) principal: Iglezias,Jose Carlos Rossini
Data de Publicação: 2014
Outros Autores: Chi,Alex, Dallan,Luis Alberto Oliveira, Moreira,Luis Felipe Pinho, Jatene,Fabio Biscegli
Tipo de documento: Artigo
Idioma: eng
Título da fonte: MedicalExpress (São Paulo. Online)
Texto Completo: http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2358-04292014000600341
Resumo: OBJECTIVES: To compare coronary artery bypass to stenting in our institution, and to compare the studied samples for major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular outcomes. METHOD: An observational cohort study. We analyzed 202 patients undergoing coronary artery surgical revascularization versus stenting in our institution between January 17 and July 31, 2009; patients were stratified into: Group G1-STENT, patients who received stents; and Group G2-CABG, patients submitted to coronary artery by-pass grafting. A script containing 62 clinical, hemodynamic and surgical items was used for data collection from medical records. RESULTS: Womenmade up a higher percentage of G1-STENT 44%versus 26% in G2-CABG. Diabetics predominated in G2-CABG, 46% versus 29% in G1-STENT. Three or more coronary branches showed a higher percentage in G2- CABG, 55% vs, 9.0%; in G1-STENT, 64% had only one coronary branch involvement. Non-elective procedures were higher for G1-STENT (21%vs. 9%).Worse postoperative renal function occurred inG2-CABG (15% vs. 2%). G1-STENT patients had shorter hospital time. Recurrence of angina was higher in patients in G1-STENT (11% vs. 2%) with no significant difference in hospital mortality. Postoperative quality of life increased from 45% to 55% in G2-CABG. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical revascularization is the best procedure for patients with multi vessel coronary disease, especially in diabetic patients: it allows a significantly more complete revascularization, reduces the number of readmissions due to cardiac causes, reduces the recurrence of angina and improves quality of life after surgery, with hospital and late mortality rates similar to those obtained through stenting.
id METC-1_63d0e458a35d0e13fe195eaabc53acb7
oai_identifier_str oai:scielo:S2358-04292014000600341
network_acronym_str METC-1
network_name_str MedicalExpress (São Paulo. Online)
repository_id_str
spelling Surgical myocardial revascularization versus stentsCoronary Artery BypassCoronary Artery Bypass, Off-PumpMyocardial RevascularizationStents OBJECTIVES: To compare coronary artery bypass to stenting in our institution, and to compare the studied samples for major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular outcomes. METHOD: An observational cohort study. We analyzed 202 patients undergoing coronary artery surgical revascularization versus stenting in our institution between January 17 and July 31, 2009; patients were stratified into: Group G1-STENT, patients who received stents; and Group G2-CABG, patients submitted to coronary artery by-pass grafting. A script containing 62 clinical, hemodynamic and surgical items was used for data collection from medical records. RESULTS: Womenmade up a higher percentage of G1-STENT 44%versus 26% in G2-CABG. Diabetics predominated in G2-CABG, 46% versus 29% in G1-STENT. Three or more coronary branches showed a higher percentage in G2- CABG, 55% vs, 9.0%; in G1-STENT, 64% had only one coronary branch involvement. Non-elective procedures were higher for G1-STENT (21%vs. 9%).Worse postoperative renal function occurred inG2-CABG (15% vs. 2%). G1-STENT patients had shorter hospital time. Recurrence of angina was higher in patients in G1-STENT (11% vs. 2%) with no significant difference in hospital mortality. Postoperative quality of life increased from 45% to 55% in G2-CABG. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical revascularization is the best procedure for patients with multi vessel coronary disease, especially in diabetic patients: it allows a significantly more complete revascularization, reduces the number of readmissions due to cardiac causes, reduces the recurrence of angina and improves quality of life after surgery, with hospital and late mortality rates similar to those obtained through stenting.Mavera Edições Técnicas e Científicas Ltda2014-12-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articleinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersiontext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2358-04292014000600341MedicalExpress v.1 n.6 2014reponame:MedicalExpress (São Paulo. Online)instname:Mavera Edições Científicas e Técnicas Ltda-MEinstacron:METC10.5935/MedicalExpress.2014.06.09info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessIglezias,Jose Carlos RossiniChi,AlexDallan,Luis Alberto OliveiraMoreira,Luis Felipe PinhoJatene,Fabio Bisceglieng2016-03-24T00:00:00Zoai:scielo:S2358-04292014000600341Revistahttp://www.medicalexpress.net.brhttps://old.scielo.br/oai/scielo-oai.php||medicalexpress@me.net.br2358-04292318-8111opendoar:2016-03-24T00:00MedicalExpress (São Paulo. Online) - Mavera Edições Científicas e Técnicas Ltda-MEfalse
dc.title.none.fl_str_mv Surgical myocardial revascularization versus stents
title Surgical myocardial revascularization versus stents
spellingShingle Surgical myocardial revascularization versus stents
Iglezias,Jose Carlos Rossini
Coronary Artery Bypass
Coronary Artery Bypass, Off-Pump
Myocardial Revascularization
Stents
title_short Surgical myocardial revascularization versus stents
title_full Surgical myocardial revascularization versus stents
title_fullStr Surgical myocardial revascularization versus stents
title_full_unstemmed Surgical myocardial revascularization versus stents
title_sort Surgical myocardial revascularization versus stents
author Iglezias,Jose Carlos Rossini
author_facet Iglezias,Jose Carlos Rossini
Chi,Alex
Dallan,Luis Alberto Oliveira
Moreira,Luis Felipe Pinho
Jatene,Fabio Biscegli
author_role author
author2 Chi,Alex
Dallan,Luis Alberto Oliveira
Moreira,Luis Felipe Pinho
Jatene,Fabio Biscegli
author2_role author
author
author
author
dc.contributor.author.fl_str_mv Iglezias,Jose Carlos Rossini
Chi,Alex
Dallan,Luis Alberto Oliveira
Moreira,Luis Felipe Pinho
Jatene,Fabio Biscegli
dc.subject.por.fl_str_mv Coronary Artery Bypass
Coronary Artery Bypass, Off-Pump
Myocardial Revascularization
Stents
topic Coronary Artery Bypass
Coronary Artery Bypass, Off-Pump
Myocardial Revascularization
Stents
description OBJECTIVES: To compare coronary artery bypass to stenting in our institution, and to compare the studied samples for major adverse cardiac and cerebrovascular outcomes. METHOD: An observational cohort study. We analyzed 202 patients undergoing coronary artery surgical revascularization versus stenting in our institution between January 17 and July 31, 2009; patients were stratified into: Group G1-STENT, patients who received stents; and Group G2-CABG, patients submitted to coronary artery by-pass grafting. A script containing 62 clinical, hemodynamic and surgical items was used for data collection from medical records. RESULTS: Womenmade up a higher percentage of G1-STENT 44%versus 26% in G2-CABG. Diabetics predominated in G2-CABG, 46% versus 29% in G1-STENT. Three or more coronary branches showed a higher percentage in G2- CABG, 55% vs, 9.0%; in G1-STENT, 64% had only one coronary branch involvement. Non-elective procedures were higher for G1-STENT (21%vs. 9%).Worse postoperative renal function occurred inG2-CABG (15% vs. 2%). G1-STENT patients had shorter hospital time. Recurrence of angina was higher in patients in G1-STENT (11% vs. 2%) with no significant difference in hospital mortality. Postoperative quality of life increased from 45% to 55% in G2-CABG. CONCLUSIONS: Surgical revascularization is the best procedure for patients with multi vessel coronary disease, especially in diabetic patients: it allows a significantly more complete revascularization, reduces the number of readmissions due to cardiac causes, reduces the recurrence of angina and improves quality of life after surgery, with hospital and late mortality rates similar to those obtained through stenting.
publishDate 2014
dc.date.none.fl_str_mv 2014-12-01
dc.type.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/article
dc.type.status.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/publishedVersion
format article
status_str publishedVersion
dc.identifier.uri.fl_str_mv http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2358-04292014000600341
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S2358-04292014000600341
dc.language.iso.fl_str_mv eng
language eng
dc.relation.none.fl_str_mv 10.5935/MedicalExpress.2014.06.09
dc.rights.driver.fl_str_mv info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccess
eu_rights_str_mv openAccess
dc.format.none.fl_str_mv text/html
dc.publisher.none.fl_str_mv Mavera Edições Técnicas e Científicas Ltda
publisher.none.fl_str_mv Mavera Edições Técnicas e Científicas Ltda
dc.source.none.fl_str_mv MedicalExpress v.1 n.6 2014
reponame:MedicalExpress (São Paulo. Online)
instname:Mavera Edições Científicas e Técnicas Ltda-ME
instacron:METC
instname_str Mavera Edições Científicas e Técnicas Ltda-ME
instacron_str METC
institution METC
reponame_str MedicalExpress (São Paulo. Online)
collection MedicalExpress (São Paulo. Online)
repository.name.fl_str_mv MedicalExpress (São Paulo. Online) - Mavera Edições Científicas e Técnicas Ltda-ME
repository.mail.fl_str_mv ||medicalexpress@me.net.br
_version_ 1754734596625268736