首页> 外文期刊>The Annals of Thoracic Surgery: Official Journal of the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and the Southern Thoracic Surgical Association >Planned Versus Unplanned Reexplorations for Bleeding: A Comparison of Morbidity and Mortality
【24h】

Planned Versus Unplanned Reexplorations for Bleeding: A Comparison of Morbidity and Mortality

机译:计划性出血与计划外性出血的比较:发病率和死亡率的比较

获取原文
           

摘要

Background Mediastinal reexplorations for bleeding are associated with significant morbidity and mortality. This study hypothesized that bleeding patients who undergo delayed chest closure after an initial operation experience similar outcomes in comparison with patients who have initial chest closure and later require an unplanned reexploration.;Methods This study included all patients in the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine (Baltimore, MD) institutional Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) database who underwent cardiac surgical procedures or thoracic transplantation from 2011 to June 2014, had an intraoperative red blood cell transfusion requirement of 2?units or more, and required mediastinal reexploration for bleeding. Reexplorations were classified as planned (temporary chest closure for a planned “second look”) or unplanned (initial sternal closure and subsequent reexploration). The two groups were then propensity matched. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were major complication rates, hospital length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, and incidence of postoperative pneumonia and cardiac arrest.;Results Among 3,293 patients, 110 (3.3%) met inclusion criteria and required mediastinal reexploration for bleeding. This group included 62 planned (56%) and 48 unplanned (44%) reexplorations. After propensity matching 30 pairs of patients across 16 variables, operative mortality rates were comparable (37% vs 37%; p?=?1.00) between unplanned and planned reexploration cohorts. There were no differences in rates of deep sternal wound infection, renal failure, postoperative hospital length of stay, pneumonia, or cardiac arrest, with the exception of a higher rate of prolonged intubation (93% vs 53%; p < 0.01) in the planned reexploration group.;Conclusions Delayed sternal closure is a safe alternative to initial definitive chest closure when concern exists for postoperative bleeding.;Mediastinal reexplorations complicate 3% to 5% of cardiac surgical procedures and commonly follow excessive bleeding, cardiac tamponade, or a combination of both [1, 2, 3]. Previous studies identified reoperative cardiac surgical procedures [4][4], older age [5, 6], peripheral vascular disease [5][5], and urgent or emergent need for surgical intervention [5, 6] as risk factors for reexploration for bleeding. Although reexploration represents a potentially lifesaving intervention, it is associated with substantial morbidity, including the risk of deep sternal wound infection (DSWI), and death [3, 5].In the setting of postoperative hemorrhage, the decision to perform surgical reexploration after initial sternal closure is often based on clinical judgment, balancing the likelihood of identifying and eliminating the source of bleeding with the probability of safely controlling hemorrhage and preventing cardiac tamponade without intervention. At our own institution (Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, Baltimore, MD), surgical sources of bleeding have been identified in only 50% of patients who underwent unplanned reexplorations for bleeding, comparable to previously published rates of 50% to 75% [2, 4, 7, 8].Ott and colleagues [9][9] were the first to describe delayed sternal closure as a measure to combat postoperative bleeding diatheses. Nonetheless, concerns over DSWI and its associated morbidity and mortality have perpetuated surgeons’ reluctance to leave patients with “open” chests (temporary sternal closure), sometimes even in the presence of unresolved hemorrhage [4, 5, 10]. Debate remains about the safest method of managing patients with intraoperative coagulopathy, specifically whether or not to delay definitive sternal closure.No study has compared outcomes among bleeding patients who are intentionally left with an open chest at the time of the index operation with outcomes among bleeding patients who have initial chest closure and who subsequently undergo surgical reexploration for postopera
机译:背景纵隔出血的复查与明显的发病率和死亡率有关。这项研究假设,与初次闭合胸腔手术但后来计划外进行翻修的患者相比,初次手术后延迟胸腔闭合手术的出血患者的结局相似。;方法本研究包括约翰霍普金斯大学医学院的所有患者(马里兰州巴尔的摩市)的胸外科医师学会(STS)数据库于2011年至2014年6月接受了心脏外科手术或胸腔移植手术,术中输注红细胞的要求为2个单位或更多,并且需要进行纵隔再造以止血。重新探查分为计划的(计划进行“第二次观察”的暂时性胸腔闭合)或非计划的(胸骨初始闭合和随后的探查)。然后将两组倾向匹配。主要结果是30天死亡率。次要结果为主要并发症发生率,住院时间,机械通气时间,术后肺炎和心脏骤停的发生率。结果在3293例患者中,有110例(3.3%)符合纳入标准,需要进行纵隔再造以止血。该组包括62个计划内(56%)和48个计划外(44%)的重新探索。在倾向性匹配16个变量的30对患者后,计划外和计划再造队列中的手术死亡率相当(37%vs 37%; p <= 1.00)。胸骨深部伤口感染,肾功能衰竭,术后住院时间,肺炎或心脏骤停的发生率无差异,但长期插管的发生率较高(93%vs 53%; p <0.01)。结论延迟胸骨闭合术是对最初的确定性胸腔闭合术的一种安全替代方案,当存在术后出血的担忧时;纵隔探查术使心脏外科手术复杂化了3%至5%,并且通常伴随过多的出血,心脏压塞或联合使用两者[1、2、3]中的一个。先前的研究确定了再次手术的心脏手术方法[4] [4],老年[5、6],周围血管疾病[5] [5]以及紧急或紧急的外科手术需求[5、6]是重新开发的危险因素出血。尽管重新探查是一种可能挽救生命的干预措施,但它与高发病率相关,包括深胸骨伤口感染(DSWI)的风险和死亡[3,5]。在发生大出血的情况下,决定在初次手术后进行外科探查胸骨闭合通常基于临床判断,在识别和消除出血根源的可能性与安全控制出血和预防心脏压塞的可能性之间进行平衡,而无需干预。在我们自己的机构(约翰霍普金斯大学医学院,巴尔的摩,马里兰州)中,只有50%接受了计划外的出血再检查的患者发现了手术出血的原因,与先前公布的50%至75%的比率相当[2 ,4,7,8]。Ott及其同事[9] [9]最早描述了延迟胸骨闭合术作为对抗术后出血的方法。尽管如此,对DSWI及其相关的发病率和死亡率的担忧使外科医生不愿离开患者的胸腔(胸骨暂时性闭合),有时甚至在未解决的出血情况下也是如此[4,5,10]。关于治疗术中凝血病患者最安全的方法仍存在争议,特别是是否延迟确定性胸骨闭合术。尚无研究比较指标手术时故意留空胸腔的出血患者的结果与出血之间的结果初次封胸并随后接受外科手术治疗的患者

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱:kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备:11010802029741号 ICP备案号:京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有
  • 客服微信

  • 服务号