...
首页> 外文期刊>Cardiology >Composite Valve Graft versus Separate Aortic Valve and Ascending Aortic Replacement.
【24h】

Composite Valve Graft versus Separate Aortic Valve and Ascending Aortic Replacement.

机译:复合瓣膜移植与主动脉瓣分离和主动脉升位置换。

获取原文
获取原文并翻译 | 示例

摘要

To ascertain if the operative technique has any influence on outcome, the surgical results after aortic root replacement using either a composite valve graft (CVG) or a separate graft and valve (SVG) were analyzed. Eighty-four patients received a CVG, and 36 had SVG replacement. The operative mortality rate was 6% for patients receiving a CVG and 3% for SVG replacement (nonsignificant). Follow-up extended to 21 years (mean 124 +/- 45 months). The type of the procedure (SVG versus CVG) was not a significant predictor of in-hospital mortality, length of hospital stay, subsequent root dilatation (SVG), anastomotic dehiscence and subsequent surgery. The early and long-term results after CVG or SVG were similar, which reflects proper patient selection. Copyright 2004 S. Karger AG, Basel
机译:为了确定手术技术是否对结果有影响,分析了使用复合瓣膜移植物(CVG)或单独的瓣膜移植物(SVG)置换主动脉根后的手术结果。 84例患者接受了CVG,36例接受了SVG替代。接受CVG的患者的手术死亡率为6%,而接受SVG的患者的手术死亡率为3%(无统计学意义)。随访延长至21年(平均124 +/- 45个月)。手术类型(SVG vs CVG)不是院内死亡率,住院时间,随后的根部扩张(SVG),吻合口裂和随后手术的重要指标。 CVG或SVG后的早期和长期结果相似,这反映了正确的患者选择。版权所有2004 S. Karger AG,巴塞尔

著录项

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