4.7 Article

Outcome of Cardiac Surgery in Patients 50 Years of Age or Older With Ebstein Anomaly Survival and Functional Improvement

期刊

JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN COLLEGE OF CARDIOLOGY
卷 59, 期 23, 页码 2101-2106

出版社

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.03.020

关键词

Ebstein anomaly; surgery; survival; tricuspid valve surgery

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objectives This study sought to analyze the presentation, surgical procedures, and outcomes in patients >= 50 years of age with Ebstein anomaly (EA). Background Data on management and surgical outcomes in older patients with EA are limited. Methods Operative and clinical data from patients with EA >= 50 years of age undergoing cardiac surgery at our center between October 1980 and January 2010 were analyzed. Results During the study period, 89 procedures were performed in 81 patients with EA (63% women; mean [range] age 59 [50 to 79] years). Pre-operative symptoms included palpitations (n = 69), edema (n = 30), and previous stroke/transient ischemic attack (n = 21). Seventy-six patients (85%) had functional class III or IV symptoms, and 13 (16%) had previous cardiac surgery. Tricuspid valve surgery was necessary in 87 of the 89 procedures (98%): replacement in 65 (73%) and repair in 22 (25%). Three early deaths occurred (4%). On long-term follow-up (available in 73 of 78 early survivors), 63 patients (89%) had improved functional class and 13 patients died (19%). The 20-year survival was 65% versus 74% for age-and sex-matched controls (p = 0.001). The best predictors of late death were lack of post-operative improvement and older age at surgery. Conclusions Although cardiac surgery in patients with EA >= 50 years of age was often complex, early mortality was low (4%) when surgery was performed at an experienced center. Long-term survival was good, although less than expected. These data suggested that surgery in older patients with EA may have to be performed earlier. (J Am Coll Cardiol 2012;59:2101-6) (C) 2012 by the American College of Cardiology Foundation

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.7
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据