4.0 Article

Long-Term Outcome of Active Infective Endocarditis with Renal Insufficiency in Cardiac Surgery

期刊

出版社

MEDICAL TRIBUNE INC
DOI: 10.5761/atcs.oa.11.01748

关键词

infective endocarditis; valvular disease; microorganism; renal insufficiency

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Background: The relation between infective endocarditis (IE) and renal insufficiency is uncertain. The aim of this study was to investigate active IE with renal insufficiency in cardiac surgery. Patients and Methods: A retrospective record review was conducted of all cases with IE from January 1998 to July 2009. We identified 38 patients who had undergone surgical intervention (25 males and 13 females, mean age 57.3 +/- 15.2 years, range 23-83 years) of IE as defined by the modified Duke criteria. Indications for surgical intervention included new, severe valvular regurgitation with heart failure, intracardiac abscesses, and recurrent embolic events. All patients were divided two groups; one group comprised patients without renal insufficiency (group N, n = 28), the other, those with renal insufficiency (group R, n = 10). Results: Mean age of patients in group R was larger than that in of group N (66.3 +/- 10.6 vs. 54.1 +/- 15.4 years, p = 0.0268), and mean hemoglobin in group R than in group N (8.4 +/- 0.9 vs. 10.3 +/- 2.5 g/dl, p = 0.0215). In the early outcome, hospital death was greater in group R than in group N (20.0% vs. 0.0%, p = 0.0143). The 8-year survival was significantly worse in group R than in group N (50.0% vs. 96.4%, log rank test: p = 0.0042). Moreover, the 8-year actuarial freedom from cardiac events was significantly worse in group R than in group N (0.0% vs. 60.3%, log rank test: p = 0.0003), too. Renal insufficiency predicted an increase in long-term mortality (OR 12.104, 95%CI 1.349-108.641, p = 0.0259) and morbidity (OR 10.540, 95%CI 2.173-51.129, p = 0.0035). Conclusions: In IE, renal insufficiency may allow for risk stratification of patients undergoing surgical intervention.

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

4.0
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