Severity: Warning
Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line Number: 176
Backtrace:
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url
File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global
File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword
File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once
Objectives: Revascularization in patients with severely reduced left ventricular function and coronary artery disease (CAD) is associated with a high perioperative risk. In this setting, implantation of a durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) might be an alternative.
Methods: We retrospectively compared the outcomes of adult patients with CAD and a left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) ≤ 25% who underwent coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) vs. LVAD implantation. Propensity score (PS) matching was performed for statistical analysis, resulting in 168 pairs.
Results: In the PS-matched cohorts, the mean age was 62 years; one third had a history of myocardial infarction, 11% were resuscitated, half of the patients were on inotropic support, and 20% received preoperative mechanical circulatory support. LVAD patients required significantly longer ventilation (58 h [21, 256] vs. 16 h [9, 73], < 0.001) and had a longer ICU stay (11d [7, 24] vs. 4d [2, 10], ≤ 0.001) compared to CABG patients The incidence of postoperative renal replacement therapy (2 [1.2%] vs.15 [8.9%], = 0.002) and temporary mechanical circulatory support was lower in the LVAD group (1 [0.6%] vs. 51 [30.4%], ≤ 0.001). The in-hospital stroke rate was similar (LVAD 7 [5.4%] vs. CABG 8 [6.2%], = 0.9). In-hospital survival, 1-year survival, and 3-year survival were 90.5% vs. 85.5% ( = 0.18), 77.4% vs. 68.9% ( = 0.10) and 69.6% vs. 45.9% ( < 0.001), for CABG and LVAD patients respectively.
Conclusion: Patients with CAD and advanced HF demonstrate better mid-term survival if they undergo CABG rather than LVAD implantation.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11473413 | PMC |
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2024.1430560 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!