A PHP Error was encountered

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

Propensity score-based comparison of high-risk coronary artery bypass grafting vs. left ventricular assist device implantation in patients with coronary artery disease and advanced heart failure. | LitMetric

AI Article Synopsis

  • * The study retrospectively compared outcomes of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and very low left ventricular function who received either CABG or LVAD, using statistical matching to analyze 168 pairs.
  • * Results indicated that while LVAD patients needed longer ventilation and ICU stays, they had lower rates of postoperative renal therapy and required less temporary mechanical support; however, CABG patients had significantly better mid-term survival rates compared to those receiving LVADs.

Article Abstract

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/PMC11473413PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2024.1430560DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

coronary artery
16
left ventricular
16
artery bypass
8
bypass grafting
8
ventricular assist
8
assist device
8
artery disease
8
patients
5
propensity score-based
4
score-based comparison
4

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!