Search

Background: The number of patients presenting with acute myocardial infarction (AMI) and being untreatable by interventional cardiologists increased during the last years. Previous experience in emergency coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in these patients spurred us towards a more liberal acceptance for surgery. Following a prospective protocol, patients were operated on and further analysed. Methods: Within a two year interval, 127 patients (38 female, age 68±12 years, EuroScore (ES) II 6.7±7.2%) presenting with AMI (86 non-ST-elevated myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), 41 STEMI) were immediately accepted for emergency CABG and operated on within six hours after cardiac catheterisation (77% three-vessel-disease, 47% left main stem stenosis, 11% cardiogenic shock, 21% preoperative intraaortic balloon pump (IABP), left ventricular ejection fraction 48±15%). Results: 30-day-mortality was 6% (8 patients, 2 NSTEMI (2%) 6 STEMI (15%), p=0.014). Complete revascularisation could be achieved in 80% of the patients using 2±1 grafts and 3±1 distal anastomoses. In total, 66% were supported by IABP, extracorporal life support (ECLS) systems were implanted in two patients. Logistic regression analysis revealed the ES II as an independent risk factor for mortality (p<0.001, HR 1.216, 95%-CI-Intervall 1.082-1.366). Conclusions: Quo ad vitam, results of emergency CABG for patients presenting with NSTEMI can be compared with those of elective revascularisation. Complete revascularisation obviously offers a clear benefit for the patients. Mortality in patients presenting with STEMI and cardiogenic shock is substantially high. For these patients, other concepts regarding timing of surgical revascularisation and bridging until surgery need to be taken into consideration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: An acute type A aortic dissection (AAAD) is a critical emergency and remains one of the most challenging diseases in cardiothoracic surgery. The existence of a pericardial hematoma caused by an aortic rupture can dramatically reduce the chances of survival (Jerzewski and Kulik in J Card Surg 29(4):529-530, 2014; Mehta et al. in Circulation 105(2):200-206, 2002; Gilon et al. in Am J Cardiol 103(7):1029-1031, 2009; Isselbacher et al. in Circulation 90(5):2375-2378, 1994). We assessed the surgical outcome of a high-risk group of patients with AAAD and a pericardial hematoma., Methods: In this study we included 430 Patients (67% male; median age: 64 years) who received surgical treatment between January 2000 and January 2018 at our facility for acute aortic dissection DeBakey type I. We divided the cohort in two groups: Group A consisted of high-risk patients with a pericardial hematoma (n = 162) and Group B of patients without pericardial hematoma (n = 268)., Results: Patients with a preoperative pericardial hematoma had a significantly higher requirement for preoperative mechanical resuscitation (A: 21%; B: 1.5%; P: < 0.001) and were relevantly more frequently admitted to the operation theater with an intubated status (A: 19.8%; B: 8.6%; P: < 0.001). The incidence of visceral malperfusion differed significantly between both groups (A. 11.7%, B. 6:0%; P: 0.034). Limited aortic arch repair (proximal aortic arch replacement) was preferred in the high-risk group (A: 51.9%; B: 40.3%; P: 0.020). However, survival time was generally reduced in these patients (A: 7.5 y; B: 9.9 y)., Conclusion: AAAD patients with preoperative pericardial hematoma present themselves in potentially lethal conditions, with a significantly higher rate of visceral malperfusion. Despite the existence of this risk factor, a limited arch repair was favored. We have proven that cardiac compression is associated with preoperative intubation and mechanical resuscitation. Patients with pericardial hematoma must be further evaluated for preoperative pericardial drainage. In the event of long transfer times to an aortic center a slow drainage should be discussed to prevent early mortality., (© 2023. The Author(s).)