Coronary Revascularization in “High” versus “Low-risk” Patients

Authors:
  • GOGordon N. Olinger
    Gordon N. Olinger
  • JPJonathan Po
    Jonathan Po
  • JMJames V. Maloney
    James V. Maloney
  • DMDonald G. Mulder
    Donald G. Mulder
  • GBGerald D. Buckberg
    Gerald D. Buckberg
Publisher website
Google Scholar
Abstract
Postoperative mortality, infarction, and need for inotropic support are reportedly increased following myocardial revascularization in “high-risk” patients. We believe these complications result from inadequate protection of the compromised myocrardium and should not occur with greater frequency in “high-risk” than “Low-risk” patients if the heart is optimally protected during the entire course of the operative procedure. Results following revascularization in 50 consecutive “low-risk” and 50 consecutive “high-risk” patient were analyzed. One or more of the following factors were present in the “high-risk” group; ventricular dysfunction-ejection fraction < 0.4, preinfarction angina, evolving infarction, recent infarction (less than 2 weeks), and refractory venticular tachyarrhythmia. The following principles were used in all patients to minimize ischemic injury: 1) avoidance of pre-bypass hypo- or hypertension, 2) limitation of ischemic arrest to less than 12 minutes, 3) avoidance of ventricular fibrillation, and 4) prolongation of total bypass as necessary to repay the myocardial oxygen debt. Postoperative inotropic support was required in 10% of “high” and 10% of “low-risk” patients; new postoperative infarction developed in 10% of “high” vs. 10% “low-risk” patients; death occurred in 2% of “high” vs. 4% “low-risk” patients. These results are comparable and indicate that optimum myocardial protection allows safe revascularization in the “high-risk” patient.

This publication has 23 references indexed in Scilit: