Isolated coronary artery bypass grafting in obese individuals: a propensity matched analysis of outcomes.

Section of Cardiology, Department of Medicine, Baylor College of Medicine, Houston, TX 77030, USA.
Circulation Journal (Impact Factor: 3.69). 05/2011; 75(6):1378-85.
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT There is conflicting data regarding the impact of obesity on morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG).
Retrospective cohort analysis of patients who underwent CABG from January 1, 1995, through July 31, 2010 was performed. Patients were classified as obese or non-obese (body mass index ≥ 30.0 kg/m(2) and <30.0 kg/m(2), respectively). The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included postoperative respiratory failure, postoperative stroke, postoperative myocardial infarction, sternal and leg wound infections, postoperative atrial fibrillation, postoperative ventricular tachycardia, postoperative renal failure and length of hospital stay. Propensity-matched stepwise multivariable logistic regression was performed. Of 13,115 patients, 4,619 (35.2%) were obese. In the propensity-matched logistic regression models (n = 8,442), obesity was not associated with postoperative mortality (odds ratio = 1.13, 95% confidence interval 0.86-1.48). However, obesity was associated with postoperative respiratory failure, postoperative renal insufficiency, sternal wound infection, and leg wound infection. Obesity was also associated with a decreased risk of postoperative bleeding and re-operation from bleeding.
Obesity was associated with an increased risk of postoperative respiratory failure, postoperative renal failure, and surgical site infections. However, obesity was not associated with in-hospital mortality in patients undergoing CABG.

  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The development of the heart-lung machine ushered in the era of modern cardiac surgery. Coronary artery bypass graft surgery (CABG) remains the most common operation performed by cardiac surgeons today. From its infancy in the 1950s till today, CABG has undergone many developments both technically and clinically. Improvements in intraoperative technique and perioperative care have led to CABG being offered to a more broad patient profile with less complications and adverse events. Our review outlines the rich history and promising future of myocardial revascularization.
    01/2014; 2014:726158. DOI:10.1155/2014/726158
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Epicardial Access and Obesity IntroductionPercutaneous epicardial access for ablative therapies is an increasingly common technique utilized for refractory ventricular arrhythmias. There are, however few known data on obesity and complication rates associated with this procedure. Methods and ResultsWe retrospectively reviewed the charts of subjects undergoing epicardial access at Mayo Clinic between January 2004 and June 2013. Baseline clinical and echocardiographic data were collected for each subject, who was then classified into body mass index (BMI) categories as underweight, normal weight, overweight, and obese based on a BMI of <18.5, 18.5-24.99, 25-29.99, and 30, respectively. Events and complications were recorded, and procedural and clinical success rates were determined. There was no statistically significant difference in access approach, procedural or clinical outcomes, or complications among the BMI categories. Note that 95.1%, 91.7%, and 93.1% derived procedural success among the normal weight, overweight, and obese categories, respectively (P value = 0.81). Similarly, there was no difference in clinical outcomes with success rates of 68.3%, 66.7%, and 75.9% between the respective groups (P value = 0.54). At 5 years, there was a trend toward increased mortality among obese individuals (28.8%) compared to normal weight (8.8%) and overweight (9.8%) patients (P value = 0.139). Conclusion Percutaneous epicardial access, mapping, and ablation can be performed in obese individuals with similar outcomes to those of lower weight category. Obesity should not preclude the use of percutaneous epicardial access when clinically indicated.
    Journal of Cardiovascular Electrophysiology 07/2014; 25(12). DOI:10.1111/jce.12485 · 2.88 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Background Obesity is suggested to reduce postoperative bleeding in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) but perioperative hemostasis variations have not been studied. Therefore, we investigated the effects of severe obesity (body mass index [BMI] ≥ 35 kg/m2) on chest tube output (CTO) and hemostasis in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB. Materials and Methods We prospectively investigated 2799 consecutive patients who underwent coronary and/or valve surgery using CPB between 2008 and 2012. 204 patients (7.3%) presented a severe obesity. Results In the severe obesity group, the 6-h and 24-h CTO were significantly reduced by -21.8% and -14.8% respectively (P < 0.0001) compared with the control group. A significant reduction of the mean number of red blood cell units transfused at 24 h was observed in the severe obesity groups (P = 0.01). On admission to the intensive care unit, a significant increase of platelet count (+ 9.2%; P < 0.0001), fibrinogen level (+ 12.2%; P < 0.0001) and prothrombin time (+ 4.1%; P < 0.01) and a significant decrease of the activated partial thromboplastin time (-4.2%; P < 0.01) were observed in the severe obesity group compared with the control group. In multivariate analysis, severe obesity was significantly associated to a decreased risk of excessive bleeding (24-h CTO > 90th percentile; Odds ratio: 0.37, 95% CI: 0.17 to 0.82). No significant differences were observed regarding postoperative thromboembolic events between the two groups. Conclusions Severe obesity is associated with a prothrombotic postoperative state that leads to a reduction of postoperative blood loss in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB.
    Thrombosis Research 08/2014; 134(2):346–353. · 2.43 Impact Factor