Value of Myocardial Viability Estimation Using Dobutamine Stress Echocardiography in Assessing Risk Preoperatively Before Noncardiac Vascular Surgery in Patients With Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction
Patients with heart failure (HF) scheduled for vascular surgery have an increased risk of adverse postoperative outcome, and stratification usually depends on dichotomous risk factors. A quantitative prognostic model for patients with HF was developed using wall motion patterns during dobutamine stress echocardiography (DSE). A total of 295 consecutive patients (mean age 67 +/- 12 years) with ejection fraction < or =35% were studied. During DSE, wall motion patterns of dysfunctional segments were scored as scar, ischemia, or sustained improvement. Cardiac death and myocardial infarction were noted perioperatively and during 5 years of follow-up. Of 4,572 dysfunctional segments; 1,783 (39%) had ischemia, 1,280 (28%) had sustained improvement, and 1,509 (33%) had scar. In 212 patients, > or =1 ischemic segment was present; 83 had only sustained improvement. Perioperative and late cardiac event rates were 20% and 30%, respectively. Using multivariate analysis, number of ischemic segments was associated with perioperative cardiac events (odds ratio per segment 1.6, 95% confidence interval 1.05 to 1.8), whereas number of segments with sustained improvement was associated with improved outcome (odds ratio per segment 0.2, 95% confidence interval 0.04 to 0.7). Multivariate independent predictors of late cardiac events were age and ischemia. Sustained improvement was associated with improved survival. In conclusion, DSE provides accurate risk stratification of patients with HF undergoing vascular surgery.
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: The diagnostic and therapeutic management of patients with coronary artery disease (CAD), either symptomatic or asymptomatic,
who are scheduled for thoracic surgery has not yet clearly been defi ned and remains controversial (Carbajal 1998).
[Show abstract][Hide abstract] ABSTRACT: Perioperative beta-blocker therapy has been proposed to improve outcome. Most of the trials conducted, however, lacked statistical power to evaluate the incidence of hard cardiac events and the relationship to the type of surgery. Therefore, we conducted a meta-analysis of all randomized controlled trials in which beta-blocker therapy was evaluated.
An electronic search of published reports on Medline was undertaken to identify studies published between January 1980 and November 2004 in English language journals. All studies reported on at least one of three endpoints: perioperative myocardial ischemia, perioperative nonfatal myocardial infarction, and cardiac mortality. Type of surgery, defined as low, intermediate, and high risk according to the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association guidelines, was noted.
In total, 15 studies were identified, which enrolled 1,077 patient. No significant differences were observed in baseline clinical characteristics between patients randomized to beta-blocker therapy and control/placebo. Beta-blocker therapy was associated with a 65% reduction in perioperative myocardial ischemia (11.0% vs. 25.6%; odds ratio 0.35, 95% confidence interval 0.23-0.54; P<0.001). Furthermore, a 56% reduction in myocardial infarction (0.5% vs. 3.9%, odds ratio 0.44, 95% confidence interval 0.20-0.97; P=0.04) and a 67% reduction (1.1% vs. 6.1%, odds ratio 0.33, 95% confidence interval 0.17-0.67; P=0.002) in the composite endpoint of cardiac death and nonfatal myocardial infarction were observed. No statistical evidence was observed for heterogeneity in the treatment effect in subgroups according to type of surgery (P for heterogeneity 0.2).
This meta-analysis shows that beta-blocker use in noncardiac surgical procedures is associated with a significant reduction of perioperative cardiac adverse events.
Stephanie M Reinhold, Brian Lima, Adnan Khalid, Gonzalo V Gonzalez-Stawinski, Robert C Stoler, Shelley A Hall, Themistokles Chamogeorgakis
Data provided are for informational purposes only. Although carefully collected, accuracy cannot be guaranteed. The impact factor represents a rough estimation of the journal's impact factor and does not reflect the actual current impact factor. Publisher conditions are provided by RoMEO. Differing provisions from the publisher's actual policy or licence agreement may be applicable.