PubMed · 57605
The source did not provide an abstract. Follow the original record for more information.
Explore connections, maps & timelines
S M Chin. 1976-04-01. Nursing care study: aortic valve replacement.. https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/57605/
Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.
KEEP EXPLORING
Explore the source record for details and available documents.
BACKGROUND: The Queen Elizabeth II Health Sciences Centre uses a weekly peer-review conference of cardiovascular experts to prioritize each surgical case to 1 of 4 queues with the use of standardized criteria of coronary anatomy, stress test result, and symptoms. We examined the hazard of waiting as well as the impact of waiting on surgical outcomes. METHODS AND RESULTS: Analysis was performed for 2102 consecutive patients queued for CABG, aortic valve replacement, or CABG+aortic valve replacement between January 1, 1998, and December 31, 1999. Among 1854 patients undergoing surgery, median waiting times on the respective queues were as follows: in-house urgent group, 8 days; semiurgent A group, 37 days; semiurgent B group, 64 days; and elective group, 113 days. There were 13 deaths (12 cardiac) that occurred during the waiting period (0.7% of the patients). Of the 8.7% patients upgraded to a more urgent queue, 86.1% required hospitalization before surgery. Although female sex was not associated with prolonged waiting time, it was predictive of urgent status (P=0.001). The incidence of postoperative complications was 25.0%, and operative mortality was 2.86%. Both were more frequent among patients undergoing surgery early (P=0.01); however, this difference was attributable to the in-house urgent queue. The median length of stay was 7 days for all patients and was not affected by waiting time. CONCLUSIONS: Death and upgrades while the patients were waiting tended to occur early in the queuing process, and prolonged waiting was not associated with worse surgical outcomes. The cost of reducing waiting times could in part be offset by prevention of hospital admissions among upgraded patients.
BACKGROUND: Decisions regarding surgical strategy in patients with multiple left heart obstructive or hypoplastic lesions often must be made in the newborn period and are seldom reversible. Predictors of outcome of biventricular repair have not been well defined in this heterogeneous group of patients, and risk factors described for critical aortic valve stenosis have been shown to be inapplicable to patients with other left heart obstructive lesions. The goal of this study was to identify echocardiographic predictors of outcome of biventricular repair for infants with multiple left heart obstructive lesions. METHODS AND RESULTS: Patients with >/=2 areas of left heart obstruction or hypoplasia, diagnosed at </=3 months of age, who had not previously undergone surgical or catheter intervention and maintained biventricular physiology were included (n=72). Failure of biventricular repair was defined as takedown to a univentricular repair, cardiac transplantation, and/or death (n=14; 19%). This group was compared with the patients who survived a biventricular approach (n=58). Multiple categorical, morphometric and calculated variables were examined on the basis of the initial echocardiograms. By multivariate analysis, predictors of failure included moderate/large ventricular septal defect (OR=22, P=0.001), unicommissural aortic valve (OR=16, P=0.006), and lower mitral valve dimension z-score (OR=2.2, P=0.02) or lower left ventricular end-diastolic volume z-score (OR=1.9, P=0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Moderate/large ventricular septal defect, unicommissural aortic valve, and hypoplastic mitral valve or left ventricle are independent risk factors for failure of biventricular repair for infants with multiple left heart obstructive lesions. Combinations of these risk factors may be useful in selecting surgical strategy.