Pwm. Cuypers et al., Cardiac response and complications during endovascular repair of abdominalaortic aneurysms: A concurrent comparison with open surgery, J VASC SURG, 33(2), 2001, pp. 353-360
Citations number
32
Categorie Soggetti
Cardiovascular & Respiratory Systems","Cardiovascular & Hematology Research
Purpose: The purpose of this study was to assess and to compare perioperati
ve changes in left ventricular function and the incidence of adverse cardia
c events in two groups of patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms, one dur
ing endovascular aneurysm repair (EAR) and the other during open aneurysm r
epair (OAR).
Methods: One hundred twenty consecutive patients who underwent EAR (49 pati
ents) or OAR (71 patients) were prospectively studied. During the operation
, the left ventricular function was assessed by the recording of the left v
entricle stroke work index (SWI) and the cardiac index (CI) with a pulmonar
y artery catheter. Measurements were performed before, during, and after st
ent-graft deployment or aortic cross-clamping. Both maneuvers were defined
as aortic occlusion (AO). Transesophageal echocardiography was performed to
identify signs of wail motion abnormalities of the left ventricular wall,
which indicated myocardial ischemia. Six-lead electrocardiograph monitoring
was maintained until discharge from the intensive care unit. Postoperative
cardiac complications were diagnosed by clinical observation, 12-lead ECG
analysis at 1, 3, and 7 days after the operation, transthoracic echocardiog
raphy at 1 month, and measurement of cardiac enzymes.
Results: The two study groups were comparable with regard to most clinical
aspects. The baseline myocardial performance was worse in patients who unde
rwent EAR compared with patients who underwent OAR, as indicated by a reduc
ed SWI (33.1 and 37.4, respectively; P = .03). During AO there was a compar
able increase of the CI in both groups. However, after AO the rise in CI wa
s higher in patients who underwent OAR compared with patients who underwent
EAR (0.7 and 0.2, respectively; P < .01), representing a more pronounced h
yperdynamic state. In addition, the SWI demonstrated a decrease in patients
who underwent OAR compared with an increase in patients who underwent EAR
during AO (-1.4 and +1.9, respectively; P = .04) and after AO (-0.9 and +2.
6, respectively; P = .01). These findings represent more severe myocardial
stress in patients who underwent OAR. The incidence of postoperative clinic
al cardiac adverse events was comparable in the two study groups. However,
myocardial ischemia, as indicated by electrocardiography and transesophagea
l echocardiography, had a higher incidence in patients who underwent open s
urgery as compared with patients whose condition was managed endovascularly
(57% and 33%, respectively; P = .01).
Conclusion: Hemodynamic alterations during endovascular repair were not as
severe as those in patients with open surgery and indicated less myocardial
stress in the former category. These findings may explain a lower incidenc
e of myocardial ischemia that was observed during endovascular repair. A lo
wer frequency of clinical perioperative cardiac events in patients undergoi
ng endovascular treatment may ultimately be expected.