HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Full Text Full Text (PDF) Alert me when this article is cited Alert me if a correction is posted Citation Map Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Alert me to new issues of the journal Add to Personal Folders Download to citation manager Author home page(s): Kerem M. Vural Oguz Tasdemir Kemal Bayazit Permission Requests Citing Articles Citing Articles via Google Scholar Google Scholar Articles by Vural, K. M. Articles by Bayazit, K. Search for Related Content PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Vural, K. M. Articles by Bayazit, K.

Eur J Cardiothorac Surg 1998;13:49-56
© 1998 Elsevier Science NL

Left ventricular aneurysm repair: an assessment of surgical treatment modalities

Kerem M. Vural, Erol ener, Mehmet Ali Özatik, Ouz Tademir, Kemal Bayazit

Cardiovascular Surgery Department at Türkiye Yüksek htisas Hospital, Ankara, Turkey

Received 25 August 1997; accepted 21 October 1997.

Corresponding author. Present address. N. Tandoan cad. 5/6 Kavaklidere 06540, Ankara, Turkey. Fax: +90 312 3124120; e-mail: kvural@tr-net.net.tr

Objective: Different closure techniques (linear vs. circular), as well as the efficacy of revascularization in the left ventricular aneurysm repair, with regard to immediate and mid-term results, were assessed and factors having influence on the early mortality and morbidity and survival were analyzed. Method: Between January 1991 and November 1996, 248 patients underwent surgical repair for postischemic left ventricular aneurysm. A total of 26 of them were female (10.5%). Linear closure was employed in 121 patients (48.8 %) and circular (patch endoaneurysmorraphy) closure in 127 (51.2%). Coronary revascularization was added in 203 (81.9%) cases. Patients were followed for an average follow-up time of 39.3 months. Results: Early mortality rate was 6% (15 patients). The difference in mortality rate by the repair method was not statistically significant (8.3% in the linear closure group and 3.9% in the circular closure group, P=0.15). Absence of preoperative angina pectoris (P=0.029), dyspnea as the presenting symptom, a preoperative left ventricular segmental wall motion scoring of 14 or greater, a cardiopulmonary bypass duration exceeding 2 h (P=0.004), an aortic clamping time exceeding 1 h (P=0.026) were associated with early mortality. Concomitant coronary revascularization had no effect on early mortality. However, low cardiac output state was less frequent in patients with concomitant coronary revascularization (P=0.022). Functional status improved in both groups. Follow-up extending to 81st month revealed no difference in survival between the groups (84% for linear closure group and 92% in circular closure group, including operative mortality, P=0.12). However, functional status improvement was better in the patients who underwent circular repair (P=0.0077). Revascularization appeared as having no important influence on both survival and functional status. A preoperative left ventricular segmental wall motion scoring of 14 or greater was associated with a higher incidence of early mortality, low cardiac output syndrome and poor long-term survival. Conclusion: Left ventricular aneurysm repair is an important therapeutic intervention and can be performed with reliable results, regardless of repair method, either linear or circular. Long term results revealed better functional status in circular repair group. Concomitant coronary revascularization reduced the incidence of low cardiac output state. Performance of the unaffected regions of myocardium was found to be an important determinant of both early and late outcome.

Key Words: Left ventricular aneurysm • Endoaneurysmorraphy