(Circulation. 1995;92:66-68.)
© 1995 American Heart Association, Inc.
Articles |
From the Section of Cardiothoracic Surgery, Yale University School of Medicine, New Haven, Conn.
Correspondence to John H. Braxton, MD, Yale University School of Medicine, Department of Surgery, 333 Cedar St, 121 FMB, New Haven, CT 06520.
| Abstract |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Methods and Results One hundred sixteen patients
underwent CABG within 6 weeks of infarction. In the experimental group,
58 patients underwent CABG for nonQ-wave infarction, and 58 patients
underwent CABG for Q-wave infarction. In the control group, 255
patients underwent surgery for angina without infarction. Patients were
analyzed by group relative to the time between infarction and
CABG. Patients were analyzed between infarction and CABG and
assigned to one of three groups. Group 1 patients were revascularized
within 48 hours; group 2, between 3 and 5 days; and group 3, after 5
days. Significance was determined by Fisher's exact or Mantel-Haenszel
2 test where appropriate.
Multivariate analysis was performed on
statistics that were significant. All patients within all groups after
Q-wave or nonQ-wave myocardial infarction had a significantly higher
risk of needing an intra-aortic balloon pump and vasopressors to be
weaned from bypass and a greater incidence of
perioperative MI compared with control patients.
Surgical mortality is highest immediately after Q-wave infarctions.
Conclusions Patients with nonQ-wave infarction may undergo CABG relatively safely at any time. Acceptable timing for CABG after Q-wave infarction is after 48 hours.
Key Words: bypass myocardial infarction
| Introduction |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Clinical and administrative implications for early revascularization are increasingly important considering current health policies and trends emphasizing shorter hospitalizations with total quality management.
| Methods |
|---|
|
|
|---|
|
Inclusion Criteria
Patients with coronary artery disease
treated for stable
angina, progressive angina, unstable angina, postinfarction angina,
angina at rest, or AMI and patients with three-vessel disease or
left main stem disease without symptoms were included. Patients
undergoing CABG for refractory cardiogenic shock were also included,
although a low ejection fraction was not necessarily considered an
indication for early operation. To assess the effect of surgery on
naturally occurring disease, patients operated on for iatrogenically
produced AMI after angioplasty failure were excluded. Also, CABG
combined with other cardiac procedures were excluded. Most patients
with AMI who had no contraindication and presented within 6
hours of pain received thrombolytic therapy as well as
intravenous nitrates, ß-blockers and antiarrhythmic
agents if indicated. Ten of the 116 AMI patients underwent unsuccessful
attempts at relieving the obstruction with balloon angioplasty. A trial
with the intra-aortic balloon pump usually preceded CABG in
patients who failed medical management. The decision as to timing of
surgery for an AMI patient was based on the severity of clinical
symptoms.
Definitions
Q-wave infarction was defined as ST-segment
changes that
progressed to new Q waves in addition to a creatine phosphokinase
(CPK)-MB isoenzyme elevation of more than 10 IU/L. NonQ-wave
infarction was defined as ST-segment and T-wave abnormalities that did
not progress to pathological Q waves but showed abnormal elevation of
CPK-MB isoenzyme of more than 10 IU/L. Perioperative
infarction was defined as a CPK-MB fraction of more than 70 IU/L or new
Q waves on ECG from the time the patient was brought to the operating
room until the time of discharge or death. Inotropic support was
defined as the need for the use of vasopressors to wean from
cardiopulmonary bypass or for treating low cardiac output.
A new intra-aortic balloon was counted as an intra-aortic
balloon placed in the operating room to wean a patient from
cardiopulmonary bypass.
Operative Technique
Complete revascularization was the goal
for
all patients. Myocardial protection was achieved by moderated systemic
hypothermia (28°C) and blood or crystaloid cardioplegia at 4°C with
St Thomas' solution given antegrade through the ascending aorta at
20-minute intervals. A new intra-aortic balloon pump was placed
only for patients who could not be weaned from bypass. Within the
48-hour group, one patient did not receive an intra-aortic balloon
pump before surgery because of occlusive peripheral
vascular disease. Inotropic support was given for a cardiac index of
less than 2.1 L · min-1.
Grouping of Patients and Statistical Analysis
Patients with
AMI were subdivided into subgroups based on time
intervals after myocardial infarction and included the first 48 hours,
3 to 5 days, and 6 to 42 days. Significance was determined by Fisher's
exact or Mantel-Haentszel
2 test where
appropriate, and multivariate analysis was
performed on statistics that were significant. Data from
multivariate analysis were then compared with
those of control patients. Statistical analyses were performed
using the Statistical Analysis System.
| Results |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Patients operated on for AMI showed important differences and
similarities both within the infarction subgroup and in comparison with
control patients. For example, the incidence of women requiring
emergency surgery within 48 hours was almost twice that of the
remaining AMI group and control patients. As one might expect with
critically ill patients requiring emergency coronary surgery,
the internal mammary artery was used to graft the left anterior
descending coronary artery only half as many times in the
<48-hour group (Table 2
). On the other hand, there was
only a 0.5 New York Heart Association and a 0.6 Canadian
Cardiovascular Society class difference between the AMI
and control group (Table 1
).
|
When the study group was analyzed by relative risk, ie,
incident experimental divided by incident controls, the resulting data
showed that a patient with a nonQ-wave infarction could be operated
on safely at any time after AMI with a surgical mortality rate similar
to that of control patients (3.4% versus 2.4%, respectively;
P=NS). A patient with a Q-wave myocardial infarction,
however, had a 50% perioperative mortality if operated
on within the first 48 hours. After the first 48 hours (ie, excluding
the <48-hour group), the surgical mortality fell to 7.7% (4 of 52)
over the remaining 40-day period (Table 3
).
2 analysis of hospital mortality for the
Q-wave AMI group after 48 hours plus the nonQ-wave AMI group versus
the control group was not significantly different. There also was no
significant difference between the nonQ-wave group and control
patients or between the nonQ-wave group and the Q-wave group after 48
hours. Although comparison of the Q-wave group after 48 hours with
control patients was not significant, the probability was .07.
Therefore, there does not appear to be a gain in safety by waiting
longer than 48 hours to operate on a symptomatic patient
with new Q waves. Nevertheless, the surgical mortality in the Q-wave
group (including the <48-hour group) remained approximately fourfold
that of the nonQ-wave group or control group throughout the 42-day
period (P=.001). In most AMI patients, however, the
incidence of requiring the intra-aortic balloon or vasopressors in
the perioperative period was significantly higher than
that in control patients. Although no significant difference was noted
for the use of the intra-aortic balloon within the first 48 hours,
the reason was probably due to our definition as most patients within
this group had balloons placed before surgery and therefore the new
balloon insertion incidence was lower than that in the group 3 to 5
days after AMI (Table 3
). The risk of extending the AMI was
also
significantly higher in the 48-hour AMI group for both Q-wave and
nonQ-wave infarction than it was for developing a
perioperative infarction in control patients. There was
no significant difference in length of hospital stay (12.9±5.9 days
versus 13.9±5.9 days [excluding 30-day outliers]). The
generally
long hospital stay reflects the bias of referring physicians to keep
patients requiring surgery in the hospital until surgery. There also
was no significant difference in days on the ventilator (2.3±8.5 days
versus 3.3±8 days) for the control group or AMI group,
respectively.
|
When the data were analyzed by multilogistic stepwise regression, age >65 years, clinical status, Q-wave infarction, and surgery within 48 hours showed the highest risk for hospital mortality.
| Discussion |
|---|
|
|
|---|
Our analysis establishes relative risk for each time category for mortality, vasopressor use, intra-aortic balloon requirement, and perioperative myocardial infarction. The study also documents between type of infarction and supports the contention that nonQ-wave AMI has a better prognosis than Q-wave AMI.2 3 NonQ-wave AMI has an early favorable prognosis with medical management and with early surgical management as well.4
The greatest decline in overall relative risk for hospital mortality, use of vasopressors, and perioperative myocardial infarction occurred after 48 hours. The relative risk of new balloon insertion was not significant due to an institutional bias to insert the intra-aortic balloon pump before surgery when operating on AMI patients with low ejection fractions. Within the Q-wave 48-hour group, one patient did not receive an intra-aortic balloon pump before surgery because of occlusive peripheral vascular disease: two balloons were placed for hemodynamic reasons and one for the relief of pain.
Three patients died within the Q-wave 48-hour group. Two were the result of cerebral events, and one was due to cardiogenic shock. The high stroke rate is curious and may be a function of the age group5 : one patient was 66 years old, and the other was 72 years old and had received thrombolytic therapy. Two patients were operated on in full cardiac arrest with external compression being performed during prepping. Both were in the Q-wave group. One was in the >48-hour group and survived, and the second was in the 6- to 42-day group and died.
In the early 1970s, surgical revascularization within the first 2 months of AMI was associated with a 14.5% to 20% mortality.6 The recommendation then was to wait 30 days after AMI before revascularization. In the late 1970s and early 1980s, improvements in myocardial protection and intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation reduced surgical mortality. Multivariate analysis of this data revealed then, as now, that advanced age, clinical status, and depressed myocardial function were associated with a higher mortality rate.7 In the late 1980s and early 1990s, advances in medical therapy, including thrombolysis and catheter-mediated angioplasty, produced a new group of patients who were referred for surgery only after failing to improve with the use of these techniques. Nevertheless, improvements in surgical and postoperative management permitted surgery in these critically ill patients with improving results.8 Some patients with transmural infarction and extraordinary circumstances may require revascularization within 48 hours, such as those with ongoing, severe unstable angina.9 In these patients, the surgical mortality will be significantly higher than after 48 hours but not necessarily higher than if the surgery were not performed. Even though the number of patients in the <48-hour group was small, the increased mortality was statistically significant compared with control patients. Our data indicate that revascularization after 48 hours is acceptable timing after Q-wave AMI infarction, and, under most circumstances, there is little to be gained by waiting a specified additional length of time. NonQ-wave AMI in symptomatic patients may be revascularized at any time with no significant increase in mortality compared with elective patients.
| References |
|---|
|
|
|---|
2. Applebaum R, House R, Rademaker A, Garibaldi A, Davis Z, Guillory J, Chen A, Hoeksema T. Coronary artery bypass grafting within thirty days of acute myocardial infarction. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg.. 1991;102:745. [Abstract]
3. Gertler JP, Elefteriades JA, Kopf GS, Hashim SW, Hammond GL, Geha AS. Predictors of outcome in early revascularization after acute myocardial infarction. Am J Surg.. 1985;149:441-444. [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
4. Braunwald. Textbook of Cardiovascular Medicine, 4th ed. Philadelphia, Pa: WB Saunders; 1992.
5. Lynn GM, Stefanko K, Reed JF, Gee W, Nicholas G. Risk factor for stroke after coronary artery bypass. J Thorac Cardiovasc Surg.. 1992;104:1518. [Abstract]
6. Dawson JT, Hall RJ, Hallman GI, Cooley DA. Mortality in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery after myocardial infarction. Am J Cardiol.. 1974;33:483. [Medline] [Order article via Infotrieve]
7. Naunheim KS, Kesler KA, Kanter KR, Fiore AC, McBride LR, Pennington DG, Barner HB, Kaiser GC, Willman VL. Coronary artery bypass for recent infarction: predictors of mortality. Circulation. 1988;78(suppl I):I-122-I-128.
8. Clark RE. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons National Database Status Report. Ann Thorac Surg.. 1994;57:20-26. [Abstract]
9. Jones EL, Waites TF, Craver JM, Bradford JM, Douglas JS, King SB, Bone DK, Dorney ER, Clements SD, Thompkins T, Hatcher CR Jr. Coronary bypass for relief of persistent pain following acute myocardial infarction. Ann Thorac Surg.. 1981;32:33.[Abstract]
This article has been cited by other articles:
![]() |
R. Spacek, P. Widimsky, Z. Straka, E. Jiresova, J. Dvorak, R. Polasek, I. Karel, R. Jirmar, L. Lisa, T. Budesinsky, et al. V_alue of First Day Angiography/Angioplasty I_n Evolving N_on-ST Segment Elevation Myocardial Infarction: An O_pen Multicenter Randomized Trial. The VINO Study Eur. Heart J., February 1, 2002; 23(3): 230 - 238. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
K. A. Eagle, R. A. Guyton, R. Davidoff, G. A. Ewy, J. Fonger, T. J. Gardner, J. P. Gott, H. C. Herrmann, R. A. Marlow, W. C. Nugent, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for coronary artery bypass graft surgery: A report of the American College of Cardiology/ American Heart Association task force on Practice Guidelines (Committee to revise the 1991 Guidelines for Coronary Artery Bypass Graft Surgery) J. Am. Coll. Cardiol., October 1, 1999; 34(4): 1262 - 1347. [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
![]() |
H. Yamabe, I. Misumi, H. Fukushima, K. Ueno, Y. Kimura, and Y. Hokamura Electrophysiological Delineation of the Tachycardia Circuit in Atrioventricular Nodal Reentrant Tachycardia Circulation, August 10, 1999; 100(6): 621 - 627. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF] |
||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Circulation Home | Subscriptions | Archives | Feedback | Authors | Help | AHA Journals Home | Search Copyright © 1995 American Heart Association, Inc. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use prohibited. |