A comparison of two different management plans for patients requiring both carotid endarterectomy and coronary artery bypass grafting

Basit Öğe Kaydı
dc.contributor.authorEcevit, Ata Niyazi
dc.contributor.authorKaraca, Okay Guven
dc.contributor.authorKalender, Mehmet
dc.contributor.authorBekmezci, Murat
dc.contributor.authorSungur, Mehmet Ali
dc.contributor.authorDarcin, Osman Tansel
dc.date.accessioned2021-12-01T18:50:31Z
dc.date.available2021-12-01T18:50:31Z
dc.date.issued2021
dc.department[Belirlenecek]en_US
dc.description.abstractBackground: Carotid endarterectomy (CEA) is a prophylactic operation that is used to mitigate the risk of stroke caused by embolism of atherosclerotic plaques in the carotid bifurcation. Previously, the large, multicentre, randomised, controlled GALA study found no significant differences in clinical outcomes between patients treated using general or local anaesthesia. While this study provided important insights into disease outcomes based on treatment modalities, it did not answer questions regarding the safety of CEA under local anaesthesia in patients at high risk for cardiovascular complications. Here, we examined the use of two different management plans in patients requiring both carotid endarterectomy and coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG), in terms of their effects on hospital mortality. Methods: Thirty-four patients consecutively operated on in our cardiovascular department were included in this analysis. The patients were divided into two groups based on the anaesthetic management plan. The first group consisted of patients who underwent CEA and CABG under general anaesthesia in the same session (GA group); the second group consisted of patients who initially underwent CEA under cervical block anaesthesia followed by CABG under general anaesthesia in a separate session (CB-GA group). These two groups were compared in terms of postoperative complications and hospital mortality. Results: The incidence of postoperative myocardial infarction was higher in the CB-GA group, with four patients experiencing postoperative myocardial infarction, compared to no patients in the GA group. Conclusion: For patients requiring CEA and CABG, performing both operations under general anaesthesia in the same session was safer than initially performing CEA under cervical block anaesthesia followed by CABG under general anaesthesia.en_US
dc.identifier.doi10.5830/CVJA-2020-042
dc.identifier.endpage132en_US
dc.identifier.issn1995-1892
dc.identifier.issn1680-0745
dc.identifier.issue3en_US
dc.identifier.pmid33729273en_US
dc.identifier.scopus2-s2.0-85112482410en_US
dc.identifier.scopusqualityN/Aen_US
dc.identifier.startpage129en_US
dc.identifier.urihttps://doi.org/10.5830/CVJA-2020-042
dc.identifier.urihttps://hdl.handle.net/20.500.12684/10888
dc.identifier.volume32en_US
dc.identifier.wosWOS:000672606600004en_US
dc.identifier.wosqualityQ4en_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakWeb of Scienceen_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakPubMeden_US
dc.indekslendigikaynakScopusen_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherClinics Cardive Publ Pty Ltden_US
dc.relation.ispartofCardiovascular Journal Of Africaen_US
dc.relation.publicationcategoryMakale - Uluslararası Hakemli Dergi - Kurum Öğretim Elemanıen_US
dc.rightsinfo:eu-repo/semantics/closedAccessen_US
dc.subjectcarotid endarterectomyen_US
dc.subjectcervical block anaesthesiaen_US
dc.subjectgeneral anaesthesiaen_US
dc.subjectcoronary artery bypass graftingen_US
dc.subjectGeneral-Anesthesiaen_US
dc.subjectLocal-Anesthesiaen_US
dc.subjectStrokeen_US
dc.subjectDeathen_US
dc.subjectStenosisen_US
dc.subjectRisksen_US
dc.titleA comparison of two different management plans for patients requiring both carotid endarterectomy and coronary artery bypass graftingen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US

Dosyalar

Orijinal paket
Listeleniyor 1 - 1 / 1
Küçük Resim Yok
İsim:
1088.pdf
Boyut:
70.83 KB
Biçim:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Açıklama:
Tam Metin / Full Text
İndir

Koleksiyon

WoS İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
PubMed İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu
Scopus İndeksli Yayınlar Koleksiyonu