• L H Hollier, M M Reigel, F J Kazmier, P C Pairolero, K J Cherry, and J W Hallett.
• J. Vasc. Surg. 1986 May 1; 3 (5): 712-7.

AbstractRecent reports in the literature have promulgated nonresective treatment of abdominal aortic aneurysm as a safer procedure than conventional aneurysmectomy with graft replacement in high-risk patients. This review of 106 high-risk patients who underwent conventional aneurysm repair between 1980 and 1985 was undertaken to compare the relative risks, perioperative morbidity, and operative mortality of these patients to that reported for patients treated by nonresective therapy. Excluded were those patients who had rupture initially or underwent a concomitant renovascular procedure. Patients were considered to be at high risk if they met one or more of the following criteria: age equal to or greater than 85 years; receiving oxygen at home, PO2 less than 50 torr, or forced midexpiratory flow less than 25% of predicted; serum creatinine equal to or greater than 3 mg/dl; biopsy-proven cirrhosis with ascites; retroperitoneal fibrosis; or New York Heart Association functional class III-IV angina, left ventricular ejection fraction less than 30%, recent congestive heart failure, complex ventricular ectopy, large left ventricular aneurysm, severe valvular disease, recurrent congestive heart failure or angina after coronary artery bypass grafting, or severe unreconstructed coronary artery disease confirmed by angiography. The mortality rate for conventional aneurysm repair in high-risk patients was 5.7%, compared with a reported 7% mortality rate for nonresective therapy. In those patients with severe cardiac dysfunction, intraoperative pharmacologic manipulation and the selective use of intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation appeared helpful in achieving survival.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

23 keywords...

hide…