BACKGROUND: Decision-making related to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in elderly patients is hampered by inadequate outcome data. We compared the clinical outcomes of octogenarians with those of septuagenarians who underwent CABG. Our secondary objective was to compare the costs associated with CABG in these groups. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective database review of patients 70 years of age and older who had undergone CABG at a regional cardiac surgical centre in Hamilton, Ont., between July 1, 1997, and Apr. 30, 2000. A total of 1034 patients were divided into 3 age groups: young septuagenarians (aged 70-74 years), old septuagenarians (aged 75-79) and those 80 and older. Costs were determined in a subset of 773 patients with the use of a case-costing system for cardiac surgery developed at our institution. RESULTS: The 3 groups were similar with respect to sex distribution and preoperative risk factors. Urgency scores at referral differed significantly between the groups, with the young septuagenarians demonstrating the lowest risk (mean score [and standard deviation] 4.48 [1.3] in that group, 4.28 [1.4] in the old septuagenarian group and 4.11 [1.2] in the octogenarian group). The rates of all complications combined were similar between the 3 groups (27.1%, 28.1% and 29.6% in the young and old septuagenarian groups and the octogenarian group respectively). There were no significant differences between the 3 groups in the mean number of grafts per patient (3.0, 3.1 and 3.0 respectively), the rate of postoperative death (3.3%, 5.7% and 4.2%), the mean length of stay (11.7, 13.4 and 12.6 days) or the incidence of postoperative myocardial infarction (4.5%, 3.4% and 4.2%). The total cost of CABG per patient did not differ significantly between the 3 groups. INTERPRETATION: Given that patients who are accepted for CABG represent a selected population, our findings suggest that, with careful triage, CABG in octogenarians is as safe as, and no more costly than, CABG in septuagenarians.
BACKGROUND: Decision-making related to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) in elderly patients is hampered by inadequate outcome data. We compared the clinical outcomes of octogenarians with those of septuagenarians who underwent CABG. Our secondary objective was to compare the costs associated with CABG in these groups. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective database review of patients 70 years of age and older who had undergone CABG at a regional cardiac surgical centre in Hamilton, Ont., between July 1, 1997, and Apr. 30, 2000. A total of 1034 patients were divided into 3 age groups: young septuagenarians (aged 70-74 years), old septuagenarians (aged 75-79) and those 80 and older. Costs were determined in a subset of 773 patients with the use of a case-costing system for cardiac surgery developed at our institution. RESULTS: The 3 groups were similar with respect to sex distribution and preoperative risk factors. Urgency scores at referral differed significantly between the groups, with the young septuagenarians demonstrating the lowest risk (mean score [and standard deviation] 4.48 [1.3] in that group, 4.28 [1.4] in the old septuagenarian group and 4.11 [1.2] in the octogenarian group). The rates of all complications combined were similar between the 3 groups (27.1%, 28.1% and 29.6% in the young and old septuagenarian groups and the octogenarian group respectively). There were no significant differences between the 3 groups in the mean number of grafts per patient (3.0, 3.1 and 3.0 respectively), the rate of postoperative death (3.3%, 5.7% and 4.2%), the mean length of stay (11.7, 13.4 and 12.6 days) or the incidence of postoperative myocardial infarction (4.5%, 3.4% and 4.2%). The total cost of CABG per patient did not differ significantly between the 3 groups. INTERPRETATION: Given that patients who are accepted for CABG represent a selected population, our findings suggest that, with careful triage, CABG in octogenarians is as safe as, and no more costly than, CABG in septuagenarians.
Authors: K P Alexander; K J Anstrom; L H Muhlbaier; R D Grosswald; P K Smith; R H Jones; E D Peterson Journal: J Am Coll Cardiol Date: 2000-03-01 Impact factor: 24.094
Authors: K S Naunheim; M J Kern; L R McBride; D G Pennington; H B Barner; K R Kanter; A C Fiore; V L Willman; G C Kaiser Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1987-04-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: E D Peterson; P A Cowper; J G Jollis; J D Bebchuk; E R DeLong; L H Muhlbaier; D B Mark; D B Pryor Journal: Circulation Date: 1995-11-01 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: A Diegeler; R Autschbach; V Falk; T Walther; J Gummert; F W Mohr; H Dalichau Journal: Thorac Cardiovasc Surg Date: 1995-10 Impact factor: 1.827
Authors: C D Naylor; C D Morgan; C M Levinton; S Wheeler; L Hunter; K Klymciw; R S Baigrie; B S Goldman Journal: CMAJ Date: 1993-10-01 Impact factor: 8.262
Authors: D D Glower; T D Christopher; C A Milano; W D White; L R Smith; R H Jones; D C Sabiston Journal: Am J Cardiol Date: 1992-09-01 Impact factor: 2.778
Authors: A D Nagpal; G Bhatnagar; C A Cutrara; S M Ahmed; N McKenzie; M Quantz; B Kiaii; A Menkis; S Fox; L Stitt; R J Novick Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2006-08 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Vincent Bach; Sophie Tramaille; Olivier Chavanon; Michel Durand; Marianne Noirclerc; Claire Vesin; Paolo Porcu; Rachid Hacini; Gérald Vanzetto; Jacques Machecourt Journal: Can J Cardiol Date: 2008-10 Impact factor: 5.223
Authors: Anthony Lemaire; Cassandra Soto; Lauren Salgueiro; Hirohisa Ikegami; Mark J Russo; Leonard Y Lee Journal: J Cardiothorac Surg Date: 2020-07-01 Impact factor: 1.637