RESUMEN
Lung-cancer screening with chest computerized tomography (CT) is not easy to introduce in low-medium resource countries due to cost issues. We investigated whether the increasing availability of chest CT exams in Brazil, in spite of no lung-cancer screening protocol, was associated with lung-cancer death rate along 10-year follow-up. We performed regressions to estimate the rate ratio between chest CT exams and lung-cancer deaths per 105 inhabitants. We stratified data per municipality. Regressions were adjusted for physicians and hospital beds per 105 inhabitants and per capita gross domestic product. Increasing availability of chest CT exams predicted decreasing lung-cancer death rate.
Asunto(s)
Neoplasias Pulmonares/diagnóstico , Neoplasias Pulmonares/mortalidad , Adulto , Detección Precoz del Cáncer/métodos , Femenino , Humanos , Estudios Longitudinales , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Tomografía Computarizada por Rayos X/métodosRESUMEN
Objective: To compare the results of aortic valve replacement with access by sternotomy or minimally invasive approach. Methods: Retrospective analysis of medical records of 37 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement by sternotomy or minimally invasive approach, with emphasis on the comparison of time of cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic clamping, volume of surgical bleeding, time of mechanical ventilation, need for blood transfusion, incidence of atrial fibrillation, length of stay in intensive care unit, time of hospital discharge, short-term mortality and presence of surgical wound infection. Results: Sternotomy was used in 22 patients and minimally invasive surgery in 15 patients. The minimally invasive approach had significantly higher time values of cardiopulmonary bypass (114.3±23.9 versus 86.7±19.8min.; P=0.003), aortic clamping (87.4±19.2 versus 61.4±12.9 min.; P<0.001) and mechanical ventilation (287.3±138.9 versus 153.9±118.6 min.; P=0.003). No difference was found in outcomes surgical bleeding volume, need for blood transfusion, incidence of atrial fibrillation, length of stay in intensive care unit and time of hospital discharge. No cases of short-term mortality or surgical wound infection were documented. Conclusion: The less invasive approach presented with longer times of cardiopulmonary bypass, aortic clamping and mechanical ventilation than sternotomy, however without prejudice to the length of stay in intensive care unit, time of hospital discharge and morbidity.
Asunto(s)
Enfermedades de las Válvulas Cardíacas/cirugía , Implantación de Prótesis de Válvulas Cardíacas/métodos , Esternotomía , Femenino , Humanos , Tiempo de Internación , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Mínimamente Invasivos/métodos , Estudios Retrospectivos , Resultado del TratamientoRESUMEN
Abstract Objective: To compare the results of aortic valve replacement with access by sternotomy or minimally invasive approach. Methods: Retrospective analysis of medical records of 37 patients undergoing aortic valve replacement by sternotomy or minimally invasive approach, with emphasis on the comparison of time of cardiopulmonary bypass and aortic clamping, volume of surgical bleeding, time of mechanical ventilation, need for blood transfusion, incidence of atrial fibrillation, length of stay in intensive care unit, time of hospital discharge, short-term mortality and presence of surgical wound infection. Results: Sternotomy was used in 22 patients and minimally invasive surgery in 15 patients. The minimally invasive approach had significantly higher time values of cardiopulmonary bypass (114.3±23.9 versus 86.7±19.8min.; P=0.003), aortic clamping (87.4±19.2 versus 61.4±12.9 min.; P<0.001) and mechanical ventilation (287.3±138.9 versus 153.9±118.6 min.; P=0.003). No difference was found in outcomes surgical bleeding volume, need for blood transfusion, incidence of atrial fibrillation, length of stay in intensive care unit and time of hospital discharge. No cases of short-term mortality or surgical wound infection were documented. Conclusion: The less invasive approach presented with longer times of cardiopulmonary bypass, aortic clamping and mechanical ventilation than sternotomy, however without prejudice to the length of stay in intensive care unit, time of hospital discharge and morbidity.