Key result
Cardiac surgery patients showed comparable long-term survival to the general population (SMR 1.02), though relative mortality was significantly higher in females, younger adults, and those undergoing aortic valve replacement.
Why the study?
Does cardiac surgery provide long-term relative survival comparable to the general population in adult patients?
Cohort (n=8,564)
No
Does cardiac surgery provide long-term relative survival comparable to the general population in adult patients?
Effect estimate: SMR 1.02 (95% CI 0.97-1.06)
Cardiac surgery patients have long-term survival comparable to the general population, though relative mortality is higher in females, younger patients, and those undergoing aortic valve replacement.
Supports comparable long-term survival after cardiac surgery overall; leaves open excess relative mortality in females, younger adults, and AVR recipients.
OBJECTIVES: To assess long-term survival and mortality in adult cardiac surgery patients. METHODS: 8,564 consecutive patients undergoing cardiac surgery in Trondheim, Norway from 2000 until censoring 31.12.2014 were prospectively followed. Observed long-term mortality following surgery was compared to the expected mortality in the Norwegian population, matched on gender, age and calendar year. This enabled assessment of relative survival (observed/expected survival rates) and relative mortality (observed/expected deaths). Long-term mortality was compared across gender, age and surgical procedure. Predictors of reduced survival were assessed with multivariate analyses of observed and relative mortality. RESULTS: During follow-up (median 6.4 years), 2,044 patients (23.9%) died. The observed 30-day, 1-, 3- and 5-year mortality rates were 2.2%, 4.4%, 8.2% and 13.8%, respectively, and remained constant throughout the study period. Comparing observed mortality to that expected in a matched sample from the general population, patients undergoing cardiac surgery showed excellent survival throughout the first seven years of follow-up (relative survival ≥ 1). Subsequently, survival decreased, which was more pronounced in females and patients undergoing other procedures than isolated coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Relative mortality was higher in younger age groups, females and patients undergoing aortic valve replacement (AVR). The female survival advantage in the general population was obliterated (relative mortality ratio (RMR) 1.35 (1.19-1.54), p<0.001). Increasing observed long-term mortality seen with ageing was due to population risk, and younger age was independently associated with increased relative mortality (RMR per 5 years 0.81 (0.79-0.84), p<0.001)). CONCLUSIONS: Cardiac surgery patients showed comparable survival to that expected in the general Norwegian population, underlining the benefits of cardiac surgery in appropriately selected patients. The beneficial effect lasted shorter in younger patients, females and patients undergoing AVR or other procedures than isolated CABG. Thus, the study identified three groups that need increased attention for further improvement of outcomes.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Enger et al. (2016) conducted a cohort in Cardiac disease requiring surgery (n=8,564). Cardiac surgery (CABG, AVR, or combined) vs. Matched general population was evaluated on Relative long-term mortality (SMR 1.02, 95% CI 0.97-1.06). Cardiac surgery patients showed comparable long-term survival to the general population (SMR 1.02), though relative mortality was significantly higher in females, younger adults, and those undergoing aortic valve replacement.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: