ABSTRACT
Background: Studies evaluating the hemostatic effects of fibrinogen administration in cardiac surgery are not conclusive. Aims: We investigated whether the use of a low-dose human fibrinogen in case of clinical bleeding after protamine administration and concomitant low FIBTEM values is effective in reducing postoperative bleeding. Secondary end-point was to investigate the consumption of allogeneic blood products. Setting and Design: This was a retrospective matched study conducted at university hospital. Materials and Methods: Among 2257 patients undergoing surgery with cardiopulmonary (CPB) bypass, 73 patients received a median dose of 1 g human fibrinogen (ROTEM-Fibri group). This group was matched with 73 patients who had not received human fibrinogen (control group) among 390 patients having undergone surgery at the moment FIBTEM analysis was unavailable. Statistical Analysis: Matching was performed for the type and the presence of redo surgery. McNemar and Wilcoxon paired tests were used to respectively compare the categorical and quantitative variables. Results: The CPB bypass time was significantly higher in the ROTEM-Fibri group (P = 0.006). This group showed significantly higher bleeding in the first 12 and 24 h postoperatively (P < 0.001) and required significantly more transfusion of blood products (P < 0.001) and surgical revision (P = 0.007) when compared with the control group. There was no significant difference in the number of thromboembolic complications. Conclusions: These results show that the administration of 1 g of fibrinogen based on low-FIBTEM values and clinical bleeding after protamine administration does not stop bleeding and the need for transfusion of allogeneic blood products.
ABSTRACT
Context: Several studies have analyzed the long‑term survival after transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). However, no previous studies have looked at survival beyond 1‑year with respect to the type of anesthesia. Aims: The aim was to evaluate the mid‑term survival after TAVI with respect to the type of anesthesia (general anesthesia [GA] vs. local anesthesia ± sedation [LASedation]) or the type of procedure (transfemoral [transfem] vs. transapical TAVI) performed. Settings and Design: Retrospective cohort study. Subjects and Methods: This retrospective study included TAVI’s between January 2009 and June 2013. Patients were divided into three groups: transfem TAVI under GA, transfem TAVI under LASedation and transapical TAVI. A total of 176 patients were eligible. The following clinical outcomes were evaluated: (1) Mortality, (2) Major cardiovascular complications, (3) Conduction abnormalities and arrhythmias, (4) Acute kidney injury, (5) Aortic regurgitation, (6) Neurologic events, (7) Vascular complications, (8) Pulmonary complications, (9) Bleeding, (10) Infectious complications, (11) Delirium. Statistical Analysis Used: A Kruskal–Wallis test was performed to test significance between the three groups for quantitative variables. Categorical variables were compared using a Chi‑square test. Survival was estimated using Kaplan–Meier method. Results: There was no statistically significant difference between the survival of both transfem TAVI’s (P = 0.46). The short‑term outcome of the transfem TAVI groups was better than the transapical arm, but their mid‑term survival did not show any significant difference (P = 0.69 transapical vs. transfem GA; P = 0.07 transapical vs. transfem LASedation). Conclusions: Our results demonstrate that the type of anesthesia and the access route do not influence mid‑term survival after TAVI.