RESUMO
Background: Electronic monitoring of physiologic variables has gained widespread support over the past decade for critical patients in the intensive care setting. Specifically, anesthesiologists have increased the emphasis and practice of hemodynamic control through monitoring cardiac output (CO). However, these physicians are presented with several options in terms of how they wish to study the trend of this physiologic parameter. Materials and Methods: A survey was distributed to 250 general and subspecialty-trained anesthesiologists. A series of questions were presented in terms of preference of patient monitoring methods requiring yes or no answers. Anesthesiologists were asked about subspecialty training, years since residency graduation, and preferences toward specific hemodynamic monitoring tools. Nonparametric statistical analysis and Chi-squared tests were used to analyze both normal and nonnormally distributed data. Results: CO monitoring devices were implemented by 106 out of 133 anesthesiologists, with 98 of these physicians utilizing CO monitoring for fluid and vasopressors response. Of the physicians implementing a monitoring device, 48 out of 107 physicians preferred pulmonary artery catheter, while pulse contour analysis was preferred by 17 anesthesiologists. An echocardiography unit was available to the department for 90 anesthesiologists, and 77 anesthesiologists were trained to use this technology for monitoring cardiac function. Conclusion: Many anesthesiologists have placed emphasis on the importance of CO monitoring within the intensive care setting. However, physicians are still faced with multiple options in terms of how they wish to specifically monitor this hemodynamic variable. Factors that influence such decisions include the time of physician's residency training along with patient and clinical case characteristics.
RESUMO
The role of body mass index (BMI) in the setting of coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery has been a focus of past studies. However, the effects of postoperative weight loss in patients after CABG is yet to be known. We performed a retrospective study of 899 patients who underwent CABG at our institution. Perioperative patient information was collected from an onsite electronic record system. Patients were grouped into four BMI categories: normal controls, overweight, obese and morbidly obese. Based on the postoperative BMI changes, patients were then grouped into three categories: gainers, no change and losers. Statistical analyses were performed using analysis of variance and linear regression to establish an association among the data. Hazard ratios (HR) and cumulative survival were obtained by the Cox-Mantel and Kaplan-Meier analyses, respectively. The normal controls exhibited a markedly higher mortality postoperatively, at 27.9%, especially when compared with the obese individuals (16.1%). Patients who lost weight faced a significantly increased risk of mortality than those who experienced no changes or gained weight after surgery. This trend was especially salient among the obese patients, who more than tripled their mortality risk (HR = 3.24) versus individuals who gained weight, and more than doubled their risk (HR = 2.87) versus those who had no changes. We conclude that obesity confers a survival advantage in the setting of the CABG surgery. Weight loss among all BMI categories of patients studied results in an adverse effect on postoperative survival.