A multi-country survey on the availability of intraoperative use of echocardiography for noncardiac surgery

BACKGROUND: This survey aimed to explore the availability and accessibility of echocardiography during noncardiac surgery worldwide. METHODS: An internet-based 45-item survey was sent, followed by reminders from August 30, 2021, to August 20, 2022. RESULTS: 1189 responses were received from 62 countries. Nearly seventy-one percent of respondents had intraoperatively used transesophageal or transthoracic echocardiography (TEE and TTE, respectively) for monitoring or examination. The unavailability of echocardiography machines (30.3%), lack of trained personnel (30.2%), and absence of clinical indications (22.6%) were the top 3 reasons for not using intraoperative echocardiography in noncardiac surgery. About 61.5% of participants had access to at least one echocardiography machine. About 41% had access to at least 1 TEE probe, and 62.2% had access to at least 1 TTE probe. Seventy-four percent of centers had a procedure to request intraoperative echocardiography if needed for noncardiac cases. Intraoperative echocardiography service was immediately available in 58% of centers. CONCLUSIONS: Echocardiography machines and skilled echocardiographers are still unavailable at many centers worldwide. National societies should aim to train a critical mass of certified TEE/TTE anesthesiologists and provide all anesthesiologists access to perioperative TEE/TTE machines in anesthesiology departments, considering the increasing number of older and sicker surgical patients scheduled for noncardiac surgery.

A Multi-Country Survey on the Availability of Intraoperative Use of Echocardiography for Noncardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: This survey aimed to explore the availability and accessibility of echocardiography during noncardiac surgery worldwide. METHODS: An internet-based 45-item survey was sent, followed by reminders from August 30, 2021, to August 20, 2022. RESULTS: 1189 responses were received from 62 countries. Nearly seventy-one percent of respondents had intraoperatively used transesophageal or transthoracic echocardiography (TEE and TTE, respectively) for monitoring or examination. The unavailability of echocardiography machines (30.3%), lack of trained personnel (30.2%), and absence of clinical indications (22.6%) were the top 3 reasons for not using intraoperative echocardiography in noncardiac surgery. About 61.5% of participants had access to at least one echocardiography machine. About 41% had access to at least 1 TEE probe, and 62.2% had access to at least 1 TTE probe. Seventy-four percent of centers had a procedure to request intraoperative echocardiography if needed for noncardiac cases. Intraoperative echocardiography service was immediately available in 58% of centers. CONCLUSIONS: Echocardiography machines and skilled echocardiographers are still unavailable at many centers worldwide. National societies should aim to train a critical mass of certified TEE/TTE anesthesiologists and provide all anesthesiologists access to perioperative TEE/TTE machines in anesthesiology departments, considering the increasing number of older and sicker surgical patients scheduled for noncardiac surgery.

Harnessing the potential of large language models in medical education: promise and pitfalls.

OBJECTIVES: To provide balanced consideration of the opportunities and challenges associated with integrating Large Language Models (LLMs) throughout the medical school continuum. PROCESS: Narrative review of published literature contextualized by current reports of LLM application in medical education. CONCLUSIONS: LLMs like OpenAI's ChatGPT can potentially revolutionize traditional teaching methodologies. LLMs offer several potential advantages to students, including direct access to vast information, facilitation of personalized learning experiences, and enhancement of clinical skills development. For faculty and instructors, LLMs can facilitate innovative approaches to teaching complex medical concepts and fostering student engagement. Notable challenges of LLMs integration include the risk of fostering academic misconduct, inadvertent overreliance on AI, potential dilution of critical thinking skills, concerns regarding the accuracy and reliability of LLM-generated content, and the possible implications on teaching staff.

Malnutrition risk, outcomes, and costs among older adults undergoing elective surgical procedures: A retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: We examine here the association between malnutrition risk and adverse health outcomes among older adult patients undergoing elective surgical procedures. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective study using linked clinical and administrative databases. Malnutrition risk was assessed prior to surgery, defined by unintentional weight loss and decreased food intake. We performed a logistic regression analysis of the primary outcome, a composite adverse outcome measure, including death, bleeding, pneumonia, and other surgical complications. We conducted Fine-Gray proportional hazard regression analysis of hospital length of stay (LOS). We performed a generalized linear regression analysis of in-hospital cost data. All regression analyses controlled for frailty, age, sex, surgical category, and comorbidities. RESULTS: Of a total of 3457 older adult elective surgical patients (65-102 years), 310 (9.0%) screened positive for malnutrition risk. In multivariable regression analyses, malnutrition risk was associated with an increased risk of the composite adverse outcome (odds ratio [OR] = 1.74; 95% CI = 1.25-2.39), higher hospitalization costs (relative cost = 1.84; 95% CI = 1.59-2.13), and a decreased risk of discharge from the hospital (hazard ratio = 0.67; 95% CI = 0.59-0.77) compared with those who screened negative. CONCLUSION: Older adult patients with malnutrition risk were at an increased risk of adverse surgical outcomes, had longer LOS in the hospital, and incurred higher costs of care. It is important to screen for malnutrition risk and refer older adults for dietetic consults prior to elective surgery.

Performance of administrative database frailty instruments in predicting clinical outcomes and cost for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a historical cohort study.

PURPOSE: Frailty instruments may improve prognostic estimates for patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI). Few studies have evaluated and compared the performance of administrative database frailty instruments for patients undergoing TAVI. This study aimed to examine the performance of administrative database frailty instruments in predicting clinical outcomes and costs in patients who underwent TAVI. METHODS: We conducted a historical cohort study of 3,848 patients aged 66 yr or older who underwent a TAVI procedure in Ontario, Canada from 1 April 2012 to 31 March 2018. We used the Johns Hopkins Adjusted Clinical Group (ACG) frailty indicator and the Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) to assign frailty status. Outcomes of interest were in-hospital mortality, one-year mortality, rehospitalization, and healthcare costs. We compared the performance of the two frailty instruments with that of a reference model that adjusted baseline covariates and procedural characteristics. Accuracy measures included c-statistics, Akaike information criterion (AIC), Bayesian information criterion (BIC), integrated discrimination improvement (IDI), net reclassification index (NRI), bias, and accuracy of cost estimates. RESULTS: A total of 863 patients (22.4%) were identified as frail using the Johns Hopkins ACG frailty indicator and 865 (22.5%) were identified as frail using the HFRS. Although agreement between the frailty instruments was fair (Kappa statistic = 0.322), each instrument classified different subgroups as frail. Both the Johns Hopkins ACG frailty indicator (rate ratio [RR], 1.13; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.06 to 1.20) and the HFRS (RR, 1.14; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.21) were significantly associated with increased one-year costs. Compared with the reference model, both the Johns Hopkins ACG frailty indicator and HFRS significantly improved NRI for one-year mortality (Johns Hopkins ACG frailty indicator: NRI, 0.160; P < 0.001; HFRS: NRI, 0.146; P = 0.001) and rehospitalization (Johns Hopkins ACG frailty indicator: NRI, 0.201; P < 0.001; HFRS: NRI, 0.141; P = 0.001). These improvements in NRI largely resulted from classification improvement among those who did not experience the event. With one-year mortality, there was a significant improvement in IDI (IDI, 0.003; P < 0.001) with the Johns Hopkins ACG frailty indicator. This improvement in performance resulted from an increase in the mean probability of the event among those with the event. CONCLUSION: Preoperative frailty assessment may add some predictive value for TAVI outcomes. Use of administrative database frailty instruments may provide small but significant improvements in case-mix adjustment when profiling hospitals for certain outcomes.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: L'utilisation d'indicateur de fragilité pourrait améliorer l'évaluation pronostique des patients bénéficiant d'un remplacement valvulaire aortique par voie percutanée (procédure TAVI). Peu d'études ont évalué et comparé la performance des instruments d'évaluation de la fragilité développés à partir de données administratives chez les patients bénéficiant d'un TAVI. Nous avions pour objectif d'examiner la performance des instruments d'évaluation de la fragilité développés à partir de données administratives dans la prédiction des issues cliniques et des coûts chez les patients ayant bénéficié d'un TAVI. MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une étude de cohorte historique auprès de 3848 patients âgés de 66 ans ou plus qui ont bénéficié d'une procédure TAVI en Ontario, Canada, du 1er avril 2012 au 31 mars 2018. Nous avons utilisé l'indicateur de fragilité ACG (Adjusted Clinical Group) de Johns Hopkins et le score de risque de fragilité à l'hôpital (HFRS) pour définir la fragilité. Les critères d'évaluation étaient la mortalité hospitalière, la mortalité à un an, la réhospitalisation et les coûts des soins de santé. Nous avons comparé la performance des deux instruments d'évaluation de la fragilité à celle d'un modèle de référence qui ajustait les covariables de base et les caractéristiques procédurales. Les mesures d'exactitude comprenaient l'analyse statistique c, le critère d'information d'Akaike (AIC), le critère d'information bayésien (BIC), l'amélioration de la discrimination intégrée (IDI), l'indice NRI (net reclassification index), le biais et l'exactitude des estimations de coûts. RéSULTATS: Au total, 863 patients (22,4 %) ont été identifiés comme fragiles à l'aide de l'indicateur de fragilité ACG de Johns Hopkins, et 865 (22,5 %) ont été identifiés comme fragiles à l'aide du HFRS. Bien que l'agrément entre les instruments d'évaluation de la fragilité ait été acceptable (statistique de Kappa = 0,322), chaque instrument a classé des sous-groupes différents comme étant fragiles. L'indicateur de fragilité ACG de Johns Hopkins (rapport de taux [RR], 1,13; intervalle de confiance à 95 % [IC], 1,06 à 1,20) et le HFRS (RR, 1,14; IC 95 %, 1,07 à 1,21) étaient associés de façon significative à une augmentation des coûts sur un an. Par rapport au modèle de référence, l'indicateur de fragilité ACG de Johns Hopkins améliorent de façon significative le NRI pour la mortalité (l'indicateur de fragilité ACG de Johns Hopkins: NRI, 0.160; P < 0.001; HFRS: NRI, 0.146; P = 0.001) et la réhospitalisation (l'indicateur de fragilité ACG: NRI, 0.201; P < 0.001; HFRS: NRI, 0.141; P = 0.001) à un an. Ces améliorations du NRI résultent en grande partie de l'amélioration de la classification chez ceux qui n'ont pas bénéficié d'un TAVI. En ce qui a trait à la mortalité à un an, il y a eu une amélioration significative de l'IDI (IDI, 0,003; P < 0,001) avec l'indicateur de fragilité ACG de Johns Hopkins. Cette amélioration de la performance résultait d'une augmentation de la probabilité moyenne de TAVI chez les personnes ayant vécu l'événement. CONCLUSION: L'évaluation préopératoire de la fragilité peut ajouter une certaine valeur prédictive aux issues cliniques suivant une procédure de TAVI. L'utilisation d'instruments d'évaluation de la fragilité développés à partir de données administratives peut apporter des améliorations mineures mais significatives pour l'ajustement de risque lors de l'évaluation des hôpitaux en fonction de certaines issues cliniques.

Magnitude of COVID-19 deaths relative to other leading causes of death: a global analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To quantify the burden of death that COVID-19 contributes relative to the top three causes of death for all countries. DESIGN: We performed uncertainty analyses and created contour plots for COVID-19 mortality to place the number of COVID-19 deaths in context relative to the top three causes of death in each country, across a plausible range of values for two key parameters: case fatality rate and magnitude of under-reporting. SETTING: All countries that have reported COVID-19 cases to the WHO and are included in the Global Burden of Disease Study by the Institute of Health Metrics and Evaluation. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: Monthly number of deaths caused by COVID-19 and monthly number of deaths caused by the top three causes of death for every country. RESULTS: For countries that were particularly hard hit during the outbreak in 2020, most combinations of model parameters resulted in COVID-19 ranking within the top three causes of death. For countries not as hard hit on a per-capita basis, such as China and India, COVID-19 did not rank higher than the third leading cause of death at any combination of the model parameters within the given ranges. Up-to-date ranking of COVID-19 deaths relative to the top three causes of death for all countries globally is provided in an interactive online application. CONCLUSIONS: Estimating the country-level burden of death that COVID-19 contributes relative to the top three causes of death is feasible through contour graphs, even when the actual number of deaths or cases is unknown. This method can help convey importance by placing the magnitude of COVID-related deaths in context relative to more familiar causes of death by communicating when COVID-related deaths rank among the top three causes of death.

Impact of COVID-19 on excess mortality, life expectancy, and years of life lost in the United States.

This paper quantifies the net impact (direct and indirect effects) of the pandemic on the United States population in 2020 using three metrics: excess deaths, life expectancy, and total years of life lost. The findings indicate there were 375,235 excess deaths, with 83% attributable to direct, and 17% attributable to indirect effects of COVID-19. The decrease in life expectancy was 1.67 years, translating to a reversion of 14 years in historical life expectancy gains. Total years of life lost in 2020 was 7,362,555 across the USA (73% directly attributable, 27% indirectly attributable to COVID-19), with considerable heterogeneity at the individual state level.

Measurement and prognosis of frail patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Our objectives were to review the literature to identify frailty instruments in use for transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) recipients and synthesise prognostic data from these studies, in order to inform clinical management of frail patients undergoing TAVI. METHODS: We systematically reviewed the literature published in 2006 or later. We included studies of patients with aortic stenosis, diagnosed as frail, who underwent a TAVI procedure that reported mortality or clinical outcomes. We categorised the frailty instruments and reported on the prevalence of frailty in each study. We summarised the frequency of clinical outcomes and pooled outcomes from multiple studies. We explored heterogeneity and performed subgroup analysis, where possible. We also used Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) to assess the overall certainty of the estimates. RESULTS: Of 49 included studies, 21 used single-dimension measures to assess frailty, 3 used administrative data-based measures, and 25 used multidimensional measures. Prevalence of frailty ranged from 5.67% to 90.07%. Albumin was the most commonly used single-dimension frailty measure and the Fried or modified Fried phenotype were the most commonly used multidimensional measures. Meta-analyses of studies that used either the Fried or modified Fried phenotype showed a 30-day mortality of 7.86% (95% CI 5.20% to 11.70%) and a 1-year mortality of 26.91% (95% CI 21.50% to 33.11%). The GRADE system suggests very low certainty of the respective estimates. CONCLUSIONS: Frailty instruments varied across studies, leading to a wide range of frailty prevalence estimates for TAVI recipients and substantial heterogeneity. The results provide clinicians, patients and healthcare administrators, with potentially useful information on the prognosis of frail patients undergoing TAVI. This review highlights the need for standardisation of frailty measurement to promote consistency. PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018090597.

Platelet Transfusion in Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

BACKGROUND: Blood transfusion is a well-established independent risk factor for mortality in patients undergoing cardiac surgery but the impact of platelet transfusion is less clear. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies comparing outcomes of patients who received platelet transfusion after cardiac surgery. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE and EMBASE databases to January 2019 for studies comparing perioperative outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with and without platelet transfusion. RESULTS: There were nine observational studies reporting 101,511 patients: 12% with and 88% without platelet transfusion. In unmatched/unadjusted studies, patients who received platelet transfusion were older, with greater incidence of renal, peripheral, and cerebrovascular disease, myocardial infarction, left ventricular dysfunction, and anemia. They were more likely to have nonelective, combined surgery; preoperative hemodynamic instability and endocarditis; and more likely to be receiving clopidogrel preoperatively. Perioperative complications were significantly increased without adjusting for these baseline differences. After pooling only matched/adjusted data, differences were not found between patients who did receive platelets and patients who did not in operative mortality (risk ratio [RR] 1.26; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 2.32, P = .46, five studies), stroke (RR 0.94; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.45; P = .79; five studies), myocardial infarction (RR 1.29; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.77; P = .11; three studies), reoperation for bleeding (RR 1.20; 95% CI, 0.46 to 3.18; P = .71; three studies), infection (RR 1.02; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.20; P = .85; six studies); and perioperative dialysis (RR 0.91; 95% CI, 0.63 to 1.32; P = .62; three studies). CONCLUSIONS: After accounting for baseline differences, platelet transfusion was not linked with perioperative complications in cardiac surgery patients. Given the small number of observational studies, these findings should be considered hypothesis generating.

Frailty in patients undergoing transcatheter aortic valve implantation: a protocol for a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Aortic stenosis is a significant cause of morbidity and mortality in older patients. The advent of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) offers an alternative to surgical aortic valve replacement for patients with severe symptomatic aortic stenosis who are at high or intermediate risk of adverse events. Existing evidence highlights the importance of frailty as a predictor of poor outcomes post-TAVI. The objective of this study is to review the operationalisation of frailty instruments for TAVI recipients and determine clinical outcomes and the change in quality of life in frail patients undergoing TAVI. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Methods are reported according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols 2015 checklist. We will search relevant databases to identify published, completed but unpublished and ongoing studies. We will include studies of patients with aortic stenosis, diagnosed as frail and who underwent a TAVI procedure that report mortality, clinical outcomes or health-related quality of life. Retrospective or prospective cohort studies, randomised controlled trials and non-randomised controlled trials will be eligible for inclusion. Two researchers will independently screen articles for inclusion, with disagreements resolved by a third reviewer. One researcher will extract data with audit by a second researcher. The risk of bias in studies will be evaluated using the Quality in Prognosis Studies tool. Meta-analysis of mortality, survival curve and the change in quality of life will be performed if appropriate. Subgroup analysis, sensitivity analysis and meta-regression will be performed if necessary. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Due to the nature of this study, no ethical issues are foreseen. We will disseminate the results of our systematic review through a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: CRD42018090597.

Dexmedetomidine for craniotomy under general anesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized clinical trials.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To assess the efficacy and safety of dexmedetomidine as an adjunct to general anesthesia for craniotomy. DESIGN: A meta-analysis after systematically searching PubMed, Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane library for randomized trials (RCTs). Relative risk (RR) and weighted mean difference (WMD) were calculated using random-effects meta-analysis. SETTING: Perioperative setting. PATIENTS: Twenty-two RCTs (1348 patients) with craniotomy under general anesthesia were included. INTERVENTIONS: Dexmedetomidine as an adjunct to general anesthesia versus placebo or other anesthetics. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes included procedure success and postoperative pain; Secondary outcomes included cardiac adverse events, postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and other clinically important outcomes. MAIN RESULTS: Dexmedetomidine vs. Placebo: High to moderate quality evidence suggested that dexmedetomidine reduced postoperative pain (WMD -0.25 cm, 95%CI -0.43 to -0.07 cm on a 10 cm visual analogue scale), postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV, RR 0.57, 95%CI 0.39 to 0.84), hypertension (RR 0.37, 95%CI 0.22 to 0.61) and tachycardia (RR 0.32, 95%CI 0.12 to 0.85) with no significant increase of hypotension and bradycardia. Moderate quality evidence suggested no significant difference in procedural success. Dexmedetomidine vs. Active Comparators (including remifentanil, fentanyl, or propofol): Moderate quality evidence showed no difference in procedural success and postoperative pain. CONCLUSIONS: Dexmedetomidine as an adjunct to general anesthesia shows small benefits in reduction of pain, PONV, and maintains more stable hemodynamics with comparable effects on procedural success versus placebo. Very limited evidence explored comparative effects between dexmedetomidine and active controls. Further evidence is required to evaluate patient-important outcomes and optimal dosing strategies, particularly versus active comparators.

Clinical impact of disinvestment in hydroxyethyl starch for patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery: a retrospective observational study.

PURPOSE: To examine the effect of discontinuing hydroxyethyl starch (HES) solutions on length of hospital stay, transfusion, risk of death, acute kidney injury (AKI), and dialysis. METHODS: We conducted a historical cohort study of linked administrative and clinical databases in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) on cardiopulmonary bypass. We used propensity scores to match patients who did not receive HES (after discontinuation) with patients exposed to HES (before discontinuation) and also controlled for albumin exposure. Hospital length of stay (the primary outcome) was analyzed using Fine-Gray proportional hazard regression, with hospital discharge as the outcome and death as a competing risk. Adverse outcomes were compared between matched patients using conditional logistic regression. RESULTS: We compared 1,085 propensity score-matched pairs (n = 2,170) from a pool of 2,757 patients. Discontinuation of HES was associated with shorter length of hospital stay, as evidenced by an increased probability of discharge (hazard ratio, 1.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.14 to 1.35) and a reduced risk of red blood cell transfusion (odds ratio [OR], 0.68; 95% CI, 0.55 to 0.84), plasma transfusion (OR, 0.48; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.66), and platelet transfusion (OR, 0.62; 95% CI, 0.44 to 0.87). Discontinuation of HES was not associated with in-hospital mortality (OR, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.36 to 1.54), AKI (OR, 0.84; 95% CI, 0.57 to 1.25), or dialysis (OR, 0.83; 95% CI, 0.25 to 2.73). CONCLUSIONS: For patients undergoing CABG on cardiopulmonary bypass, discontinuation of HES was associated with reduced hospital length of stay and reduced blood product transfusion, without measurable change in renal failure, dialysis rate, or in-hospital mortality. Our results should be interpreted with caution, though we found no evidence of harms associated with discontinuing HES. TRIAL REGISTRATION: www.clinicaltrials.gov (NCT02329158); registered 31 December, 2014.

Fibrinogen Concentrate in Cardiovascular Surgery: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative bleeding remains a frequent complication after cardiovascular surgery and may contribute to serious morbidity and mortality. Observational studies have suggested a relationship between low endogenous plasma fibrinogen concentration and increased risk of postoperative blood loss in cardiac surgery. Although the transfusion of fibrinogen concentrate has been increasing, potential benefits and risks associated with perioperative fibrinogen supplementation in cardiovascular surgery are not fully understood. METHODS: PubMed, Cochrane Library, Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science, and China National Knowledge Infrastructure were searched on January 15, 2017, with automated updates searched until February 15, 2018, to identify all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of fibrinogen concentrate, whether for prophylaxis or treatment of bleeding, in adults undergoing cardiovascular surgery. All RCTs comparing fibrinogen infusion versus any other comparator (placebo/standard of care or another active comparator) in adult cardiovascular surgery and reporting at least 1 predefined clinical outcome were included. The random-effects model was used to calculate risk ratios and weighted mean differences (95% confidence interval [CI]) for dichotomous and continuous variables, respectively. Subgroup analyses by fibrinogen dose and by baseline risk for bleeding were preplanned. RESULTS: A total of 8 RCTs of fibrinogen concentrate in adults (n = 597) of mixed risk or high risk undergoing cardiovascular surgery were included. Compared to placebo or inactive control, perioperative fibrinogen concentrate did not significantly impact risk of all-cause mortality (risk ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.12-1.38; I = 10%; P = .15). Fibrinogen significantly reduced incidence of allogeneic red blood cell transfusion (risk ratio, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.49-0.83; I = 0%; P = .001). No significant differences were found for other clinical outcomes. Subgroup analyses were unremarkable when analyzed according to fibrinogen dose, time of infusion initiation, mean cardiopulmonary bypass time, and rotational thromboelastometry/fibrinogen temogram use (all P values for subgroup interaction were nonsignificant). CONCLUSIONS: Current evidence remains insufficient to support or refute routine perioperative administration of fibrinogen concentrate in patients undergoing cardiovascular surgery. Fibrinogen concentrate may reduce the need for additional allogeneic blood product transfusion in cardiovascular surgery patients at high risk or with evidence of bleeding. However, no definitive advantage was found for reduction in risk of mortality or other clinically relevant outcomes. The small number of clinical events within existing randomized trials suggests that further well-designed studies of adequate power and duration to measure all-cause mortality, stroke, myocardial infarction, reoperation, and thromboembolic events should be conducted. Future studies should also address cost-effectiveness relative to standard of care.

Should Transfusion Trigger Thresholds Differ for Critical Care Versus Perioperative Patients? A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Trials.

OBJECTIVE: To address the significant uncertainty as to whether transfusion thresholds for critical care versus surgical patients should differ. DESIGN: Meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. SETTING: Medline, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library searches were performed up to 15 June 2016. PATIENTS: Trials had to enroll adult surgical or critically ill patients for inclusion. INTERVENTIONS: Studies had to compare a liberal versus restrictive threshold for the transfusion of allogeneic packed RBCs. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was 30-day all-cause mortality, sub-grouped by surgical and critical care patients. Secondary outcomes included myocardial infarction, stroke, renal failure, allogeneic blood exposure, and length of stay. Odds ratios and weighted mean differences were calculated using random effects meta-analysis. To assess whether subgroups were significantly different, tests for subgroup interaction were used. Subgroup analysis by trials enrolling critically ill versus surgical patients was performed. Twenty-seven randomized controlled trials (10,797 patients) were included. In critical care patients, restrictive transfusion resulted in significantly reduced 30-day mortality compared with liberal transfusion (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.70-0.97). In surgical patients, a restrictive transfusion strategy led to the opposite direction of effect for mortality (odds ratio, 1.31; 95% CI, 0.94-1.82). The subgroup interaction test was significant (p = 0.04), suggesting that the effect of restrictive transfusion on mortality is statistically different for critical care (decreased risk) versus surgical patients (potentially increased risk or no difference). Regarding secondary outcomes, for critically ill patients, a restrictive strategy resulted in reduced risk of stroke/transient ischemic attack, packed RBC exposure, transfusion reactions, and hospital length of stay. In surgical patients, restrictive transfusion resulted in reduced packed RBC exposure. CONCLUSIONS: The safety of restrictive transfusion strategies likely differs for critically ill patients versus perioperative patients. Further trials investigating transfusion strategies in the perioperative setting are necessary.

Postoperative Outcomes in Obstructive Sleep Apnea Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Comparative Studies.

BACKGROUND: Obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) is a common comorbidity in patients undergoing cardiac surgery and may predispose patients to postoperative complications. The purpose of this meta-analysis is to determine the evidence of postoperative complications associated with OSA patients undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS: A literature search of Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Medline, Medline In-process, Web of Science, Scopus, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL until October 2016 was performed. The search was constrained to studies in adult cardiac surgical patients with diagnosed or suspected OSA. All included studies must report at least 1 postoperative complication. The primary outcome is major adverse cardiac or cerebrovascular events (MACCEs) up to 30 days after surgery, which includes death from all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, myocardial injury, nonfatal cardiac arrest, revascularization process, pulmonary embolism, deep venous thrombosis, newly documented postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF), stroke, and congestive heart failure. Secondary outcome is newly documented POAF. The other exploratory outcomes include the following: (1) postoperative tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation; (2) infection and/or sepsis; (3) unplanned intensive care unit (ICU) admission; and (4) duration of stay in hospital and ICU. Meta-analysis and meta- regression were conducted using Cochrane Review Manager 5.3 (Cochrane, London, UK) and OpenBUGS v3.0, respectively. RESULTS: Eleven comparative studies were included (n = 1801 patients; OSA versus non-OSA: 688 vs 1113, respectively). MACCEs were 33.3% higher odds in OSA versus non-OSA patients (OSA versus non-OSA: 31% vs 10.6%; odds ratio [OR], 2.4; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.38-4.2; P = .002). The odds of newly documented POAF (OSA versus non-OSA: 31% vs 21%; OR, 1.94; 95% CI, 1.13-3.33; P = .02) was higher in OSA compared to non-OSA. Even though the postoperative tracheal intubation and mechanical ventilation (OSA versus non-OSA: 13% vs 5.4%; OR, 2.67; 95% CI, 1.03-6.89; P = .04) were significantly higher in OSA patients, the length of ICU stay and hospital stay were not significantly prolonged in patients with OSA compared to non-OSA. The majority of OSA patients were not treated with continuous positive airway pressure therapy. Meta-regression and sensitivity analysis of the subgroups did not impact the OR of postoperative complications for OSA versus non-OSA groups. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis demonstrates that after cardiac surgery, MACCEs and newly documented POAF were 33.3% and 18.1% higher odds in OSA versus non-OSA patients, respectively.

Remifentanil as an alternative to epidural analgesia for vaginal delivery: A meta-analysis of randomized trials.

OBJECTIVES: Although epidural analgesia is considered the gold standard for labor pain management, its use may be restricted in some conditions due to clinical contraindications or availability, and suitable alternatives may be required. The objective of this meta-analysis was to determine whether evidence from randomized trials suggests remifentanil PCA (R-PCA) results in significant differences in maternal satisfaction, analgesic efficacy, and safety compared with conventional epidural analgesia (EA). DESIGN: We conducted a meta-analysis after systematically searching MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane Library for all randomized controlled trials (RCTs) allocating parturients to R-PCA or EA and reporting at least one outcome of interest. PATIENTS: Eight randomized trials of R-PCA vs EA with 2351 patients were included. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome of interest was maternal satisfaction. Secondary outcomes included visual analog pain score (VAS at 1, 2, 3h postoperatively), nausea, vomiting, pruritus, hypoxemia, acute respiratory depression or death (maternal or neonatal), need for Cesarean section, and neonatal Apgar score. MAIN RESULTS: Meta-analysis of the randomized trials showed no significant differences between the R-PCA and EA groups for maternal satisfaction, VAS at 2 or 3h, nausea, vomiting, need for cesarean section, respiratory depression, umbilical pH, and neonatal Apgar score at 1min and 5min. However, incidence of hypoxemia was higher [OR 7.48, 95%CI 3.42-16.36] and VAS at 1h was slightly higher [WMD 1.33, 95%CI 0.30-2.36] with R-PCA versus EA. Pruritus was less frequent in the R-PCA group [OR 0.54, 95%CI 0.32-0.89]. Acute respiratory failure and death were not reported in any of the studies. CONCLUSIONS: While no significant differences were detected for maternal satisfaction or for most clinical outcomes, this meta-analysis remains underpowered to rule out clinically-important differences due to the few existing randomized trials. For obstetric patients who are not candidates for EA, R-PCA may provide an alternative for analgesia in the peri-partum period, but caution is warranted particularly regarding hypoxemia, and suggests the need for increased surveillance and monitoring for R-PCA. Further adequately powered randomized trials with a focus on clinically-relevant maternal and neonatal outcomes are required to more accurately characterize the relative benefits and risks of R-PCA versus EA in this population.

Drugs That May Cause or Exacerbate Heart Failure: A Scientific Statement From the American Heart Association.

Heart failure is a common, costly, and debilitating syndrome that is associated with a highly complex drug regimen, a large number of comorbidities, and a large and often disparate number of healthcare providers. All of these factors conspire to increase the risk of heart failure exacerbation by direct myocardial toxicity, drug-drug interactions, or both. This scientific statement is designed to serve as a comprehensive and accessible source of drugs that may cause or exacerbate heart failure to assist healthcare providers in improving the quality of care for these patients.