Prediction of Acute Myocardial Injury in Noncardiac Surgery in Patients at Risk for Major Adverse Cardiovascular and Cerebrovascular Events: A Multivariable Risk Model.

BACKGROUND: The best use of perioperative cardiac biomarkers assessment is still under discussion. Massive postoperative troponin surveillance can result in untenably high workloads and costs for health care systems and potentially harmful interventions for patients. In a cohort of patients at risk for major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), we aimed to (1) determine whether preoperative biomarkers can identify patients at major risk for acute myocardial injury in noncardiac surgery, (2) develop a risk model for acute myocardial injury prediction, and (3) propose an algorithm to optimize postoperative troponin surveillance. METHODS: Prospective, single-center cohort study enrolling consecutive adult patients (≥45 years) at risk for MACCE scheduled for intermediate-to-high-risk noncardiac surgery. Baseline high-sensitivity troponin T (hsTnT) and N-terminal fragment of pro-B-type natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP), as well as hsTnT on the first 3 postoperative days were obtained. The main outcome was the occurrence of acute myocardial injury. Candidate predictors of acute myocardial injury were baseline concentrations of hsTnT ≥14 ng/L and NT-proBNP ≥300 pg/mL and preoperative and intraoperative variables. A multivariable risk model and a decision curve were constructed. RESULTS: Of 732 patients, 42.1% had elevated hsTnT and 37.3% had elevated NT-proBNP levels at baseline. Acute myocardial injury occurred in 161 patients (22%). Elevated baseline hsTnT, found in 84% of patients with acute myocardial injury, was strongly associated with this outcome: odds ratio (OR), 12.08 (95% confidence interval [CI], 7.78-19.42). Logistic regression identified 6 other independent predictors for acute myocardial injury: age, sex, estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) <45 mL·min -1 ·1.73 m -2 , functional capacity <4 METs or unknown, NT-proBNP ≥300 pg/mL, and estimated intraoperative blood loss. The c -statistic for the risk model was 77% (95% CI, 0.73-0.81). The net benefit of the model began at a risk threshold of 7%. CONCLUSIONS: Baseline determination of cardiac biomarkers in patients at risk for MACCE shortly before intermediate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery helps identify those with the highest risk for acute myocardial injury. A baseline hsTnT ≥14 ng/L indicates the need for postoperative troponin surveillance. In patients with baseline hsTnT <14 ng/L, our 6-predictor model will identify additional patients at risk for acute myocardial injury who may also benefit from postoperative surveillance.

Mortality and incidence of cardiovascular events in patients treated with aspirin and statins at one year after myocardial injury in noncardiac surgery: a prospective observational study.

BACKGROUND: Recommendations on the diagnosis and management of myocardial injury in noncardiac surgery (MINS) show remarkable variability. Mortality reports also vary. We aimed to describe mortality and major adverse cardiovascular and cerebrovascular event (MACCE) rates in patients with silent MINS treated with postoperative aspirin-statin therapy and with cardiology follow-up. METHODS: Prospective descriptive cohort study of patients aged 45 years or older scheduled for noncardiac surgery with high risk for cardiovascular complications from May 2017 to April 2019. Aspirin-statin therapy and cardiology follow-up were prescribed for patients with silent (asymptomatic) MINS. The primary outcome was one-year mortality in patients with silent MINS, diagnosed by troponin concentration. Secondary outcomes were mortality in MINS patients with perioperative myocardial infarction (PMI) or chronic myocardial injury (CMI) and MACCE. RESULTS: We identified 766 eligible patients and enrolled 747. MINS occurred in 166 patients (22.2%); 151 (91%) had silent MINS and 15 (9%) had PMI. Thirty-one patients (4.1%) had CMI. One-year mortality was higher in patients with silent MINS (22.5%) than in patients with no MINS (7.8%) (P<0.001). One-year mortality rates in MINS patients with PMI or CMI were 27 and 19%, respectively. MACCE were more frequent in patients with silent MINS at 30 days and one year (18 and 25%) than in patients with no MINS (6 and 12%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Rates of mortality and MACCE in patients with silent MINS were high despite aspirin-statin therapy and cardiology follow-up. Further prospective research is needed to assess new postoperative care protocols that might effectively improve outcomes.

Moderate sedation with dexmedetomidine-remifentanil is safer than deep sedation with propofol-remifentanil for endobronchial ultrasound while providing comparable quality: a randomized double-blind trial.

OBJECTIVE: We compared dexmedetomidine-remifentanil vs. propofol-remifentanil in terms of safety and quality during sedation for Endobronchial ultrasonography (EBUS). METHODS: A randomized, double-blind trial. Outpatients undergoing EBUS randomly received 1 µg/kg/hour dexmedetomidine or a target concentration of 2.5 µg/mL propofol, both combined with remifentanil initially targeted at 1.5 ng/mL and subsequently titrated. Additional sedatives were restricted. The primary outcome was the need for airway rescue interventions to treat oxygen desaturation. RESULTS: Twenty-eight patients received dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and 27 received propofol-remifentanil. Airway rescue interventions were fewer in the dexmedetomidine group vs. the propofol one (23 vs. 76% patients, relative risk 3.21 (95% CI 1.55-6.64, P < 0.002)). Desaturation in the dexmedetomidine group was always resolved by increasing nasal oxygen flow, whereas additional interventions were needed in 60% of patients receiving propofol. Hypotension was more frequent in the propofol group, while hypertension, bradycardia and coughing were similar in both. Bronchoscopists' and patients' satisfaction were similar, although in the dexmedetomidine group two patients needed additional sedatives and two patients would not repeat the sedation technique. CONCLUSION: Moderate sedation with dexmedetomidine-remifentanil for EBUS is safer than deep sedation with propofol-remifentanil but it would occasionally need additional sedatives to ensure patient satisfaction.

Sedación con propofol y remifentanilo para la ultrasonografía endobronquial con punción-aspiración en tiempo real / Sedation with propofol and remifentanil for real-time endobronchial ultrasound needle aspiration

Introducción: Para la óptima realización de la ultrasonografía endobronquial (USEB) lineal es imprescindible que el paciente esté sedado para que se mantenga tranquilo, no tosa ni se mueva y el endoscopista trabaje cómodamente con un buen rendimiento de la exploración. Actualmente la técnica anestésica no está estandarizada y varía desde una anestesia general a una sedación. El objetivo del presente trabajo es conocer la dosificación, la seguridad y la satisfacción de la sedación endovenosa con propofol y remifentanilo e identificar los posibles factores predictivos de tos durante el procedimiento. Pacientes y métodos: Se estudió prospectivamente a los pacientes a quienes se realizó la USEB bajo sedación en un hospital de tercer nivel. Resultados: Se realizó la USEB a 90pacientes bajo sedación con remifentanilo y propofol, a una velocidad de infusión de 0,13 (0,09-0,17) ixgkg-¹ min^¹ y 2,34 (1,5-3,6) mgkg-¹ h_1, respectivamente. El 81% de los pacientes tosieron en algún momento de la exploración. En el 8% de los pacientes se interrumpió el procedimiento puntualmente por tos y desaturación. No se registraron complicaciones graves directamente relacionadas con la sedación. El nivel de satisfacción del neumólogo y del paciente con el procedimiento fue excelente o bueno en la mayoría de casos. No se observó relación estadísticamente significativa entre el número de episodios de tos durante la ecobroncoscopia y las variables test de la tos, ser tosedor habitual, hábito tabáquico o grado de severidad de la EPOC. Conclusiones: La sedación con remifentanilo y propofol realizada por un anestesiólogo permite realizar la USEB lineal en ventilación espontánea aunque con una elevada incidencia de tos y desaturación, siendo esta última la complicación más frecuente. No se encontraron factores predictivos de la tos durante el procedimiento.

Introduction: Optimal linear endobronchial ultrasound (EBUS) outcomes require sedation to ensure that the patient remains calm, immobile, and does not cough, and so that the bronchoscopist can work comfortably. The choice of anesthesia techniques, on a spectrum ranging from general anesthesia to sedation, is not standardized. The aims of this study were to determine doses, safety and satisfaction for intravenous sedation with propofol and remifentanil, and identify potential predictors of coughing during the procedure, and determine patient and bronchoscopist satisfaction with the procedure. Patients and methods: The prospective study included patients undergoing EBUS under sedation in a tertiary hospital. Results: A total of 90 patients underwent EBUS under sedation with remifentanil and propofol, at infusion rates of 0,13 (0,09-0,17) g kg-¹ min^¹ and 2.34 (1.5-3.6) mg kg-¹ Lr¹, respectively. Just over four fifths of the patients (81%) coughed at some point during the ultrasound procedure. In 8% of patients the procedure was promptly discontinued due to coughing and desaturation. There were no major complications directly related to sedation. Bronchoscopists and patients rated their satisfaction with the procedure as excellent or good in most cases. There was no statistically significant relationship between the number of coughing episodes during the procedure and any of the following variables: positive cough test, a habitual cough, tobacco dependence, or severity of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Conclusions: Remifentanil and propofol administered by an anesthesiologist enabled spontaneously breathing patients to undergo linear EBUS, although with a high incidence of coughing and particularly desaturation. No predictors for coughing during EBUS were identified.

Synergistic interaction between dexamethasone and tramadol in a murine model of acute visceral pain.

Tramadol is effective in the management of mild to moderate postoperative pain, but its administration is associated with nausea and vomiting. Patients treated with tramadol, often receive dexamethasone as antiemetic. The aim of our investigation was to assess if the two drugs interact in a murine model of acute visceral pain. Using the acetic acid writhing test in mice, we assessed the antinociceptive effects of tramadol and dexamethasone (a glucocorticoid with antiemetic effect) administrated individually and in a 1 : 1 fixed ratio combination. Tramadol and dexamethasone induced a dose-dependent inhibition of the writhing response when administered individually, with ED(50) values of 2.9 [2.09-4.31, 95% confidence limit (CL)] mg/kg, and 0.13 (0.05-0.29, 95% CL) mg/kg, respectively. The ED(50) of the combination was 0.13 (0.01-0.29, 95% CL) mg/kg; the isobolographic and interaction index analysis revealed a synergistic interaction. The results suggest that the combination of tramadol and dexamethasone could be beneficial in the management of postoperative pain in humans.

Interaction between tramadol and two anti-emetics on nociception and gastrointestinal transit in mice.

BACKGROUND: Clinical studies suggest that tramadol-induced analgesia is partially antagonized by ondansetron. AIMS: To investigate the type of interaction between tramadol and two anti-emetics on antinociception and gastrointestinal transit in mice. METHODS: We assessed the antinociceptive (acetic acid writhing test, plantar test) and antitransit (charcoal meal) effects of tramadol individually, and combined with ondansetron or droperidol in female Swiss CD-1 mice. Isobolograms and analysis of variance were used to determine the type of interaction. RESULTS: In the writhing test, tramadol, ondansetron and droperidol, each induced dose-related inhibition of nociception. The ED(50)'s were: tramadol 4.2+/-0.33 mg kg(-1); ondansetron 1.03+/-0.05 mg kg(-1), and droperidol 1.00+/-0.14 mg kg(-1). Dose-response curves were also obtained with tramadol combined with ondansetron or droperidol at 1:1 fixed ratios. The isobolographic analysis demonstrated antagonism for both combinations. In the plantar test, the ED(50) for tramadol was 51.4+/-2.3 mg kg(-1), but no dose-response curves could be obtained with ondansetron or droperidol individually. The interaction was assessed from dose-response curves to tramadol in the presence of a fixed dose of ondansetron (0.1 mg kg(-1)) or droperidol (0.05 mg kg(-1)). The results show antagonism between tramadol-ondansetron (p<0.05) and no interaction for the tramadol-droperidol combination. Both anti-emetics antagonized the antitransit effects of tramadol. CONCLUSIONS: The interaction of tramadol with ondansetron or droperidol on antinociception can be antagonistic or additive, depending on the type of stimuli. Both anti-emetics antagonize the anti-transit effects of tramadol. The results demonstrate antagonism between tramadol and the two anti-emetics for analgesia and inhibition of gastrointestinal transit, supporting previous clinical studies.