RESUMO
We report a case series of anaphylaxis to chlorhexidine-coated central venous catheters (CVCs) when used in cardiac surgical patients in our institution. Our experience, together with increasing reports of anaphylaxis to chlorhexidine-coated CVCs from other sources indicates that chlorhexidine-coated CVCs are not without additional risk. Attempts to lower rates of catheter-related bloodstream infection has led to the widespread adoption of chlorhexidine-coated CVCs in the perioperative and critical care setting, including for routine cardiac surgery. However, closer scrutiny indicates that there is lack of strong evidence demonstrating a meaningful reduction in rates of sepsis or serious morbidity, especially with CVC dwell times of less than seven days. Given the lack of clear benefit, we recommend non-coated CVCs for routine cardiac surgery, with even consideration for chlorhexidine-coated CVCs when specifically indicated for patients at high risk of CVC infection.
Assuntos
Anafilaxia , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Cardíacos , Cateteres Venosos Centrais , Clorexidina , Anafilaxia/induzido quimicamente , Infecções Relacionadas a Cateter/prevenção & controle , Cateterismo Venoso Central , Cateteres Venosos Centrais/efeitos adversos , Clorexidina/efeitos adversos , HumanosRESUMO
OBJECTIVE: We report the successful transplantation of a heart following an out-of-body time of 611 minutes into a recipient with dilated cardiomyopathy and left ventricular assist device implant. PATIENTS: Our patient was urgently waiting for a cardiac transplant whilst receiving LVAD support. Recurrent VF and repeated AICD shocks necessitated this action. RESULTS: Although requiring ECMO and inotropic support in the first 17 hours post-transplant, the patient was discharged from hospital on day 15 post-transplant with normal cardiac function. CONCLUSION: We report some of the salient points of the process and discuss the utility of this technology to an Australian transplant unit.
