Perioperative risk factors of acute kidney injury after non-cardiac surgery: A multicenter, prospective, observational study in patients with low grade American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to determine the incidence and the perioperative risk factors of acute kidney injury (AKI) using "Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes" (KDIGO) guidelines, in patients with low grade American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASA-PS) undergoing non-cardiac surgery. METHODS: In this multicenter, prospective, observational study, 870 surgical patients older than 40 years with ASA-PS I-II who underwent noncardiac surgery, were included. The primary outcome of this study was perioperative AKI defined by the KDIGO criteria. RESULTS: AKI was detected in 49 (5.63%) of the patients. Multivariate analysis detected the presence of preoperative hypertension (aOR = 0.130; CI = 0.030-0.566; p = 0.007) and intraoperative transfusion of erythrocytes (aOR = 0.076; CI = 0.008-0.752; p = 0.028) as independent predictors of postoperative AKI development. CONCLUSION: Approximately, 6% of patients with ASA I-II presenting for noncardiac surgery developed postoperative AKI. Preoperative hypertension and intraoperative erythrocyte transfusion are independent predictors of AKI after non-cardiac surgery in this patient population.

Atrial septal defect closure: comparison of vertical axillary minithoracotomy and median sternotomy.

BACKGROUND: This study aims to evaluate whether or not the method of right vertical axillary minithoracotomy (RVAM) is preferable to and as reliable as conventional sternotomy surgery, and also assesses its cosmetic results. METHODS: Thirty-three patients (7 males, 26 females) with atrial septal defect were admitted to the Cardiovascular Surgery Clinic of Cukurova University from December 2005 until January 2010. The patients' ages ranged from 3 to 22. Patients who underwent vertical axillary minithracotomy were assigned to group I, and those undergoing conventional sternotomy, to group II. Group I and group II were compared with regard to the preoperative, perioperative and postoperative variables. Group I included 12 females and 4 males with an average age of 16.5±9.7. Group II comprised 14 female and 3 male patients with an average age of 18.5±9.8 showing similar features and pathologies. The cases were in Class I-II according to the New York Heart Association (NYHA) Classification, and patients with other cardiac and systemic problems were not included in the study. The ratio of the systemic blood flow to the pulmonary blood flow (Qp/Qs) was 1.8±0.2. The average pulmonary artery pressure was 35±10 mmHg. Following the diagnosis, performing elective surgery was planned. RESULTS: No significant difference was detected in the average time of the patients' extraportal circulation, cross-clamp and surgery (p>0.05). In the early postoperative period of the cases, the duration of mechanical ventilator support, the drainage volume in the first 24 hours, and the hospitalization time in the intensive care unit were similar (p>0.05). Postoperative pains were evaluated together with narcotic analgesics taken intravenously or orally. While 7 cases (43.7%) in group I needed postoperative analgesics, 12 cases (70.6%) in group II needed them. No mortality or major morbidity has occurred in the patients. The incision style and sizes in all of the patients undergoing RVAM were preserved as they were at the beginning. Furthermore, the patients of group I were mobilized more quickly than the patients of group II. The patients of group I were quite pleased with the psychological and cosmetic results. No residual defects have been found in the early postoperative period and after the end of the follow-up periods. All of the patients achieved functional capacity per NYHA. No deformation of breast growth has been detected during 18 months of follow-up for the group I patients, who underwent RVAM. CONCLUSION: To conclude, the repair of atrial septal defect by RVAM, apart from the limited working zone for the surgeon in these pathologies as compared to sternotomymay be considered in terms of the outcomes, and early and late complications. And this has accounted for less need of analgesics and better cosmetic results in recent years.

Comparison of the effect of adding remifentanil to patient-controlled tramadol or morphine for postoperative analgesia after major abdominal surgery.

OBJECTIVE: In this study, the authors investigated the effect of the addition of remifentanil to tramadol or morphine for patient-controlled analgesia (PCA). DESIGN: Prospective, randomized, double-blind, controlled study. SETTING: University Hospital. PATIENTS, PARTICIPANTS: The authors randomly allocated 133 patients undergoing major abdominal surgery to receive IV PCA with tramadol alone, tramadol plus remifentanil, morphine alone or morphine plus remifentanil. INTERVENTIONS: Bolus doses of tramadol (0.2 mg/kg), tramadol (0.2 mg/kg) plus remifentanil (0.2 microg/kg), morphine (0.02 mg/kg), or morphine (0.02 mg/kg) plus remifentanil (0.2 microg/kg) were available every 10 minutes without time limit or background infusion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE(S): Discomfort, sedation, pain scores, side effects, and total and bolus tramadol and morphine consumption were recorded for up to 24 hours after the start of PCA. RESULTS: Pain scores at rest and movement were greater with tramadol alone than in the other groups at 1, 2, and 6 hours (p < 0.0125). The addition of remifentanil reduced cumulative tramadol consumption at 6, 12, and 24 hours, but not morphine consumption. More patients required supplementary rescue analgesia with meperidine, and with greater dosage, with tramadol alone (p < 0.001), and the incidence of nausea was greater with tramadol alone. The addition of remifentanil not only significantly improved discomfort scores in remifentanil groups, but also increased the degree of sedation in morphine-remifentanil group. CONCLUSIONS: After major abdominal surgery, adding remifentanil to PCA tramadol resulted in better pain scores, lower analgesic consumption, and fewer side effects when compared with tramadol alone. However, analgesic outcome with remifentanil was not prominent in MR group as much as in TR group.

A background infusion of morphine enhances patient-controlled analgesia after cardiac surgery.

PURPOSE: We compared the efficacy of patient-controlled analgesia (PCA), with or without a background infusion of morphine, on postoperative pain relief in patients extubated in the operating room after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) surgery. METHODS: With Faculty Ethics approval, 60 consenting adults undergoing elective coronary artery surgery were randomly assigned to receive either morphine PCA alone (group PCA-A, n = 30) or morphine PCA plus a background infusion (group PCA-B, n = 30) for 24 hr postoperatively. Pain scores with verbal rating scale (VRS; from 0 to 10) at rest, sedation scores, morphine consumption and delivery/demand ratios were assessed at zero, one, two, four, six, 12 and 24 hr after surgery. Hemodynamic variables and arterial blood gases were also recorded in the same periods. RESULTS: Sedation scores in the two groups were similar. At all study periods after the first postoperative hour, VRS remained below 5 in both groups. Pain scores were significantly lower in the background infusion group, which also had greater cumulative morphine consumption (61.7 +/- 10.9 mg vs 38.5 +/- 16.2 mg). There were no episodes of hypoxemia or hypertension. CONCLUSION: Morphine PCA effectively controlled postoperative pain after cardiac surgery. The addition of a background infusion of morphine enhanced analgesia and increased morphine consumption.