Delayed hyperbaric oxygen therapy for air emboli after open heart surgery: case report and review of a success story.

BACKGROUND: The current case describes a rare diagnosis of iatrogenic air emboli after elective cardiopulmonary bypass that was successfully treated with delayed hyperbaric oxygen therapy, with good clinical evolution in spite of rare complications. CASE PRESENTATION: A 35 years old male was admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) for post-operative management after being placed on cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) for an elective ventricular septal defect closure and aortic valvuloplasty. The patient initially presented with pathologically late awakening and was extubated 17 h after admission. Neurologic clinical status after extubation showed global aphasia, mental slowness and spatio-temporal disorientation. The injected cerebral CT scan was normal; the EEG was inconclusive (it showed metabolic encephalopathy without epileptic activity); and the cerebral MRI done 48 h after surgery showed multiple small subcortical acute ischemic lesions, mainly on the left fronto- parieto- temporo-occipital lobes. He was taken for hyperbaric oxygen therapy (HOT) over 54 h after cardiac surgery. The first session ended abruptly after 20 min when the patient suffered a generalised tonico-clonic seizure, necessitating a moderately rapid decompression, airway management, and antiepileptic treatment. In total, the patient received 7 HOT sessions over 6 days. He demonstrated full neurological recovery at 4 weeks and GOS (Glasgow Outcome Scale) of 5 out of 5 even after a long delay in initial management. Convulsions are a rare complication of HOT either due to reperfusion syndrome or hyperoxic toxicity and can be managed. Prior imaging by MRI or tympanic paracentesis (myringotomy) should not add further delay of treatment. CONCLUSION: HOT should be initiated upon late awakening and/or neurologic symptoms after CPB heart surgery, after exclusion of formal counter-indications, even if the delay exceeds 48 h.

Vasopressin and epinephrine vs. epinephrine alone in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

BACKGROUND: During the administration of advanced cardiac life support for resuscitation from cardiac arrest, a combination of vasopressin and epinephrine may be more effective than epinephrine or vasopressin alone, but evidence is insufficient to make clinical recommendations. METHODS: In a multicenter study, we randomly assigned adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest to receive successive injections of either 1 mg of epinephrine and 40 IU of vasopressin or 1 mg of epinephrine and saline placebo, followed by administration of the same combination of study drugs if spontaneous circulation was not restored and subsequently by additional epinephrine if needed. The primary end point was survival to hospital admission; the secondary end points were return of spontaneous circulation, survival to hospital discharge, good neurologic recovery, and 1-year survival. RESULTS: A total of 1442 patients were assigned to receive a combination of epinephrine and vasopressin, and 1452 to receive epinephrine alone. The treatment groups had similar baseline characteristics except that there were more men in the group receiving combination therapy than in the group receiving epinephrine alone (P=0.03). There were no significant differences between the combination-therapy and the epinephrine-only groups in survival to hospital admission (20.7% vs. 21.3%; relative risk of death, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.05), return of spontaneous circulation (28.6% vs. 29.5%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.06), survival to hospital discharge (1.7% vs. 2.3%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.02), 1-year survival (1.3% vs. 2.1%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.02), or good neurologic recovery at hospital discharge (37.5% vs. 51.5%; relative risk, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.81 to 2.06). CONCLUSIONS: As compared with epinephrine alone, the combination of vasopressin and epinephrine during advanced cardiac life support for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest does not improve outcome. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00127907.)