RESUMO
BACKGROUND: We investigated the impact of an elevated plasma volume status (PVS) in patients undergoing TAVI on early clinical safety and mortality and assessed the prognostic utility of PVS for outcome prediction. MATERIALS AND METHODS: We retrospectively calculated the PVS in 652 patients undergoing TAVI between 2009 and 2018 at two centres. They were then categorized into two groups depending on their preoperative PVS (PVS ≤-4; n = 257 vs PVS>-4; n = 379). Relative PVS was derived by subtracting calculated ideal (iPVS = c × weight) from actual plasma volume (aPVS = (1 - haematocrit) × (a + (b × weight in kg)). RESULTS: The need for renal replacement therapy (1 (0.4%) vs 17 (4.5%); P = .001), re-operation for noncardiac reasons (9 (3.5%) vs 32 (8.4%); P = .003), re-operation for bleeding (9 (3.5%) vs 27 (7.1%); P = .037) and major bleeding (14 (5.4%) vs 37 (9.8%); P = .033) were significantly higher in patients with a PVS>-4. The composite 30-day early safety endpoint (234 (91.1%) vs 314 (82.8%); P = .002) confirms that an increased preoperative PVS is associated with a worse overall outcome after TAVI. CONCLUSIONS: An elevated PVS (>-4) as a marker for congestion is associated with significantly worse outcome after TAVI and therefore should be incorporated in preprocedural risk stratification.
RESUMO
AIM OF THE STUDY: Bystander-initiated basic life support (BLS) for the treatment of prehospital cardiac arrest increases survival but is frequently not performed due to fear and a lack of knowledge. A simple flowchart can improve motivation and the quality of performance. Furthermore, guidelines do recommend a chest compression (CC)-only algorithm for dispatcher-assisted bystander resuscitation, which may lead to increased fatigue and a loss of compression depth. Consequently, we wanted to test the hypothesis that CCs are more correctly delivered in a flowchart-assisted standard resuscitation algorithm than in a CC-only algorithm. METHODS: With the use of a manikin model, 84 laypersons were randomized to perform either flowchart-assisted standard resuscitation or CC-only resuscitation for 5min. The primary outcome was the total number of CCs. RESULTS: The total number of correct CCs did not significantly differ between the CC-only group and the standard group (63 [±81] vs. 79 [±86]; p = 0.394; 95% CI of difference: 21-53). The total hand-off time was significantly lower in the CC-only group than in the standard BLS group. The relative number of correct CCs (the fraction of the total number of CCs achieving 5-6cm) and the level of exhaustion after BLS did not significantly differ between the groups. CONCLUSION: Standard BLS did not lead to an increase in correctly delivered CCs compared to CC-only resuscitation and exhibited significantly more hand-off time. The low rate of CCs in both groups indicates the need for an increased focus on performance during BLS training.
