Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists Clinical Practice Update for Management of Acute Kidney Injury Associated With Cardiac Surgery.

Cardiac surgery-associated acute kidney injury (CS-AKI) is common and is associated with increased risk for postoperative morbidity and mortality. Our recent survey of the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists (SCA) membership showed 6 potentially renoprotective strategies for which clinicians would most value an evidence-based review (ie, intraoperative target blood pressure, choice of specific vasopressor agent, erythrocyte transfusion threshold, use of alpha-2 agonists, goal-directed oxygen delivery on cardiopulmonary bypass [CPB], and the "Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes [KDIGO] bundle of care"). Thus, the SCA's Continuing Practice Improvement Acute Kidney Injury Working Group aimed to provide a practice update for each of these strategies in cardiac surgical patients based on the evidence from randomized controlled trials (RCTs). PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases were comprehensively searched for eligible studies from inception through February 2021, with search results updated in August 2021. A total of 15 RCTs investigating the effects of the above-mentioned strategies on CS-AKI were included for meta-analysis. For each strategy, the level of evidence was assessed using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. Across the 6 potentially renoprotective strategies evaluated, current evidence for their use was rated as "moderate," "low," or "very low." Based on eligible RCTs, our analysis suggested using goal-directed oxygen delivery on CPB and the "KDIGO bundle of care" in high-risk patients to prevent CS-AKI (moderate level of GRADE evidence). Our results suggested considering the use of vasopressin in vasoplegic shock patients to reduce CS-AKI (low level of GRADE evidence). The decision to use a restrictive versus liberal strategy for perioperative red cell transfusion should not be based on concerns for renal protection (a moderate level of GRADE evidence). In addition, targeting a higher mean arterial pressure during CPB, perioperative use of dopamine, and use of dexmedetomidine did not reduce CS-AKI (a low or very low level of GRADE evidence). This review will help clinicians provide evidence-based care, targeting improved renal outcomes in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists Clinical Practice Improvement Advisory for Management of Perioperative Bleeding and Hemostasis in Cardiac Surgery Patients.

Bleeding after cardiac surgery is a common and serious complication leading to transfusion of multiple blood products and resulting in increased morbidity and mortality. Despite the publication of numerous guidelines and consensus statements for patient blood management in cardiac surgery, research has revealed that adherence to these guidelines is poor, and as a result, a significant variability in patient transfusion practices among practitioners still remains. In addition, although utilization of point-of-care (POC) coagulation monitors and the use of novel therapeutic strategies for perioperative hemostasis, such as the use of coagulation factor concentrates, have increased significantly over the last decade, they are still not widely available in every institution. Therefore, despite continuous efforts, blood transfusion in cardiac surgery has only modestly declined over the last decade, remaining at ≥50% in high-risk patients. Given these limitations, and in response to new regulatory and legislature requirements, the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists (SCA) has formed the Blood Conservation in Cardiac Surgery Working Group to organize, summarize, and disseminate the available best-practice knowledge in patient blood management in cardiac surgery. The current publication includes the summary statements and algorithms designed by the working group, after collection and review of the existing guidelines, consensus statements, and recommendations for patient blood management practices in cardiac surgery patients. The overall goal is creating a dynamic resource of easily accessible educational material that will help to increase and improve compliance with the existing evidence-based best practices of patient blood management by cardiac surgery care teams.

Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists Clinical Practice Improvement Advisory for Management of Perioperative Bleeding and Hemostasis in Cardiac Surgery Patients.

Bleeding after cardiac surgery is a common and serious complication leading to transfusion of multiple blood products and resulting in increased morbidity and mortality. Despite the publication of numerous guidelines and consensus statements for patient blood management in cardiac surgery, research has revealed that adherence to these guidelines is poor, and as a result, a significant variability in patient transfusion practices among practitioners still remains. In addition, although utilization of point of care coagulation monitors and the use of novel therapeutic strategies for perioperative hemostasis, such as the use of coagulation factor concentrates, has increased significantly over the last decade, they are still not widely available in every institution. Therefore, despite continuous efforts, blood transfusion in cardiac surgery has declined only modestly over the last decade, remaining at 50% or greater in high-risk patients. Given these limitations and in response to new regulatory and legislature requirements, the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists has formed the Blood Conservation in Cardiac Surgery Working Group in order to organize, summarize, and disseminate the available best-practice knowledge in patient blood management in cardiac surgery. The current publication includes the summary statements and algorithms designed by the working group, after collection and review of the existing guidelines, consensus statements, and recommendations for patient blood management practices in cardiac surgery patients. The overall goal is creating a dynamic resource of easily accessible educational material that will help to increase and improve compliance with the existing evidence-based best practices of patient blood management by cardiac surgery care teams.

Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists/European Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthetists Practice Advisory for the Management of Perioperative Atrial Fibrillation in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery.

Postoperative atrial fibrillation (poAF) is the most common adverse event after cardiac surgery and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and hospital and intensive care unit length of stay. Despite progressive improvements in overall cardiac surgical operative mortality and postoperative morbidity, the incidence of poAF has remained unchanged at 30%-50%. A number of evidence-based recommendations regarding the perioperative management of atrial fibrillation (AF) have been released from leading cardiovascular societies in recent years; however, it is unknown how closely these guidelines are being followed by medical practitioners. In addition, many of these society recommendations are based on patient stratification into "normal" and "elevated" risk groups for AF, but criteria for that stratification have not been clearly defined. In an effort to improve the perioperative management of AF, the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists (SCA) Clinical Practice Improvement Committee developed a multidisciplinary Atrial Fibrillation Working Group that created a summary of current best practice based on a distillation of recent guidelines from professional societies involved in the care of cardiac surgical patients. An evidence-based set of survey questions was then generated to describe the current practice of perioperative AF management. Through collaboration with the European Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthetists (EACTA), that survey was distributed to the combined memberships of both the SCA and EACTA, yielding 641 responses and resulting in the most comprehensive understanding to date of perioperative AF management in North America, Europe, and beyond. The survey data demonstrated the broad range of therapies utilized for the prevention and treatment of poAF, as well as a spectrum of adherence to published guidelines. With the goal of improving adherence, a graphical advisory tool was created with an easily accessible format that could be utilized for bedside management. Finally, given that no evidence-based threshold currently exists to differentiate patients at normal risk to develop poAF from those at elevated risk, the SCA/EACTA AF working group created a list of poAF risk factors using expert opinion and based on published risk score models for poAF. This approach allows stratification of patients into risk groups and facilitates adherence to the evidence-based recommendations summarized in the graphical advisory tool. It is our hope that these new additions to the clinical toolkit for the management of perioperative AF will improve the evidence-based care and outcomes of cardiac surgical patients worldwide.

Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists/European Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthetists Practice Advisory for the Management of Perioperative Atrial Fibrillation in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery.

Postoperative atrial fibrillation (poAF) is the most common adverse event after cardiac surgery and is associated with increased morbidity, mortality, and increased hospital and intensive care unit length of stay. Despite progressive improvements in overall cardiac surgical operative mortality and postoperative morbidity, the incidence of poAF has remained unchanged at 30% to 50%. A number of evidence-based recommendations regarding the perioperative management of atrial fibrillation (AF) have been released from leading cardiovascular societies in recent years; however, it is unknown how closely these guidelines are being followed by medical practitioners. In addition, many of these society recommendations are based on patient stratification into "normal" and "elevated" risk groups for AF, but criteria for that stratification have not been defined clearly. In an effort to improve the perioperative management of AF, the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists (SCA) Clinical Practice Improvement Committee developed a multidisciplinary Atrial Fibrillation Working Group that created a summary of current best practices based on distillation of recent guidelines from professional societies involved in the care of cardiac surgical patients. An evidence-based set of survey questions then was generated to describe the current practice of perioperative AF management. Through a collaboration with the European Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthetists (EACTA), that survey was distributed to the combined memberships of both the SCA and the EACTA, yielding 641 responses and resulting in the most comprehensive understanding to date of perioperative AF management in North America and Europe and beyond. The survey data demonstrated the broad range of therapies used for prevention and treatment of poAF, as well as a spectrum of adherence to published guidelines. With the goal of improving adherence, a graphical advisory tool was created with an easily accessible format that could be used for bedside management. Finally, given that no evidence-based threshold currently exists to differentiate patients at normal risk of developing poAF from those at elevated risk, the SCA/EACTA AF working group created a list of poAF risk factors using expert opinion, based on published risk score models for poAF. This allows stratification of patients into risk groups and facilitates adherence to the evidence-based recommendations summarized in the graphical advisory tool. It is the working group's hope that these new additions to the clinical toolkit for management of perioperative AF will improve the evidence-based care and outcomes of cardiac surgical patients worldwide.

Safety Culture in Cardiac Surgical Teams: Data From Five Programs and National Surgical Comparison.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about safety culture in the area of cardiac surgery as compared with other types of surgery. The unique features of cardiac surgical teams may result in different perceptions of patient safety and patient safety culture. METHODS: We measured and described safety culture in five cardiovascular surgical centers using the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture, and compared the data with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) 2010 comparative database in surgery and anesthesiology (all types). We reported mean scores, standard deviations, and percent positive responses for the two single-item measures and 12 patient safety climate dimensions in the Hospital Survey on Patient Safety Culture. RESULTS: In the five cardiac surgical programs, the dimension of teamwork within hospital units had the highest positive score (74% positive responses), and the dimension of nonpunitive response to error had the lowest score (38% positive responses). Surgeons and support staff perceived better safety climate than nurses, perfusionists, and anesthesia practitioners. The cardiac surgery cohort reported more positive safety climate than the AHRQ all-type surgery cohort in four dimensions but lower frequency of reporting mistakes. The cardiac anesthesiology cohort scored lower on two dimensions compared with the AHRQ all-type anesthesiology cohort. CONCLUSIONS: This study identifies patient safety areas for improvement in cardiac surgical teams in comparison with all-type surgical teams. We also found that different professional disciplines in cardiac surgical teams perceive patient safety differently.

Commentary: Sense and sensibility: the role of specialists in health care reform.

How to redesign the incentives structure in the United States to reward effective coordinated care rather than production volume is a staggering public health policy challenge. In the mind of the public, there is a fine distinction between health care rationing and rational health care. Specialists have a vital but underappreciated role in reining in health care costs, but specific incentives to elicit behavior change with positive social outcomes remain ambiguous. It is imperative, therefore, that redesigning the incentives structure is thoughtfully considered, modeled, and tested prior to implementation, lest an inferior-quality model is inadvertently adopted and costs are only marginally contained. Quality metrics need to be universal and reflect real patient outcomes instead of the degree of investment by the institution in the reporting tools. Still, specialists should take immediate action to implement safe and efficient procedures and to assess their long-term impact on patients' quality of life. Scientific evaluations should guide both the assessment of the appropriateness and the safe delivery of care. Investment in high-quality data architecture and the science of health delivery implementation is an imperative if health care reform is to achieve its goals. Coordination and collaboration between specialists and primary care physicians is essential to this enterprise. Specialists can champion these efforts as they pertain to their areas of expertise by considering their care episodes in the context of the patient as a whole, working closely with generalists, and returning to the mindset of the specialist as a family doctor.

Variation in local institutional review board evaluations of a multicenter patient safety study.

Several highly visible quality improvement (QI) projects led to controversy over their ethical oversight, attracting attention from institutional review boards (IRBs) and the Office for Human Research Protection. While QI research has increased dramatically, there is limited empirical evidence regarding how multiple IRBs review the same study. This paper describes the variations in local IRB reviews for the same a multicenter QI study. The study, entitled "Locating Errors through Networked Surveillance", used multiple data collection methods to identify patient safety risks in cardiovascular operating room services. This study involved 2-day site visits to 5 hospitals by the research team to observe cardiac surgery procedures and interview staff regarding clinical practice and hazards. Surveys were self-administered. The IRB process varied widely across the 5 hospitals. Reviews ranged from full committee review and approval with verbal consent required from patients and operating room staff, to an IRB determining the study exempt from review and participant consent. The time to IRB approval ranged from 6 weeks to 6 months. This variation suggests there is wide interpretation of the Federal regulations put in place to guide IRBs. The adoption of uniformity would not only reduce inefficiencies but also attenuate the perceived arbitrary nature of current IRB review processes that often inappropriately influence hypothesis-generation and study design.

Lack of effectiveness of the pulmonary artery catheter in cardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: The pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) continues to be used for monitoring of hemodynamics in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass graft (CABG) surgery despite concerns raised in other settings regarding both effectiveness and safety. Given the relative paucity of data regarding its use in CABG patients, and given entrenched practice patterns, we assessed the impact of PAC use on fatal and nonfatal CABG outcomes as practiced at a diverse set of medical centers. METHODS: Using a formal prospective observational study design, 5065 CABG patients from 70 centers were enrolled between November 1996 and June 2000 using a systemic sampling protocol. Propensity score matched-pair analysis was used to adjust for differences in likelihood of PAC insertion. The predefined composite endpoint was the occurrence of any of the following: death (any cause), cardiac dysfunction (myocardial infarction or congestive heart failure), cerebral dysfunction (stroke or encephalopathy), renal dysfunction (dysfunction or failure), or pulmonary dysfunction (acute respiratory distress syndrome). Secondary variables included treatment indices (inotrope use, fluid administration), duration of postoperative intubation, and intensive care unit length of stay. After categorization based on PAC and transesophageal echocardiography use (both, neither, PAC only, transesophageal echocardiography only), we performed the primary analysis contrasting PAC only and neither (total, 3321 patients), from which propensity paring yielded 1273 matched pairs. RESULTS: The primary endpoint occurred in 271 PAC patients versus 196 without PAC (21.3% vs.15.4%; adjusted odds ratio [AOR], 1.68; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.24 to 2.26; P<0.001). The PAC group had an increased risk of all-cause mortality, 3.5% vs 1.7% (AOR, 2.08; 95% CI, 1.11 to 3.88; P=0.02) and an increased risk of cardiac (AOR, 1.58; 95% CI, 1.14 to 2.20; P=0.007), cerebral (AOR, 2.02; 95% CI, 1.08 to 3.77; P=0.03) and renal (AOR, 2.47; 95% CI, 1.68 to 3.62; P<0.001) morbid outcomes. PAC patients received inotropic drugs more frequently (57.8% vs 50.0%; P<0.001), had a larger positive IV fluid balance after surgery (3220 mL vs 3022 mL; P=0.003), and experienced longer time to tracheal extubation (15.40 hours [11.28/20.80] versus 13.18 hours [9.58/19.33], median plus Q1/Q3 interquartile range; P<0.0001). Use of PAC was also associated with prolonged intensive care unit stay (14.5% vs 10.1%; AOR, 1.55; 95% CI, 1.06 to 2.27; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Use of a PAC during CABG surgery was associated with increased mortality and a higher risk of severe end-organ complications in this propensity-matched observational study. A randomized controlled trial with defined hemodynamic goals would be ideal to either confirm or refute our findings.

Point-of-care electronic prompts: an effective means of increasing compliance, demonstrating quality, and improving outcome.

BACKGROUND: Incentives based on quality indicators such as the Surgical Care Improvement Project core measures (SCIP 1) encourage implementation of evidence-based guidelines consistently into clinical practice. Information systems with point-of-care electronic prompts (POCEPs) can facilitate adoption of processes and benchmark performance. We evaluated the effectiveness of POCEPs on rates of antibiotic administration within 60 minutes of surgical incision and effect on outcome in a prospective observational trial. METHODS: SCIP 1 compliance and the corresponding outcome variable (surgical site infection [SSI]) were examined prospectively over 2 consecutive 6-month periods before (A) and after (B) POCEPs implementation at a regional health system. Secondary analysis extended the observation to two 12-month periods (A' and B'). A 2-year (C and D) sustainability phase followed. RESULTS: The 19,744 procedures included 9127 and 10,617 procedures before (A) and after (B) POCEPs implementation, respectively. POCEPs increased compliance with SCIP indicators in period B by 31% (95% CI, 30.0%-32.2%) from 62% to 92% (P < 0.001) and were associated with a sustainable, contemporaneous decrease in the incidence of SSI from 1.1% to 0.7% (P = 0.003; absolute risk reduction, 0.4%; 95% CI, 0.1%-0.7%). Secondary and sustainability analysis revealed that compliance rates remained >95% with mean SSI rates lower for all periods compared with pre-POCEPs SSI rates (0.8%, 0.7%, and 0.5% vs 1.1%; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: POCEPs increased compliance with SCIP indicators by >30% and were associated with a 0.4% absolute risk reduction in the incidence of SSI. POCEPs may be useful to modulate provider behavior and demonstrate intraoperative quality and value.

Predictive value of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and the Mini-Mental State Examination for neurologic outcome after coronary artery bypass graft surgery.

OBJECTIVE: We intended to define the role of the National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and the Mini-Mental State Examination in identifying adverse neurologic outcomes in a large international sample of patients undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS: We evaluated 4707 patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass at 72 centers in 17 countries between November 1996 and June 2000. Prespecified overt neurologic outcomes were categorized as type I (clinically diagnosed stroke, transient ischemic attack, encephalopathy, or coma) or type II (deterioration of intellectual function). The National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and Mini-Mental State Examination were administered preoperatively and on postoperative day 3, 4, or 5. Receiver operating characteristic curves were plotted to determine the predictive value of worsening in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and Mini-Mental State Examination scores with respect to type I and II outcomes. RESULTS: The receiver operating characteristic area under the curve for changes in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score (n = 4620) was 0.89 for type I outcomes and 0.66 for type II outcomes. A 1-point worsening in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale score provided excellent discrimination (86% specificity; 84% sensitivity) of type I outcomes. The receiver operating characteristic area under the curve for changes in Mini-Mental State Examination score (n = 4707) was 0.75 for type I outcomes and 0.71 for type II outcomes. A 2-point worsening in Mini-Mental State Examination score provided only fair discrimination (73% specificity; 62% sensitivity) of type II outcomes. CONCLUSION: We used baseline controls and postoperative worsening in National Institutes of Health Stroke Scale and Mini-Mental State Examination scores to predict both serious adverse neurologic outcome and deterioration of intellectual function. Our findings provide the only reference for evaluating these tests that are used in cardiac surgical clinical trials.

The effect of beta-blocker dosing strategy on regulation of perioperative heart rate and clinical outcomes in patients undergoing vascular surgery: a randomized comparison.

The optimal dosing strategy for perioperative beta-blockers to safely achieve recommended target heart rates (HRs) by current guidelines is not well defined. An HR-titrated perioperative beta-blocker dosing regimen versus a fixed-dose regimen was assessed by clinical outcomes, postoperative heart rate, and beta-blocker-related complications. Patients (n = 64) scheduled to undergo moderate- to high-risk vascular surgery and without contraindications to beta-blockade were randomized to either a fixed-dose or HR-titrated beta-blocker dosing schedule. Clinical outcomes and HRs were followed immediately preoperatively to 24 hr postoperatively. A difference in mean HR between the two dosing arms was significant immediately postoperatively (70.1 vs. 58.2 bpm for fixed dose and HR-titrated arms, respectively; p = 0.012) but at no other time points. However, the HR-titrated strategy led to a significant reduction in the percentage of HR measurements >80 bpm (34.5% vs. 16.1%, p < 0.001) and to a significant reduction in absolute HR change (17.5 vs. 22.5 bpm, p = 0.034). There were no significant differences in the occurrence of asymptomatic hypotension between the two study arms, and no beta-blocker-related adverse events occurred in either study arm. An aggressive, HR-titrated perioperative beta-blocker dosing strategy was associated with more consistent maintenance of postoperative HRs within the range recommended by current guidelines and did not result in increased drug-related adverse events. The question of what is the best perioperative beta-blocker dosing regimen warrants further evaluation in a large-scale clinical trial.

Perturbations in laboratory values after coronary artery bypass graft surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass.

OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to describe the sequential changes in commonly obtained laboratory values after coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). METHODS: The authors examined laboratory data from 375 patients who underwent uncomplicated CABG with CPB in a multicenter clinical trial of a medication for postoperative pain. Data were obtained preoperatively, at the time of postoperative extubation, and at 4 subsequent intervals ending 14 days after extubation. Data obtained before study drug administration are reported for all patients; thereafter, only data from placebo patients without perioperative complications (n=123) are reported. RESULTS: Mean postoperative coagulation values remained within their reference ranges at the time of extubation. However, platelet counts increased to a peak value well above the reference range by the end of the study. Postoperative white blood cell counts rose above the reference range, mainly because of increased neutrophils. Serum chemistries were also altered; most patients showed a persistent postoperative hyperglycemia. Creatine kinase levels rose to nearly 4 times the upper limit of the reference range in the early postoperative period. Lactate dehydrogenase, serum aspartate aminotransferase, and alanine aminotransferase levels also increased above the reference range. Total protein and albumin values were below the reference range throughout the postoperative period. CONCLUSIONS: Laboratory values for hematology, blood coagulation, and serum chemistry change substantially after uncomplicated CABG with CPB. Recognition of these changes will facilitate the conduct of clinical research and may prevent inappropriate treatment based on abnormal laboratory findings that have no clinical significance.

Hormone replacement therapy is safe in women undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting.

In postmenopausal women, hormone replacement therapy (HRT) does not substantially reduce the incidence of cardiovascular disease and may produce a short-term increase in risk. Therefore, we investigated whether HRT increased risk in patients with severe coronary artery disease necessitating surgery We prospectively studied 4,782 patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting at 70 centers in 17 countries from November 1996 through June 2000. Patients were selected using a systematic sampling technique. Mortality, major morbidity, and transfusion requirements were compared among 3 groups: men (n=3,840), women receiving HRT (n= 144), and women not receiving HRT (n=798). Women actively receiving HRT, compared with women not receiving HRT or with men, were at no greater risk of developing the following fatal or non-fatal complications: death (2.8% vs 4.4% vs 2.8%, respectively; P=0.05), myocardial infarction (6.3% vs 7.0% vs 7.7%; P=0.67), central nervous system complication (2.1% vs 2.8% vs 2.9%; P=0.85), or renal dysfunction (0.7% vs 5.3% vs 4.8%; P=0.06). Incidence of postoperative congestive heart failure was significantly lower in men (7.7%) than in women receiving HRT (12.5%; P=0.04) and in women without HRT (12.8%; P <0.0001). Fewer men (61%) needed red blood cell transfusion than did women receiving HRT (79%) and women without HRT (88%) (P <0.0001 compared with both other groups). However, the need for fresh frozen plasma transfusions was significantly less in women receiving HRT (16%) than in women not receiving HRT (25%; P=0.01). We conclude that HRT administration before coronary artery bypass grafting does not increase women's risk of any adverse outcome.