Search

Background and Aims: We hypothesized that maintaining a patient on moderate–high doses of potent inhalational agent for greater than 30 min during the post-bypass period would be an independent predictor of initiation and usage of either inotropic and/or vasopressor infusions. Setting and Design: This study is a retrospective design and approved by the institutional review board. The setting was a single-center, academic tertiary care hospital in Detroit, Michigan. Materials and Methods: Three-hundred, ninety-seven elective cardiac surgery patients were identified for chart review. Electronic medical records were reviewed to collect demographics and perioperative data. Statistics used include a propensity score regression adjusted analysis utilizing logistic regression models and a multivariable model. Results: A propensity score regression adjusted analysis was performed and then applied in both univariate and multivariate logistic regression models with a p value of ISO ≥ 0.5MAC, 30 min) in the post-bypass period. After adjusting for propensity score, this was found to be a significant predictor of inotrope and/or vasoconstrictor use post-bypass (OR 2.49, 95% CI 1.15–5.38, p = 0.021). In the multivariate model, pulmonary hypertension (OR 5.9; 95% CI 1.33–26.28; p = 0.02), Euroscore II (2.73; 95% CI 1.35–5.5; p = 0.005), and cardiopulmonary bypass hours (OR 1.86; 95% CI 1.02–3.4; p = 0.042) emerged as significant. Conclusions: This study showed that an ETISO ≥ 0.5MAC, 30 min exposure during the immediate post-bypass period during elective cardiac surgery was an independent predictor of a patient being started on inotrope or vasoconstrictor infusions. Further research should consider a prospective design and examine depth of anesthesia during the post-bypass period.

The pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) and its role in the practice of modern medicine remains to be questioned and has experienced a substantial decline in its use in the most recent decades. The complications associated to its use, the lack of consistency of the interpretation provided by the PAC among clinicians, the development of new hemodynamic methods, and the deleterious cost profile associated to the PAC are some of the reasons behind the decrease in its use. Since its introduction into clinical practice, the PAC and the data obtained from its use became paramount in the management of critically ill patients as well as for the high-risk/invasive procedures. Initially, many clinicians were under the impression that regardless the clinical setting, acquiring the information provided by the PAC justified its use, until a growing body of evidence demonstrated its lack of mortality and morbidity improvement, as well as several reports of the presence of difficulties—some of them fatal—during its insertion. The authors present an updated review discussing the futility of the PAC in current clinical practice, the complications associated to its insertion, the lack of mortality benefit in critically ill patients and cardiac surgery, as well as present alternative hemodynamic methods to the PAC.

Ever since its clinical introduction, the utilization of the pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) has been surrounded by multiple controversies, mostly related to imprecise clinical indications and the complications derived from its placement. Currently, one of the most important criticisms of the PAC is the ambiguity in the interpretation of its hemodynamic measurements and therefore, in the translation of this data into specific therapeutic interventions. The popularity of the PAC stems from the fact that it provides hemodynamic data that cannot be obtained from clinical examination. The assumption is that this information would allow better understanding of the individual's hemodynamic profile which would trigger therapeutic interventions that improve patient outcomes. Nevertheless, even with the current diversity of hemodynamic devices available, the PAC remains a valuable tool in a wide variety of clinical settings. The authors present a review exposing the benefits of the PAC, current clinical recommendations for its use, mortality and survival profile, its role in goal-directed therapy, and other applications of the PAC beyond cardiac surgery and the intensive care unit.

The life expectancy of patients with end-stage heart disease undergoing Orthotopic Heart Transplantation (OHT) has increased significantly in the recent decades since its original introduction into the medical practice in 1967. Substantial advances in post-operative intensive care, surgical prophylaxis, and anti-rejection drugs have clearly impacted survivability after OHT, therefore the volume of patients presenting for non-cardiac surgical procedures is expected to continue to escalate in the upcoming years. There are a number of caveats associated with this upsurge of post-OHT patients requiring non-cardiac surgery, including presenting to healthcare facilities without the resources and technology necessary to manage potential perioperative complications or that may not be familiar with the care of these patients, facilities in which a cardiac anesthesiologist is not available, patients presenting for emergency procedures and so forth. The perioperative care of patients after OHT introduces several challenges to the anesthesiologist including preoperative risk assessments different to the general population and intraoperative management of a denervated organ with altered response to medications and drug-drug interactions. The present review aims to synopsize current data of patients presenting for non-cardiac surgery after OHT, surgical aspects of the transplant that may impact perioperative care, physiology of the transplanted heart as well as anesthetic considerations.