Search

The use of temporary mechanical circulatory support (tMCS) devices and in particular the increasing use of the Impella device family has gained significant interest over the last two decades. Nowadays, its use plays a well-established key role in both the treatment of cardiogenic shock, and as a preventive and protective therapeutic option during high-risk procedures in both cardiac surgery and cardiology, such as complex percutaneous interventions (protected PCI). Thus, it is not surprising that the Impella device is more and more present in the perioperative setting and especially in patients on intensive care units. Despite the numerous advantages such as cardiac resting and hemodynamic stabilization, potential adverse events exist, which may lead to severe, but preventable complications, so that adequate education, early recognition of such events and a subsequent adequate management are crucial in patients with tMCS. This article provides an overview especially for anesthesiologists and intensivists focusing on technical basics, indications and contraindications for its use with special focus on the intra- and postoperative management. Furthermore, troubleshooting for most common complications for patients on Impella support is provided., Competing Interests: Erklärung zu finanziellen Interessen Forschungsförderung erhalten: ja, von einer anderen Institution (Pharma- oder Medizintechnikfirma usw.); Honorar/geldwerten Vorteil für Referententätigkeit erhalten: ja, von einer anderen Institution (Pharma- oder Medizintechnikfirma usw.); Bezahlter Berater/interner Schulungsreferent/Gehaltsempfänger: ja, von einer anderen Institution (Pharma- oder Medizintechnikfirma usw.); Patent/Geschäftsanteile/Aktien (Autor/Partner, Ehepartner, Kinder) an im Bereich der Medizin aktiven Firma: nein; Patent/Geschäftsanteile/Aktien (Autor/Partner, Ehepartner, Kinder) an zu Sponsoren dieser Fortbildung bzw. durch die Fortbildung in ihren Geschäftsinteressen berührten Firma: nein Erklärung zu nichtfinanziellen Interessen Die Autorinnen/Autoren geben an, dass kein Interessenkonflikt besteht., (Thieme. All rights reserved.)

Background: Minimally invasive surgery for left ventricular assist device implantation may have advantages over conventional sternotomy (CS). Additionally, ultra-fast-track anesthesia has been linked to better outcomes after cardiac surgery. This study summarizes our early experience of combining minimally invasive surgery with ultra-fast-track anesthesia (MIFTA) in patients receiving HeartMate 3 devices and compares the outcomes between MIFTA and CS., Methods: From October 2015 to January 2019, 18 of 49 patients with Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support profiles >1 underwent MIFTA for HeartMate 3 implantation. For bias reduction, propensity scores were calculated and used as a covariate in a regression model to analyze outcomes. Weighted parametric survival analysis was performed., Results: In the MIFTA group, intensive care unit stays were shorter (mean difference, 8 days [95% CI, 4-13]; P <0.001), and the incidences of pneumonia and right heart failure were lower than those in the CS group (odds ratio, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.01-1.75]; P =0.016, respectively). At 6 and 12 hours postoperatively, MIFTA patients had a better hemodynamic performance with lower pulmonary wedge pressure (mean difference, 2.23 mm Hg [95% CI, 0.41-4.06]; P =0.028) and a higher right ventricular stroke work index (mean difference, -1.49 g·m/m 2 per beat [95% CI, -2.95 to -0.02]; P =0.031). CS patients had a worse right heart failure-free survival rate (hazard ratio, 2.35 [95% CI, 0.96-5.72]; P <0.01)., Conclusions: Compared with CS, MIFTA is a beneficial approach for non-Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support 1 HeartMate 3 patients with lower adverse event incidences, better hemodynamic performance, and preserved right heart function. Future large multicentric investigations are required to verify MIFTA's effects on outcomes.

Background: The use of left ventricular assist devices (LVADs) has gained significant importance for treatment of end-stage heart failure. Fast-track procedures are well established in cardiac surgery, whereas knowledge of their benefits after LVAD implantation is sparse. We hypothesized that ultra-fast-track anesthesia (UFTA) with in-theater extubation or at a maximum of 4 h. after surgery is feasible in Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) level 3 and 4 patients and might prevent postoperative complications., Methods: From March, 2010 to March, 2012, 53 LVADs (50 Heart Mate II and 3 Heart Ware) were implanted in patients in our department. UFTA was successfully performed (LVAD ultra ) in 13 patients. After propensity score matching, we compared the LVAD ultra group with a matched group (LVAD match ) receiving conventional anesthesia management., Results: Patients in the LVAD ultra group had significantly lower incidences of pneumonia (p = 0.031), delirium (p = 0.031) and right ventricular failure (RVF) (p = 0.031). They showed a significantly higher cardiac index in the first 12 h. (p = 0.017); a significantly lower central venous pressure during the first 24 h. postoperatively (p = 0.005) and a significantly shorter intensive care unit (ICU) stay (p = 0.016). Kaplan-Meier analysis after four years of follow-up showed no significant difference in survival., Conclusion: In this pilot study, we demonstrated the feasibility of ultra-fast-track anesthesia in LVAD implantation in selected patients with INTERMACS level 3-4. Patients had a lower incidence of postoperative complications, better hemodynamic performance, shorter length of ICU stay and lower incidence of RVF after UFTA. Prospective randomized investigations should examine the preservation of right ventricular function in larger numbers and identify appropriate selection criteria.

Background: The demographic change is accompanied by an increasing number of elderly trauma patients. Geriatric patients with trauma often show several comorbidities and as a result have a high perioperative risk to develop postoperative morbidity and mortality. The 30-day mortality is high., Aim: This article presents an overview of the perioperative management of elderly trauma patients in order to improve the perioperative outcome of these high risk patients., Material and Methods: A literature search was carried out focusing on the latest developments in the field of elderly trauma patients in order to present guidance on preoperative, intraoperative and postoperative anesthesiological management., Results: Elderly trauma patients should undergo operative interventions as soon as possible. Many of these patients have a high risk profile. This can be estimated using risk scores in order to allow a prognosis for the outcome of patients. The informed consent needs to be discussed accordingly. The perioperative management is ideally addressed in a multidisciplinary approach. An array of questions in perioperative management, such as the mode of anesthesia, the ideal individual transfusion trigger and fluid management have not yet been adequately addressed in studies., Conclusion: The level of evidence in the perioperative management of elderly trauma patients is poor; therefore, there is an urgent need for large prospective studies in order to define uniform standards and guidelines.

Copyright of Anaesthesist is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background To date, only limited data exist about the use of xenon as an anaesthetic agent in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. The favourable cardio- and neuroprotective properties of xenon might attenuate postoperative complications, improve outcome, and reduce the incidence of delirium. Thus, the aims of this study were to investigate the feasibility and safety of balanced xenon anaesthesia in patients undergoing cardiac surgery and to gather pilot data for a future randomized multicentre study. Methods Thirty patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass grafting were enrolled in this randomized, single-blind controlled trial. They were randomized to receive balanced general anaesthesia with either xenon (45–50 vol%) or sevoflurane (1–1.4 vol%). The primary outcome was the occurrence of adverse events (AEs). Secondary outcome parameters were feasibility criteria (bispectral index, perioperative haemodynamic, and respiratory profile) and safety parameters (dosage of study treatments, renal function, intraoperative blood loss, need for inotropic support, regional cerebral tissue oxygenation). Furthermore, at predefined time points, systemic and pulmonary haemodynamics were assessed by the use of a pulmonary artery catheter. Results There were no patient characteristic differences between the groups. Patients undergoing xenon anaesthesia did not differ with respect to the incidence of AE (6 vs 8, P=0.464) compared with the sevoflurane group. No differences were detected regarding secondary feasibility and safety criteria. The haemodynamic and respiratory profile was comparable between the treatment groups. Conclusions Balanced xenon anaesthesia is feasible and safe compared with sevoflurane anaesthesia in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery. Acronym CARDIAX: A pre- and post-coronary artery bypass graft implantation disposed application of xenon. Clinical trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT01285271; EudraCT-number: 2010-023942-63. Approved by the ethics committee ‘Ethik-Kommission an der Medizinischen Fakultät der Rheinisch-Westfälischen Technischen Hochschule Aachen (RWTH Aachen)’: EK-218/10. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background Previously, we showed a significant difference in the measurements of hypnotic depth by the bispectral index (BIS) and auditory-evoked potentials (AEPs) using the A-line autoregressive index during xenon anaesthesia. In the present study, we evaluate the alternative AEP-based auditory-evoked potential index (aepEX) for the measurement of hypnotic depth in patients undergoing general anaesthesia with xenon. Methods Forty-two patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery were enrolled in this controlled, double-blinded, randomized, clinical study. Patients were randomized to receive either xenon (n=21) or sevoflurane anaesthesia (n=21). During anaesthesia, BIS values were recorded simultaneously with the aepEX monitoring. The anaesthetist performing the anaesthesia was blinded to the hypnotic depth monitors. After surgery, the incidence of recalls and awareness was evaluated. Results Patients' characteristics such as gender, age, and weight did not differ between the groups. The aepEX and BIS values behaved similarly during anaesthesia. The comparison of aepEX values during xenon and sevoflurane anaesthesia revealed significantly lower aepEX values in the xenon group after 25 min [xenon: 32.9 (4.8) vs sevoflurane: 39.3 (9.0); P=0.008] and after 35 min [xenon: 31.4 (6.6) vs sevoflurane: 37.0 (6.8); P=0.012]. During anaesthesia, aepEX values correlated with the clinical evaluation of depth of anaesthesia (e.g. >20% changes of the baseline arterial pressure or heart rate, spontaneous breathing and/or intolerance of mechanical ventilation, coughing, abdominal pressing, sweating, eye tearing). Conclusions We found the aepEX monitor to provide index in the range of adequate depth of xenon anaesthesia, when combined with remifentanil infusion in intubated patients undergoing elective abdominal surgery. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]