Search

Objectives: Identifying independent predictor factors of failure of ultra-fast track (UFT) extubation and to compare in-hospital outcomes with UFT extubation versus fast track (FT) extubation after cardiovascular surgery in adults., Material and Methods: Retrospective analysis of 1498 consecutive patients aged over 18 years-old undergoing cardiovascular surgery at a single institution. Between December 2014 and December 2016, FT extubation was used (N = 713) while, between December 2016 and December 2018, all patients were preoperatively considered suitable for UFT extubation (N = 785). In this instance, a standardized anaesthetic protocol was applied in all cases. The decision to not extubate in the operating room (OR) was based on intraoperative haemodynamic and ventilation., Results: Extubation in the OR was possible in 699 (89%) patients. Significant independent predictors factors of UFT extubation failure were: preoperative NYHA class III-IV, myocardial infarction within two days prior to surgery, preoperative intra-aortic balloon counterpulsation, urgent/emergent surgery, intraoperative transfusion of platelets and intraoperative inotropic and vasopressor support. UFT extubation was associated with lower rates of cardiovascular complications such as congestive cardiac insufficiency (OR: 1,57; 95% CI: 1,13-2,19; p = 0,008) and new-onset postoperatory atrial fibrillation (OR: 1,40; 95% CI: 1,06-1,86; p = 0,020). Patient extubated in the OR presented lower risk of overall complications, shorter intensive care unit stay and higher short-term survival, although, no statistically significance was found when performing the multivariate adjustment., Conclusions: A routine immediate extubation in the OR following adult cardiovascular surgery is a feasible and safe practice, associated with low cardiovascular morbidity., (Copyright © 2022 Sociedad Española de Anestesiología, Reanimación y Terapéutica del Dolor. Publicado por Elsevier España, S.L.U. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Long-term real-world outcomes are critical for informing decisions about biological (Bio) or mechanical (Mech) prostheses for aortic valve replacement, particularly in patients aged between 50 and 65 years. The objective was to compare long-term survival and major adverse cardiac and cardiovascular events (ie, stroke, reoperation, and major bleeding) within this population., Methods: This was a multicenter observational study including all patients aged between 50 and 65 years who underwent an aortic valve replacement because of severe isolated aortic stenosis between the years 2000 and 2018. A total of 5215 patients from 27 Spanish hospitals were registered with a follow-up of 15 years. Multivariable analyses, including a 2:1 propensity score matching (1822 Mech and 911 Bio) and competing risks analyses were applied., Results: Bio prostheses were implanted in 19% of patients (n = 992). No significant differences were observed between matched groups in long-term survival (hazard ratio [HR], 1.14; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.88-1.47; P = .33). Stroke rates were higher for Mech prostheses, but not significant (HR, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.50-1.03; P = .07). Finally, higher rates of major bleeding were found in the Mech group (HR, 0.65; 95% CI, 0.49-0.87; P = .004), whereas reoperation was more frequent among the Bio group (HR, 3.04; 95% CI, 1.80-5.14; P < .001). Bio prostheses increased from 13% in the period from 2000 to 2008 to 24% in 2009 to 2018., Conclusions: Long-term survival was comparable among groups in patients between 50 and 65 years of age. Mech prostheses were associated with a higher risk of major bleeding, whereas Bio prostheses entailed higher reoperation rates. Bio prostheses seem a reasonable choice for patients between 50 and 65 years in Spain., (Copyright © 2021 The American Association for Thoracic Surgery. Published by Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)