Search

The recent integration of regional anesthesia techniques into the cardiac surgical patient population has become a component of enhanced recovery after cardiac surgery pathways. Fascial planes of the chest wall enable single-injection or catheter-based infusions to spread local anesthetic over multiple levels of innervation. Although median sternotomy remains a common approach to cardiac surgery, minimally invasive techniques have integrated additional methods of performing cardiac surgery. Understanding the surgical approach and chest wall innervation is crucial to success in choosing the appropriate chest wall block. Parasternal intercostal plane techniques (previously termed "pectointercostal fascial plane" and "transversus thoracic muscle plane") provide anterior chest and ipsilateral sternal coverage. Anterolateral chest wall coverage is feasible with the interpectoral plane and pectoserratus plane blocks (previously termed "pectoralis") and superficial and deep serratus anterior plane blocks. The erector spinae plane block provides extensive coverage of the ipsilateral chest wall. Any of these techniques has the potential to provide bilateral chest wall analgesia. The relative novelty of these techniques requires ongoing research to be strategic, thoughtful, and focused on clinically meaningful outcomes to enable widespread evidence-based implementation. This review article discusses the key perspectives for performing and assessing chest wall blocks in a cardiac surgical population.

Individualised positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) may optimise pulmonary compliance, thereby potentially mitigating lung injury. This meta-analysis aimed to determine the impact of individualised PEEP vs fixed PEEP during abdominal surgery on postoperative pulmonary outcomes.Medical databases (PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, ScienceDirect, Google Scholar, and the China National Knowledge Infrastructure) were searched for RCTs comparing fixed vs individualised PEEP. The composite primary outcome of pulmonary complications comprised hypoxaemia, atelectasis, pneumonia, and acute respiratory distress syndrome. Secondary outcomes included oxygenation (PTen RCTs (n=1117 patients) met the criteria for inclusion, with six reporting the primary endpoint. Individualised PEEP reduced the incidence of overall pulmonary complications (141/412 [34.2%]) compared with 183/415 (44.1%) receiving fixed PEEP (RR 0.69 [95% CI: 0.51-0.93]; P=0.016; IIndividualised PEEP may reduce pulmonary complications, improve oxygenation, and reduce systemic inflammation after abdominal surgery.CRD42021277973.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic continues to disrupt the provision of cardiac procedural services due to overwhelming interval surges in COVID-19 cases and the associated crisis of cardiac intervention deferment. Despite the availability of widespread testing, highly efficacious vaccines, and intensive public health efforts, the pandemic is entering its third year, where new severe acute respiratory syndrome-coronavirus-2 variants have increased the likelihood that patients scheduled for a cardiac intervention will contract COVID-19 in the perioperative period. The Society of Thoracic Surgeons (STS) Workforce on Critical Care, the STS Workforce on Adult Cardiac and Vascular Surgery, and the Canadian Society of Cardiac Surgeons have developed this document, endorsed by the STS and affirmed by the Society of Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions and the Canadian Association of Interventional Cardiology, to provide guidance for cardiac procedure deferment and intervention timing for preoperative patients diagnosed with COVID-19. This document is intended for the perioperative cardiac surgical team and outlines the present state of the pandemic, the impact of COVID-19 on intervention outcome, and offers a recommended algorithm for individualized cardiac procedure triage and timing.

Time to initiation and completion of adjuvant therapy are critical to improve postoperative oncologic outcomes. This study aims to determine whether an Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) pathway for gastric cancer surgery promotes early Return to Intended Oncologic Therapy (RIOT).This is a before-after intervention study including patients with gastric adenocarcinoma who underwent surgery from January 2016 to January 2021. Two periods were denoted based upon the implementation date of our institutional ERAS pathway (June 2018). Our primary outcome was time to RIOT after surgery. Hodges-Lehmann analysis was used to estimate median differences of non-parametric outcomes.Seventy patients with gastric adenocarcinoma were included (35 in pre-ERAS period and 35 in post-ERAS period). Fourteen of the pre-ERAS and twenty-two patients of the post-ERAS period received adjuvant therapy. Time to RIOT was reduced in the post-ERAS period (median 39 days, IQR 31-49) by 12 days (95% CI 3-14 days, p = 0.01) compared to the pre-ERAS period (median 51 days, IQR 42-62). Length of hospital stay (LOS) was lower in the ERAS group (6 days, IQR 5-11 vs 10 days, IQR 8-13, p 0.01).Our institutional ERAS pathway for gastric cancer surgery was associated with earlier RIOT and shorter LOS.

Homelessness is a growing concern across the world, particularly as individuals experiencing homelessness age and face an increasing burden of chronic health conditions. Although substantial research has focused on the medical and psychiatric care of patients experiencing homelessness, literature about the surgical care of these patients is sparse. Our objective was to review the literature to identify areas of concern unique to patients experiencing homelessness with surgical disease. A scoping review was conducted using a comprehensive database for studies from 1990 to September 1, 2020. Studies that included patients who were unhoused and discussed surgical care were included. The inclusion criteria were designed to identify evidence that directly affected surgical care, systems management, and policy making. Findings were organized within a Phases of Surgical Care framework: preoperative care, intraoperative care, postoperative care, and global use. Our search strategy yielded 553 unique studies, of which 23 met inclusion criteria. Most studies were performed at public and/or safety-net hospitals or via administrative datasets, and surgical specialties that were represented included orthopedic, cardiac, plastic surgery trauma, and vascular surgery. Using the Surgical Phases of Care framework, we identified studies that described the impact of housing status in pre- and postoperative phases as well as global use. There was limited identification of barriers to surgical and anesthetic best practices in the intraoperative phase. More than half of studies (52.2%) lacked a clear definition of homelessness. Thus, there is a marked gap in the surgical literature regarding the impact of housing status on optimal surgical care, with the largest area for improvement in the intraoperative phase of surgical and anesthetic decision making. Consistent use of clear definitions of homelessness is lacking. To promote improved care, a standardized approach to recording housing status is needed, and studies must explore vulnerabilities in surgical care unique to this population.

In 2019, cardiothoracic and vascular critical care remained an important focus and subspecialty. This article continues the annual series to review relevant contributions in postoperative critical care that may affect the cardiac anesthesiologist. Herein, the pertinent literature published in 2019 is explored and organized by organ system.

The use of clinical dashboards has expanded significantly in healthcare in recent years in a variety of settings. The ability to analyze data related to quality metrics in one screen is highly desirable for cardiac anesthesiologists, as they have considerable influence on important clinical outcomes. Building a robust quality program within cardiac anesthesia relies on consistent access and review of quality outcome measures, process measures, and operational measures through a clinical dashboard. Signals and trends in these measures may be compared to other cardiac surgical programs to analyze gaps and areas for quality improvement efforts. In this article, the authors describe how they designed a clinical cardiac anesthesia dashboard for quality efforts at their institution.

One-lung ventilation for thoracic surgery represents a challenge due to the risk for hypoxemia and barotrauma. Dual-controlled ventilation (i.e., pressure-regulated volume control [PRVC]) may confer improved lung mechanics compared to conventional ventilation (volume-controlled ventilation [VCV]). Our objective was to determine the association between ventilatory mode and pulmonary outcomes following lung resection surgery.A historical cohort (2016-2021) of patients undergoing lung resection surgery was used to identify cases performed with PRVC ventilation (intervention) versus VCV (conventional). Both groups were matched in a 1:1 fashion using propensity scoring based on preoperative oxygen saturation, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, intraoperative ventilator settings, and surgical approach. Our primary outcome was postoperative hypoxemia (SpOOf 2,107 eligible patients (PRVC=1,587 vs VCV=520), a total of 774 matched pairs were analyzed (PRVC=387 vs VCV=387). The overall incidence of postoperative hypoxemia was 35.5% (95%CI 32.2%-39.0%). Hypoxemia was less likely among patients managed with low tidal volumes (≤6mL/kg per ideal body weight, aOR 0.73, 95%CI 0.57-0.92, P=0.008). No significant association was observed between ventilator mode and postoperative hypoxemia (33.3% in PRVC vs 37.7% in VCV; aOR 0.93, 95%CI 0.71-1.23, P=0.627) or secondary pulmonary complications (3.9% in PRVC vs 3.4% in VCV; aOR 0.96, 95%CI 0.47-1.97, P=0.909).Dual-controlled ventilation was not associated with improved pulmonary outcomes compared to conventional ventilation in lung resection surgery.

BackgroundSocial media (SoMe) enables publishers and authors to disseminate content immediately and directly to interested end-users, on a global scale. Alternative metrics (altmetrics) are non-traditional bibliometrics which describe the exposure and impact of an article on freely available platforms such as Twitter, Facebook, Wikipedia and the news. Altmetrics are strongly associated with ultimate citation counts in various medical disciplines, except plastic surgery which represents the rational for this study.MethodsAltmetric explorer was used to extract altmetrics and citation rates for articles published during 2018 in Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery (PRS), the Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, the Annals of Plastics Surgery and Plastic Surgery (also known as Chirurgie Plastique). Multivariable negative binomial regression was used to estimate the relationship between citations and predictors (presented as the incidence rate ratio, IRR with 95% confidence interval, CI). Results: Overall, 1215 plastic surgery articles were captured which were cited 3269 times. There was a strong and independent association between the number of mentions in SoMe and the number of times an article was cited (adjusted IRR 1.01 [95% CI 1.01, 1.1]), whereby each mention in SoMe (e.g. Tweets or Facebook posts) translated to one additional citation. Evidence synthesis articles (e.g. systematic reviews) were cited twice as often as other articles and again, the use of SoMe to advertise these outputs was independently associated with more citations (IRR 2.0 [95% CI 1.3, 3.2]).ConclusionsDissemination of plastic surgery research through social media channels increases an articles impact as measured by citations.

Background Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols reduce length of stay, complications and costs for a large number of elective surgical procedures. A similar, structured approach appears to improve outcomes, including mortality, for patients undergoing high-risk emergency general surgery, and specifically emergency laparotomy. These are the first consensus guidelines for optimal care of these patients using an ERAS approach. Methods Experts in aspects of management of the high-risk and emergency general surgical patient were invited to contribute by the International ERAS® Society. Pubmed, Cochrane, Embase, and MEDLINE database searches on English language publications were performed for ERAS elements and relevant specific topics. Studies on each item were selected with particular attention to randomized controlled trials, systematic reviews, meta-analyses and large cohort studies, and reviewed and graded using the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. Recommendations were made on the best level of evidence, or extrapolation from studies on non-emergency patients when appropriate. The Delphi method was used to validate final recommendations. The guideline has been divided into two parts: Part 1—Preoperative Care and Part 2—Intraoperative and Postoperative management. This paper provides guidelines for Part 1. Results Twelve components of preoperative care were considered. Consensus was reached after three rounds. Conclusions These guidelines are based on the best available evidence for an ERAS approach to patients undergoing emergency laparotomy. Initial management is particularly important for patients with sepsis and physiological derangement. These guidelines should be used to improve outcomes for these high-risk patients.

Background Enhanced recovery programs (ERPs) for colorectal surgery bundle evidence-based measures to reduce complications, accelerate postoperative recovery, and improve the value of perioperative health care. Despite these successes, several recent studies have identified an association between ERPs and postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI). We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to determine the association between ERPs for colorectal surgery and postoperative AKI. Methodology After conducting a search of major databases (PubMed, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and ScienceDirect), we conducted a meta-analysis of observational studies that reported on the association between ERPs and postoperative AKI. Results Six observational studies (n = 4765 patients) comparing ERP (n = 2140) to conventional care (n = 2625) were included. Overall, ERP patients had a significantly greater odds of developing postoperative AKI (odds ratio [OR] = 1.98, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.31-3.00, P = .001) than those who received conventional care. There was no evidence of publication bias (Begg’s test P = 1.0, Egger’s P value = .95). Conclusions Based upon pooled results from observational studies, ERPs are associated with increased odds of developing postoperative AKI compared to conventional perioperative care. The mechanism for this effect is likely multifactorial. Additional research targeting high risk patient populations should evaluate the role of restrictive fluid administration, hemodynamic goals, and scheduled nephrotoxic agents in ERP protocols.

Introduction: Extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is a life-saving therapy for those in cardiopulmonary failure, including post-cardiac arrest. Despite a high volume of ECMO patients using anti-seizure medication, there is a paucity of data concerning the dosing, levels, and clinical scenarios for their use. Case Report: We present three cases of ECMO patients post-PEA arrest who were on valproic acid (VPA) for treatment of seizure and/or myoclonus. The total and free levels of VPA are reported. Discussion: The trough levels are consistent throughout therapy, suggesting VPA is not significantly removed by the ECMO circuitry. Although the total serum levels remained below the toxic range, the free level was elevated in two patients. These patients did not develop signs of toxicity. Conclusion: VPA may be an effective anti-seizure medication in ECMO patients. Free VPA levels should be more readily available to better quantify efficacy or toxicity, especially in ECMO patients.

Abdominal and peritoneal pain after surgery is common and burdensome, yet the lack of standardized diagnostic criteria for this type of acute pain impedes basic, translational, and clinical investigations. The collaborative effort among the Analgesic, Anesthetic, and Addiction Clinical Trial Translations, Innovations, Opportunities, and Networks, American Pain Society, and American Academy of Pain Medicine Pain Taxonomy (AAAPT) provides a systematic framework to classify acute painful conditions. Using this framework, a multidisciplinary working group reviewed the literature and developed core diagnostic criteria for acute abdominal and peritoneal pain after surgery. In this report, we apply the proposed AAAPT framework to 4 prototypical surgical procedures resulting in abdominal and peritoneal pain as examples: cesarean delivery, cholecystectomy, colorectal surgical procedures, and pancreas resection. These diagnostic criteria address the 3 most common surgical procedures performed in the United States, capture diverse surgical approaches, and may also be applied to other surgical procedures resulting in abdominal and peritoneal pain. Additional investigation regarding the validity and reliability of this framework will facilitate its adoption in research that advances our comprehension of mechanisms, deliver better treatments, and help prevent the transition of acute to chronic pain after surgery in the abdominal and peritoneal region. Perspective Using AAAPT, we present key diagnostic criteria for acute abdominal and peritoneal pain after surgery. We provide a systematic classification using 5 dimensions for abdominal and peritoneal pain that occurs after surgery, in addition to 4 specific surgical procedures: cesarean delivery, cholecystectomy, colorectal surgical procedures, and pancreas resection.

Objective: Over 80 percent of surgery patients experience acute post-operative pain and less than half feel their pain is adequately controlled. Patients receiving chronic opioids, including methadone, are at the highest risk of inadequate pain control. Guidelines do not provide specific recommendations for analgesia management in this population. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the association between post-operative methadone use and respiratory depression. Design: This study was a single center, retrospective, cohort study of adult patients. Setting: Patients included were admitted to a single academic medical center from July 2016 to September 2018. Participants: Medical records of adult inpatients with an operative procedure who received perioperative methadone were reviewed. Main outcome measures: Preoperative methadone use was evaluated for all patients. Post-operative methadone dosing was compared to preoperative methadone dosing. Post-operative respiratory depression was evaluated. Logistic regression was performed to identify risk factors for respiratory depression. Results: Two hundred ninety-eight patients were included in the study. Patients were divided into groups based on preoperative methadone use. Over 90 percent of patients were on preoperative methadone. There were no significant differences in baseline characteristics between groups. In the initial seven post-operative days, 14.8 percent of patients had documented respiratory depression. Respiratory depression was more common among patients who were newly initiated on methadone post-operatively. Factors associated with respiratory depression included male sex, increased age, and new post-operative methadone initiation. Conclusions: Most patients who were administered post-operative methadone were on preoperative methadone. New post-operative methadone initiation was a risk factor for respiratory depression.

BACKGROUND Retrograde autologous priming (RAP) before cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) may minimize allogeneic red cell transfusion. We conducted a systematic review of the literature to examine the impact of RAP on perioperative allogeneic red cell transfusions in cardiac surgical patients. METHODS This study involved a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies evaluating the use of RAP in cardiac surgery involving CPB. The primary outcome was intraoperative allogeneic red cell transfusion. Secondary outcomes included whole hospital allogeneic transfusions and adverse events such as acute kidney injury (AKI) and stroke. RESULTS A total of 11 RCTs (n = 1337 patients) were included, comparing RAP patients (n = 674) to control (n = 663). In addition, 10 observational studies (n = 2327) were included, comparing RAP patients (n = 1257) to control (n = 1070). Overall, RAP was associated with a significantly reduced incidence of intraoperative red cell transfusion (n = 18 studies; odds ratio [OR] = 0.34; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.22-0.55, P < .001) compared to controls. This effect was seen among RCTs (n = 10 studies; OR = 0.19; 95% CI, 0.08-0.45, P < .001) and observational studies (n = 8 studies; OR = 0.66; 95% CI, 0.50-0.87, P = .004) in isolation. RAP was also associated with a significantly reduced incidence of whole hospital red cell transfusion (n = 5 studies; OR = 0.28; 95% CI, 0.19-0.41, P < .001). Among the studies that reported AKI and stroke outcomes, there was no statistically significant increased odds of AKI or stroke in either RAP or control patients. CONCLUSIONS Based on the pooled results of the available literature, RAP is associated with a significant reduction in intraoperative and whole hospital allogeneic red cell transfusion. Use of RAP may prevent hemodilution of cardiac surgical patients and thus, lessen transfusions. Additional high-quality prospective studies are necessary to determine the ideal priming volume necessary to confer the greatest benefit without incurring organ injury.

BACKGROUND Cardiac anesthetics rely heavily on opioids, with the standard patient receiving between 70 and 105 morphine sulfate equivalents (MSE; 10-15 µg/kg of fentanyl). A central tenet of Enhanced Recovery Programs (ERP) is the use of multimodal analgesia. This study was performed to assess the association between nonopioid interventions employed as part of an ERP for cardiac surgery and intraoperative opioid administration. METHODS This study represents a post hoc secondary analysis of data obtained from an institutional ERP for cardiac surgery. Consecutive patients undergoing cardiac surgery received 5 nonopioid interventions, including preoperative gabapentin and acetaminophen, intraoperative dexmedetomidine and ketamine infusions, and regional analgesia via serratus anterior plane block. The primary objective, the association between intraoperative opioid administration and the number of interventions provided, was assessed via a linear mixed-effects regression model. To assess the association between intraoperative opioid administration and postoperative outcomes, patients were stratified into high (>50 MSE) and low (≤50 MSE) opioids, 1:1 propensity matched based on 15 patients and procedure covariables and assessed for associations with postoperative outcomes of interest. To investigate the impact of further opioid restriction, ultralow (≤25 MSE) opioid participants were then identified, 1:3 propensity matched to high opioid patients, and similarly compared. RESULTS A total of 451 patients were included in the overall analysis. Analysis of the primary objective revealed that intraoperative opioid administration was inversely related to the number of interventions employed (estimated -7.96 MSE per intervention, 95% confidence interval [CI], -9.82 to -6.10, P < .001). No differences were detected between low (n = 136) and high (n = 136) opioid patients in postoperative complications, postoperative pain scores, time to extubation, or length of stay. No differences were found in outcomes between ultralow (n = 63) and high (n = 132) opioid participants. CONCLUSIONS Nonopioid interventions employed as part of an ERP for cardiac surgery were associated with a reduction of intraoperative opioid administration. Low and ultralow opioid use was not associated with significant differences in postoperative outcomes. These findings are hypothesis-generating, and future prospective studies are necessary to establish the role of opioid-sparing strategies in the setting of cardiac surgery.

The objective of this study was to determine if anesthesia providers can accurately estimate the cost of commonly used medications, supplies, and blood products.This study was conducted between April and June 2019 at an academic tertiary care hospital. Anesthesia providers (certified registered nurse anesthetists [CRNAs], residents, and fellows/attendings) were surveyed on their knowledge of the cost of commonly used therapies. Items were sorted into 12 categories: opioids, non-opioid analgesia, vasopressors, hypertension medications, antibiotics, neuromuscular blockers, reversals, anesthetics, supplies, kits, blood products, and blood-related products. Estimates were considered to be accurate if the median cost differed from the average wholesale price by25%, moderately inaccurate if between 25% and 50%, and severely inaccurate if by50%.A total of 107 surveys (CRNAs: 25, residents: 36, fellows/attendings: 46) were returned. The percentage of total items accurately estimated for cost was low (22% for all providers), and was not different between provider types (27% for CRNAs, 23% for residents, 20% for fellows/attendings; p = 0.69). The percentage of items with severe inaccuracies in cost estimation was high and was not different between provider types (56% for CRNAs, 60% for residents, 50% for fellows/attendings; p = 0.53). Rates of under- and overestimation varied widely, with greatest underestimation for vasopressors and blood-related products, and greatest overestimation for non-opioid analgesia and antibiotics. Low- and high-cost category items tended to be overestimated and underestimated, respectively (p0.0001).The majority of anesthesia providers have poor knowledge of cost. These findings suggest that cost awareness interventions may be necessary for promoting high-value health care.

Deaths from prescription opioid overdose are dramatically increasing. This study evaluates the incidence, risk factors, and cost of new persistent opioid use after aortic valve replacement, mitral valve replacement, and mitral valve repair.Insurance claims from commercially insured patients who underwent aortic valve replacement, mitral valve replacement, mitral valve repair, or aortic valve replacement and mitral valve replacement/repair from 2014 to 2016 were evaluated. New persistent opioid use was defined as opioid-naive patients who filled an opioid prescription in the perioperative period and filled opioid prescriptions between 90 and 180 days postoperatively. Multivariable logistic regression identified risk factors for new persistent opioid use. Quantile regression evaluated the impact of new persistent opioid use on total healthcare payments in the 6 months after discharge.Among 3404 opioid-naive patients undergoing aortic valve replacement, mitral valve replacement, or mitral valve repair, 188 (5.5%) had new persistent opioid use. Living in the southern United States (odds ratio, 1.89; 95% confidence interval, 1.35-2.63; P.001) and increased opioids prescribed in the perioperative period (odds ratio, 1.009; 95% confidence interval, 1.006-1.012; P.001) were independently associated with new persistent opioid use. After risk adjustment, new persistent opioid use was associated with a 2-fold higher number of emergency department visits (odds ratio, 2.21; 95% confidence interval, 1.61-3.03; P.001) and a $5422 increase in healthcare payments in the 6 months after discharge.New persistent opioid use is a significant and costly complication after aortic and mitral valve surgery in privately insured patients. Variation in regional susceptibility and opioid prescribing suggests that standardization may help prevent this complication.

Enhanced recovery pathways (ERPs) have been disseminated worldwide to improve the perioperative patient outcomes while lowering direct healthcare costs. Recent evidence has revealed a potential association between ERPs for colorectal surgery and acute kidney injury (AKI). We, therefore, sought to identify the risk factors associated with postoperative AKI among patients in an ERP for colorectal surgery. We analyzed the data resulting from a large multicenter, prospective cohort study of patients in an ERP for colorectal surgery. A multivariable analysis was performed to identify factors independently associated with postoperative AKI. The receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curves and contour representations were plotted for the diagnostic prediction analysis. Among those patients included in the analysis (n = 1652), the overall incidence of postoperative AKI was 7.7% (95% CI 6.5–9.1%). After adjustment, the independent risk factors for AKI included age > 60 (OR 1.03, 95% CI 1.01–1.05), male gender (OR 2.33, 95% CI 1.36–4.02), ASA III-IV (OR 2.43, 95% CI 1.39–4.26), CKD (OR 2.45, 95% CI 1.42–4.23), open surgical approach (OR 2.62, 95% CI 1.63–4.21) and serum albumin

In the setting of the current novel coronavirus pandemic, this document has been generated to provide guiding statements for the adult cardiac surgeon to consider in a rapidly evolving national landscape. Acknowledging the risk for a potentially prolonged need for cardiac surgery procedure deferral, we have created this proposed template for physicians and interdisciplinary teams to consider in protecting their patients, institution, and their highly specialized cardiac surgery team. In addition, recommendations on the transition from traditional in-person patient assessments and outpatient follow-up are provided. Lastly, we advocate that cardiac surgeons must continue to serve as leaders, experts, and relevant members of our medical community, shifting our role as necessary in this time of need.

Study Design: The COrona VIrus Disease-19 (COVID-19) pandemic has disrupted craniomaxillofacial (CMF) surgeons practice worldwide. We implemented a cross-sectional study and enrolled a sample of CMF surgeons who completed a survey. Objective: To measure the impact that COVID-19 has had on CMF surgeons by (1) identifying variations that may exist by geographic region and specialty and (2) measuring access to adequate personal protective equipment (PPE) and identify factors associated with limited access to adequate PPE. Methods: Primary outcome variable was availability of adequate PPE for health-care workers (HCWs) in the front line and surgeons. Descriptive and analytic statistics were computed. Level of statistical significance was set at P < .05. Binary logistic regression models were created to identify variables associated with PPE status (adequate or inadequate). Results: Most of the respondents felt that hospitals did not provide adequate PPE to the HCWs (57.3%) with significant regional differences ( P = .04). Most adequate PPE was available to surgeons in North America with the least offered in Africa. Differences in PPE adequacy per region ( P < .001) and per country ( P < .001) were significant. In Africa and South America, regions reporting previous virus outbreaks, the differences in access to adequate PPE evaporated compared to Europe ( P = .18 and P = .15, respectively). Conclusion: The impact of COVID-19 among CMF surgeons is global and adversely affects both clinical practice and personal lives of CMF surgeons. Future surveys should capture what the mid- and long-term impact of the COVID-19 crisis will look like.

Background: Ultrafiltration is used with cardiopulmonary bypass to reduce the effects of hemodilution and restore electrolyte balance. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to analyze the effect of conventional and modified ultrafiltration on intraoperative blood transfusion. Methods: Utilizing the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement, we systematically searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, and Cochrane Library to perform a meta-analysis of studies of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) and observational studies evaluating conventional ultrafiltration (CUF) and modified ultrafiltration (MUF) on the primary outcome of intraoperative red cell transfusions. Results: A total of 7 RCTs ( n = 928) were included, comparing modified ultrafiltration ( n = 473 patients) to controls ( n = 455 patients) and 2 observational studies ( n = 47,007), comparing conventional ultrafiltration ( n = 21,748) to controls ( n = 25,427). Overall, MUF was associated with transfusion of fewer intraoperative red cell units per patient ( n = 7); MD −0.73 units; 95% CI −1.12 to −0.35 p = 0.04; p for heterogeneity = 0.0001, I 2 = 55%) compared to controls. CUF was no difference in intraoperative red cell transfusions compared to controls ( n = 2); OR 3.09; 95% CI 0.26–36.59; p = 0.37; p for heterogeneity = 0.94, I 2 = 0%. Review of the included observational studies revealed an association between larger volumes (>2.2 L in a 70 kg patient) of CUF and risk of acute kidney injury (AKI). Conclusion: The results of this systematic review and meta-analysis suggest that MUF is associated with fewer intraoperative red cell transfusions. Based on limited studies, CUF does not appear to be associated with a difference in intraoperative red cell transfusion.

The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered.Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline.

The guideline for coronary artery revascularization replaces the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines, providing a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered.Coronary artery disease remains a leading cause of morbidity and mortality globally. Coronary revascularization is an important therapeutic option when managing patients with coronary artery disease. The 2021 coronary artery revascularization guideline provides recommendations based on contemporary evidence for the treatment of these patients. The recommendations present an evidence-based approach to managing patients with coronary artery disease who are being considered for coronary revascularization, with the intent to improve quality of care and align with patients' interests.

Aim:The executive summary of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association/Society for Cardiovascular Angiography and Interventions coronary artery revascularization guideline provides the top 10 items readers should know about the guideline. In the full guideline, the recommendations replace the 2011 coronary artery bypass graft surgery guideline and the 2011 and 2015 percutaneous coronary intervention guidelines. This summary offers a patient-centric approach to guide clinicians in the treatment of patients with significant coronary artery disease undergoing coronary revascularization, as well as the supporting documentation to encourage their use.Methods:A comprehensive literature search was conducted from May 2019 to September 2019, encompassing studies, reviews, and other evidence conducted on human subjects that were published in English from PubMed, EMBASE, the Cochrane Collaboration, CINHL Complete, and other relevant databases. Additional relevant studies, published through May 2021, were also considered.Structure:Recommendations from the earlier percutaneous coronary intervention and coronary artery bypass graft surgery guidelines have been updated with new evidence to guide clinicians in caring for patients undergoing coronary revascularization. This summary includes recommendations, tables, and figures from the full guideline that relate to the top 10 take-home messages. The reader is referred to the full guideline for graphical flow charts, supportive text, and tables with additional details about the rationale for and implementation of each recommendation, and the evidence tables detailing the data considered in the development of this guideline.

High compliance within enhanced recovery protocols is associated with lower complication rates. Understanding which clinical characteristics make patients more prone to fail adequate adherence to enhanced recovery after surgery guidelines are essential to improve quality care. Our aim was to identify patient characteristics that influence adherence to enhanced recovery protocols in colorectal surgery.A total of 1041 patients underwent colorectal surgery under ERPs from September 2017 through December 2017 across 21 institutions in Spain. Demographic, medical, and surgical characteristics of the patients included were extracted to determine their influence on the adherence to enhanced recovery protocols. High adherence was defined as ≥ 73% (median). A univariate analysis was performed initially, followed by multivariable logistic regression analysis.Over 85% of the patients underwent colorectal surgery for cancer resection, of which 12% had metastatic disease. In multivariable model, the presence of coronary artery disease (aOR 1.79, 95% CI 1.12-2.96, p = 0.045) was significantly associated with high adherence to enhanced recovery protocols, while preoperative hypoalbuminemia (aOR 0.55, 95% CI 0.37-0.82, p = 0.003), indication for ostomy (aOR 0.55, 95% CI 0.4-0.75, p 0.001), and preoperative transfusion (aOR 0.48, 95% CI 0.26-0.91, p = 0.02) were associated with lower adherence.In this study, patients that had preoperative transfusions, preoperative hypoalbuminemia, and indication for ostomy were more likely to receive care with less adherence to enhanced recovery protocols elements, while patients with coronary artery disease were more likely to receive more enhanced recovery protocols elements during their hospitalization.

IntroductionEnhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programs have been shown to minimize the surgical inflammatory response in colorectal cancer, leading to early patient recovery and better postoperative outcomes. Our objective was to determine the association between an ERAS program for colorectal cancer surgery and oncologic recurrence and survival.MethodsA before-after intervention study was designed including patients who underwent colorectal cancer surgery between November 2010 and March 2016. During the study period the institutional criteria for adjuvant therapy remained unchanged and all patients were followed up for 5 years. Cox hazard regression analysis was performed per cumulative year of follow up to evaluate the association between ERAS program exposure and overall survival, cancer-related mortality, and oncologic recurrence. Subgroup analysis was performed by cancer stage (low [I/II] vs advanced [III/IV]).ResultsIn total, 612 patients were included, of which 321 were pre-ERAS and 291 ERAS. Our overall median compliance rate with ERAS interventions was 90% (IQR 85%-95%). Overall survival rates were higher in the ERAS group within the first 2-years after surgery (89.2% vs 83.2%, P=0.04), but there was no difference at 5-year follow up (73.3% vs 72.5%, P=0.82). Subgroup analysis revealed the ERAS enrollment was associated with a significantly lower risk in 5-year oncologic recurrence (aHR 0.55, 95%CI 0.33-0.94, P=0.03) and higher 4-year survival (aHR 0.59, 95%CI 0.37-0.93, P=0.02) among patients with advanced cancer stage compared to pre-ERAS counterparts. ConclusionsPatients with advanced colorectal cancer were less likely to suffer oncologic recurrence when managed during the ERAS period. Additional prospective trials are necessary to determine causation and identify best practice principles associated with long-term recurrence and survival.