Refine
Document Type
- Article (8)
Language
- English (8)
Has Fulltext
- yes (8)
Is part of the Bibliography
- no (8)
Keywords
Institute
- Medizin (8) (remove)
Background: To compare the effect of aprotinin with the effect of lysine analogues (tranexamic acid and ε-aminocaproic acid) on early mortality in three subgroups of patients: low, intermediate and high risk of cardiac surgery.
Methods and Findings: We performed a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials and observational with the following data sources: Medline, Cochrane Library, and reference lists of identified articles. The primary outcome measure was early (in-hospital/30-day) mortality. The secondary outcome measures were any transfusion of packed red blood cells within 24 hours after surgery, any re-operation for bleeding or massive bleeding, and acute renal dysfunction or failure within the selected cited publications, respectively.
Out of 328 search results, 31 studies (15 trials and 16 observational studies) included 33,501 patients. Early mortality was significantly increased after aprotinin vs. lysine analogues with a pooled risk ratio (95% CI) of 1.58 (1.13–2.21), p<0.001 in the low (n = 14,297) and in the intermediate risk subgroup (1.42 (1.09–1.84), p<0.001; n = 14,427), respectively. Contrarily, in the subgroup of high risk patients (n = 4,777), the risk for mortality did not differ significantly between aprotinin and lysine analogues (1.03 (0.67–1.58), p = 0.90).
Conclusion: Aprotinin may be associated with an increased risk of mortality in low and intermediate risk cardiac surgery, but presumably may has no effect on early mortality in a subgroup of high risk cardiac surgery compared to lysine analogues. Thus, decisions to re-license aprotinin in lower risk patients should critically be debated. In contrast, aprotinin might probably be beneficial in high risk cardiac surgery as it reduces risk of transfusion and bleeding complications.
The coronavirus pandemic continues to challenge global healthcare. Severely affected patients are often in need of high doses of analgesics and sedatives. The latter was studied in critically ill coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients in this prospective monocentric analysis. COVID-19 acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) patients admitted between 1 April and 1 December 2020 were enrolled in the study. A statistical analysis of impeded sedation using mixed-effect linear regression models was performed. Overall, 114 patients were enrolled, requiring unusual high levels of sedatives. During 67.9% of the observation period, a combination of sedatives was required in addition to continuous analgesia. During ARDS therapy, 85.1% (n = 97) underwent prone positioning. Veno-venous extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (vv-ECMO) was required in 20.2% (n = 23) of all patients. vv-ECMO patients showed significantly higher sedation needs (p < 0.001). Patients with hepatic (p = 0.01) or renal (p = 0.01) dysfunction showed significantly lower sedation requirements. Except for patient age (p = 0.01), we could not find any significant influence of pre-existing conditions. Age, vv-ECMO therapy and additional organ failure could be demonstrated as factors influencing sedation needs. Young patients and those receiving vv-ECMO usually require increased sedation for intensive care therapy. However, further studies are needed to elucidate the causes and mechanisms of impeded sedation.
Estimating intraoperative blood loss is one of the daily challenges for clinicians. Despite the knowledge of the inaccuracy of visual estimation by anaesthetists and surgeons, this is still the mainstay to estimate surgical blood loss. This review aims at highlighting the strengths and weaknesses of currently used measurement methods. A systematic review of studies on estimation of blood loss was carried out. Studies were included investigating the accuracy of techniques for quantifying blood loss in vivo and in vitro. We excluded nonhuman trials and studies using only monitoring parameters to estimate blood loss. A meta-analysis was performed to evaluate systematic measurement errors of the different methods. Only studies that were compared with a validated reference e.g. Haemoglobin extraction assay were included. 90 studies met the inclusion criteria for systematic review and were analyzed. Six studies were included in the meta-analysis, as only these were conducted with a validated reference. The mixed effect meta-analysis showed the highest correlation to the reference for colorimetric methods (0.93 95% CI 0.91–0.96), followed by gravimetric (0.77 95% CI 0.61–0.93) and finally visual methods (0.61 95% CI 0.40–0.82). The bias for estimated blood loss (ml) was lowest for colorimetric methods (57.59 95% CI 23.88–91.3) compared to the reference, followed by gravimetric (326.36 95% CI 201.65–450.86) and visual methods (456.51 95% CI 395.19–517.83). Of the many studies included, only a few were compared with a validated reference. The majority of the studies chose known imprecise procedures as the method of comparison. Colorimetric methods offer the highest degree of accuracy in blood loss estimation. Systems that use colorimetric techniques have a significant advantage in the real-time assessment of blood loss.
Introduction Patients undergoing heart valve surgery are predominantly transferred postoperatively to the intensive care unit (ICU) under continuous sedation. Volatile anaesthetics are an increasingly used treatment alternative to intravenous substances in the ICU. As subject to inhalational uptake and elimination, the resulting pharmacological benefits have been repeatedly demonstrated. Therefore, volatile anaesthetics appear suitable to meet the growing demands of fast-track cardiac surgery. However, their use requires special preparation at the bedside and trained medical and nursing staff, which might limit the pharmacological benefits. The aim of our work is to assess whether the temporal advantages of recovery under volatile sedation outweigh the higher effort of special preparation.
Methods and analysis The study is designed to evaluate the differences between intravenous sedatives (n=48) and volatile sedatives (n=48) in continued intensive care sedation. This study will be conducted as a prospective, randomised, controlled, single-blinded, monocentre trial at a German university hospital in consenting adult patients undergoing heart valve surgery at a university hospital. This observational study will examine the necessary preparation time, staff consultation and overall feasibility of the chosen sedation method. For this purpose, the continuation of sedation in the ICU with volatile sedatives is considered as one study arm and with intravenous sedatives as the comparison group. Due to rapid elimination and quick awakening after the termination of sedation, closer consultation between the attending physician and the ICU nursing staff is required, in addition to a prolonged setup time. Study analysis will include the required setup time, time from admission to extubation as primary outcome and neurocognitive assessability. In addition, possible operation-specific (blood loss, complications), treatment parameters (catecholamine dosages, lung function) and laboratory results (acute kidney injury, acid base balance (lactataemia), liver failure) as influencing factors will be collected. The study-relevant data will be extracted from the continuous digital records of the patient data management system after the patient has been discharged from the ICU. For statistical evaluation, 95% CIs will be calculated for the median time to extubation and neurocognitive assessability, and the association will be assessed with a Cox regression model. In addition, secondary binary outcome measures will be evaluated using Fisher’s exact tests. Further descriptive and exploratory statistical analyses are also planned.
Ethics and dissemination The study was approved by the Institutional Ethics Board of the University of Frankfurt, Germany (#20-1050). Informed consent of all individual patients will be obtained before randomisation. Results will be disseminated via publication in peer-reviewed journals.
High sedation needs of critically ill COVID-19 ARDS patients - a monocentric observational study
(2021)
Background: Therapy of severely affected coronavirus patient, requiring intubation and sedation is still challenging. Recently, difficulties in sedating these patients have been discussed. This study aims to describe sedation practices in patients with 2019 coronavirus disease (COVID-19)-induced acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Methods: We performed a retrospective monocentric analysis of sedation regimens in critically ill intubated patients with respiratory failure who required sedation in our mixed 32-bed university intensive care unit. All mechanically ventilated adults with COVID-19-induced ARDS requiring continuously infused sedative therapy admitted between April 4, 2020, and June 30, 2020 were included. We recorded demographic data, sedative dosages, prone positioning, sedation levels and duration. Descriptive data analysis was performed; for additional analysis, a logistic regression with mixed effect was used. Results: In total, 56 patients (mean age 67 (±14) years) were included. The mean observed sedation period was 224 (±139) hours. To achieve the prescribed sedation level, we observed the need for two or three sedatives in 48.7% and 12.8% of the cases, respectively. In cases with a triple sedation regimen, the combination of clonidine, esketamine and midazolam was observed in most cases (75.7%). Analgesia was achieved using sufentanil in 98.6% of the cases. The analysis showed that the majority of COVID-19 patients required an unusually high sedation dose compared to those available in the literature. Conclusion: The global pandemic continues to affect patients severely requiring ventilation and sedation, but optimal sedation strategies are still lacking. The findings of our observation suggest unusual high dosages of sedatives in mechanically ventilated patients with COVID-19. Prescribed sedation levels appear to be achievable only with several combinations of sedatives in most critically ill patients suffering from COVID-19-induced ARDS and a potential association to the often required sophisticated critical care including prone positioning and ECMO treatment seems conceivable.
In-line filtration of intravenous infusion may reduce organ dysfunction of adult critical patients
(2019)
Background: The potential harmful effects of particle-contaminated infusions for critically ill adult patients are yet unclear. So far, only significant improved outcome in critically ill children and new-borns was demonstrated when using in-line filters, but for adult patients, evidence is still missing.
Methods: This single-centre, retrospective controlled cohort study assessed the effect of in-line filtration of intravenous fluids with finer 0.2 or 1.2 μm vs 5.0 μm filters in critically ill adult patients. From a total of n = 3215 adult patients, n = 3012 patients were selected by propensity score matching (adjusting for sex, age, and surgery group) and assigned to either a fine filter cohort (with 0.2/1.2 μm filters, n = 1506, time period from February 2013 to January 2014) or a control filter cohort (with 5.0 μm filters, n = 1506, time period from April 2014 to March 2015). The cohorts were compared regarding the occurrence of severe vasoplegia, organ dysfunctions (lung, kidney, and brain), inflammation, in-hospital complications (myocardial infarction, ischemic stroke, pneumonia, and sepsis), in-hospital mortality, and length of ICU and hospital stay.
Results: Comparing fine filter vs control filter cohort, respiratory dysfunction (Horowitz index 206 (119–290) vs 191 (104.75–280); P = 0.04), pneumonia (11.4% vs 14.4%; P = 0.02), sepsis (9.6% vs 12.2%; P = 0.03), interleukin-6 (471.5 (258.8–1062.8) ng/l vs 540.5 (284.5–1147.5) ng/l; P = 0.01), and length of ICU (1.2 (0.6–4.9) vs 1.7 (0.8–6.9) days; P < 0.01) and hospital stay (14.0 (9.2–22.2) vs 14.8 (10.0–26.8) days; P = 0.01) were reduced. Rate of severe vasoplegia (21.0% vs 19.6%; P > 0.20) and acute kidney injury (11.8% vs 13.7%; P = 0.11) was not significantly different between the cohorts.
Conclusions: In-line filtration with finer 0.2 and 1.2 μm filters may be associated with less organ dysfunction and less inflammation in critically ill adult patients.
Trial registration: The study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (number: NCT02281604).
Introduction: Cell salvage (CS) is an integral part of patient blood management (PBM) and aims to reduce allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) transfusion.
Material and methods: This observational study analysed patients scheduled for elective cardiac surgery requiring cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) between November 2015 and October 2018. Patients were divided into a CS group (patients receiving CS) and a control group (no CS). Primary endpoints were the number of patients exposed to allogeneic RBC transfusions and the number of RBC units transfused per patient.
Results: A total of 704 patients undergoing cardiac surgery were analysed, of whom 338 underwent surgery with CS (CS group) and 366 were without CS (control group). Intraoperatively, 152 patients (45%) were exposed to allogeneic RBC transfusions in the CS group and 93 patients (25%) in the control group (P < 0.001). Considering the amount of intraoperative blood loss, regression analysis revealed a significant association between blood loss and increased use of RBC units in patients of the control compared to the CS group (1000 mL: 1.0 vs. 0.6 RBC units; 2000 mL: 2.2 vs. 1.1 RBC units; 3000 mL: 3.4 vs. 1.6 RBC units). Thus, CS was significantly associated with a reduced number of allogeneic RBCs by 40% for 1000 mL, 49% for 2000 mL, and 52% for 3000 mL of blood loss compared to patients without CS.
Conclusions: Cell salvage was significantly associated with a reduced number of allogeneic RBC transfusions. It supports the beneficial effect of CS in cardiac surgical patients as an individual measure in a comprehensive PBM program.
Background: Cell salvage is commonly used as part of a blood conservation strategy. However concerns among clinicians exist about the efficacy of transfusion of washed cell salvage.
Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in which patients, scheduled for all types of surgery, were randomized to washed cell salvage or to a control group with no cell salvage. Data were independently extracted, risk ratio (RR), and weighted mean differences (WMD) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Data were pooled using a random effects model. The primary endpoint was the number of patients exposed to allogeneic red blood cell (RBC) transfusion.
Results: Out of 1140 search results, a total of 47 trials were included. Overall, the use of washed cell salvage reduced the rate of exposure to allogeneic RBC transfusion by a relative 39% (RR = 0.61; 95% CI 0.57 to 0.65; P < 0.001), resulting in an average saving of 0.20 units of allogeneic RBC per patient (weighted mean differences [WMD] = -0.20; 95% CI -0.22 to -0.18; P < 0.001), reduced risk of infection by 28% (RR = 0.72; 95% CI 0.54 to 0.97; P = 0.03), reduced length of hospital stay by 2.31 days (WMD = -2.31; 95% CI -2.50 to -2.11; P < 0.001), but did not significantly affect risk of mortality (RR = 0.92; 95% CI 0.63 to 1.34; P = 0.66). No statistical difference could be observed in the number of patients exposed to re-operation, plasma, platelets, or rate of myocardial infarction and stroke.
Conclusions: Washed cell salvage is efficacious in reducing the need for allogeneic RBC transfusion and risk of infection in surgery.