Boswell, Michael R.

BACKGROUND: Patients with existing coronary artery stents are at an increased risk for major adverse cardiac events (MACEs) when undergoing noncardiac surgery (NCS). Although the use of antifibrinolytic (AF) therapy in NCS has significantly increased in the past decade, the relationship between perioperative AF use and its association with MACEs among patients with existing coronary artery stents has yet to be assessed. In this study, we aim to evaluate the association of MACEs in patients with existing coronary artery stents who receive perioperative AF therapy during orthopedic surgery. METHODS: A single-center retrospective cohort study was conducted in adult patients with existing coronary artery stents who underwent orthopedic surgery from 2008 to 2018. Two cohorts were established: patients with existing coronary artery stents who did not receive perioperative AF and patients with coronary artery stents who received perioperative AF. Associations between AF use and the primary outcome of MACEs within 30 days postoperatively and the secondary outcomes of thrombotic complications, excessive surgical bleeding, and intensive care unit (ICU) admissions were analyzed using logistic regression models. Inverse probability of treatment weighting was used to control for confounding. Secondary analyses examining the association between coronary stent type/timing and the outcomes of interest were performed using unadjusted logistic regression models. RESULTS: A total of 473 patients met study criteria, including 294 who did not receive AF and 179 patients who received AF. MACEs occurred in 15 (5.1%) patients who did not receive AF and 1 (0.6%) who received AF ( P = .007). In weighted analyses, no significant difference was found in patients who received AF with regard to MACEs (odds ratio [OR] = 0.13, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.01-1.74, P = .12), thrombotic complications (OR = 1.19, 95% CI, 0.53-2.68, P = .68), or excessive surgical bleeding (OR = 0.13, 95% CI, 0.01-2.23, P = .16) compared to patients who did not receive AF. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this study are inconclusive whether an association exists between perioperative AF use in patients with coronary artery stents and the outcome of MACEs compared to patients who did not receive perioperative AF therapy. The authors acknowledge that the imprecise CI hinders the ability to definitively determine whether an association exists in the study population. Further large prospective studies, powered to detect differences in MACEs, are needed to assess the safety of perioperative AF in patients with existing coronary artery stents and to clarify the mechanism of perioperative MACEs in this high-risk population.

Abstract Prothrombin complex concentrate (PCC) administration has increased among cardiac surgery patients in recent years; however, use in LVAD implantation/exchange is not widespread due to the fear of thrombotic complications. The purpose of this study was to compare the clinical outcomes of patients undergoing LVAD implantation/exchange with intraoperative PCC administration versus traditional transfusion practices alone. Adult LVAD implants/exchanges at our institution between 2015 and 2018 were included. Patients were categorized as receiving intraoperative PCC or no‐PCC (traditional). The primary outcome was the need for allogenic transfusion and transfusion volume at 48 hours after initial intensive care unit (ICU) admission. Secondary outcomes included metrics of morbidity and mortality. A total of 160 patients (39 PCC, 121 traditional) were analyzed. In unadjusted analysis, patients in the PCC group received lower intraoperative transfusion volumes compared to the traditional group although not statistically significant (1464 mL [IQR 796, 4876] vs. 2568 mL [IQR 1292, 3606]; P value .37). In the fully adjusted analysis, patients in the PCC group had increased odds of transfusion within 48 hours of ICU admission (OR 4.06, 95% CI: 1.35‐12.20; P < .01); however, there was no significant difference in transfusion volumes ( P = .09). Patients receiving PCCs had higher incidence of deep vein thrombosis (10.3% vs. 0%; P < .01) and 30‐day mortality (17.9% vs. 4.1%; P < .01). LVAD pump thrombosis occurred in 2.6% versus 0.8% in the PCC and traditional groups, respectively; P = .98. Patients undergoing LVAD implantation and exchange represent a complex surgical cohort. The results of this study suggest that the intraoperative PCC use during LVAD implant/exchange was associated with reduced intraoperative transfusions. Intraoperative PCC use was, however, associated with higher odds of postoperative transfusion, although transfusion volumes were not significantly different. While the deep vein thrombosis and 30‐day mortality rates were higher in the PCC group, these results are likely related to the degree of surgical and patient complexity rather than PCC use itself. Further studies are needed to assess PCC use in this surgical cohort.