Response to ‘Single versus two-level superficial parasternal intercostal plane block: cadaveric evaluation of injectate spread with needle tip position on anterior surface of costal cartilage’
Single versus two-level superficial parasternal intercostal plane block: cadaveric evaluation of injectate spread with needle tip position on anterior surface of costal cartilage
Introduction Superficial parasternal intercostal plane blocks have grown in clinical use for cardiac surgery as a targeted fascial plane block for median sternotomy. Despite this, there remains no consensus on technique for optimal parasternal spread of injectate. The primary objective of this cadaveric study was to evaluate parasternal spread of injectate of single versus two-level superficial parasternal intercostal plane injections with the needle tip positioned on the anterior surface of the costal cartilage. Methods We performed 10 single-level injections at T4 and 10 two-level injections at T3 and T5 on alternating sides in 10 fresh frozen cadavers. All injections were ultrasound guided with a parasagittal ultrasound probe orientation and an in-plane needle orientation. Anatomic dissections were performed immediately following injections. Results Parasternal spread of injectate was greater with two-level injections at T3 and T5 costal cartilages than with single-level injections at the T4 costal cartilage, with two-level injections consistently spreading to the T2–T5 intercostal spaces. Median (Q1, Q3) intercostal space spread for single-level injections was 2.0 (2.0–2.5). Median (Q1, Q3) intercostal space spread for two-level injections was 4.0 (4.0–4.375). Conclusions Two-level injections with the needle tip located on the anterior surface of the costal cartilage resulted in improved parasternal spread compared with single-level injections.
Surgical pericardiotomy to treat heart failure with preserved ejection fraction: a first clinical study
Impact of Ketamine versus Propofol for Anesthetic Induction on Cognitive Dysfunction, Delirium, and Acute Kidney Injury Following Cardiac Surgery in Elderly, High-Risk Patients
Objective: Evaluate the effects of ketamine versus propofol when used for induction of anesthesia in elderly, high-risk cardiac surgical patients on postoperative complications including cognitive dysfunction, delirium, and acute kidney injury. Methods: Prospective, randomized study performed at a tertiary medical center. A total of 52 patients aged ≥70 and older presenting for complex cardiac surgery were randomized to receive either ketamine or propofol for induction of anesthesia. Patients underwent a battery of cognitive testing preoperatively and postoperatively and the incidence of delirium and acute kidney injury were measured. Norepinephrine (NEE) equivalents following induction were assessed for each group. Results: A total of 49 patients were included, 25 in the ketamine group and 24 in the propofol group with 3 patients excluded from the analysis. No difference was found between groups in either postoperative cognitive dysfunction or delirium incidence. Acute kidney injury occurred in 6 (24%) patients in the ketamine group in 12 (50%) patients in the propofol group, but the difference did not meet statistical significance (P = 0.08; Relative Risk = 2.1, 95% CI 0.9–4.7). NEE equivalents were lower in the ketamine group, 9.6 ± 22.2 versus 32.7 ± 46.0, P < 0.03. Conclusions: The use of ketamine versus propofol for induction of anesthesia did not impact the incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction or delirium. Twice as many patients in the propofol group developed acute kidney injury, although not reaching statistical significance and warranting further investigation. In elderly, high-risk patients, ketamine was associated with a significantly reduced need for vasopressor support following induction.
Prothrombin Complex Concentrate vs Plasma for Post–Cardiopulmonary Bypass Coagulopathy and Bleeding
AbstractCoagulopathy is common during left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation, treatment of which can be challenging given the often‐limited ability for the right ventricle to accommodate volume transfusion after device initiation with 20% to 40% of patients developing right ventricular failure (RVF). Transfusion of plasma late on cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) combined with ultrafiltration may replace clotting factors while reducing volume administration. We compared outcomes in patients undergoing LVAD implantation receiving plasma on CPB and ultrafiltration with traditional transfusion practices. Co‐primary outcomes needed for blood product transfusion in the first 6 and 24 hours after CPB. Secondary outcomes included metrics of morbidity and mortality. 396 patients were analyzed (59 plasma on CPB). Patients receiving plasma on CPB had a greater volume of blood products transfused (3764 vs. 2741 mL first 6 hours; 6059 vs. 4305 mL first 24 hours) in unadjusted analysis. In adjusted analysis, plasma transfusion on CPB with ultrafiltration had no significant effect on the primary outcomes of blood products given in the first 6 hours (estimated effect size 982 [−428, 2392] mL, P = .17) and 24 hours (estimated effect size 1076 [−904, 3057] mL, P = .29). Patients receiving plasma on CPB were more likely on either vasopressors or inotropes at 24 hours after ICU admission (P = .01), however, indices of coagulopathy and RVF were similar between groups. While prospective studies would be necessary to definitively evaluate the clinical utility of this strategy, no signal for benefit was observed suggesting plasma should not be used for this purpose.
Coagulation test changes associated with acute normovolemic hemodilution in cardiac surgery
BACKGROUND: Previous studies on readmissions after left ventricular assist device (LVAD) implantation have focused on hospital readmissions after dismissal from the index hospitalization. Because few data exist, the purpose of this study was to examine intensive care unit (ICU) readmissions in patients during their initial hospitalization for LVAD implantation to determine reasons for, factors associated with, and incidence of mortality after ICU readmission. METHODS: A retrospective analysis was performed from February 2007 to March 2015 of patients at our institution receiving first-time LVAD implantation. After LVAD implantation, patients dismissed from the ICU who then required ICU readmission before hospital dismissal were compared to those not requiring ICU readmission before hospital dismissal with respect to preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative factors. RESULTS: Among 287 LVAD patients, 266 survived their initial ICU admission, of which 49 (18.4%) required ICU readmission. The most common reasons for readmission were bleeding and respiratory failure. Factors found to be univariably associated with ICU readmission were preoperative hemoglobin, preoperative aspartate aminotransferase, preoperative atrial fibrillation, preoperative dialysis, longer cardiopulmonary bypass times, and higher intraoperative allogeneic blood transfusion requirements. Multivariable analysis revealed ICU readmission to be independently associated with preoperative dialysis (odds ratio, 12.86; 95% confidence interval, 3.16–52.28; P < .001). Overall mortality at 1 year was 22.6%. Survival after hospital dismissal was worse for patients who required ICU readmission during the index hospitalization (adjusted hazard ratio, 2.35; 95% confidence interval, 1.15–4.81; P = .019). CONCLUSIONS: ICU readmission after LVAD implantation occurred relatively frequently and was significantly associated with 1-year mortality after hospital dismissal. These data can perhaps be used to identify subsets of LVAD patients at risk for ICU readmission and may lead to implementation of practice changes to mitigate ICU readmissions. Future larger and prospective studies are warranted.