Hybrid CABG: an alternative for perfusion time decrease

OBJETIVO: Avaliar a possibilidade da redução do tempo de circulação extracorpórea (CEC) e das complicações relacionadas a esta variável na revascularização do miocárdio (RM), utilizando o método híbrido como alternativa. MÉTODOS: Noventa pacientes foram analisados, retrospectivamente, entre março/2000 e agosto/2006. Todos foram revascularizados com três ou mais enxertos e divididos em doisgrupos: híbrido - 45 pacientes que foram operados pela técnica híbrida; total - 45 pacientes operados com CEC. RESULTADOS: No grupo híbrido, o tempo de CEC variou de 20 a 81 minutos e, no grupo total, de 60 a 210 minutos (p<0,001). O tempo de pinçamento aórtico variou de 7 a 70 minutos no primeiro grupo e de 34 a 100 minutos (p<0,001) no segundo grupo. Foi encontrada diferença estatisticamente significativa entre os grupos em relação à incidência de fibrilação atrial e à disfunção renal. CONCLUSÃO: Utilizando-se a técnica híbrida é possível reduzir o tempo de CEC e a incidência de algumas complicações pós-operatórias. Provavelmente, esta redução nas incidências de fibrilação atrial e disfunção renal podem ser explicadas por uma redução na resposta da inflamatória conseqüente a um tempo de CEC menor.OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the decrease of CPB time and its related complications in CABG using a hybrid alternative method. METHODS: Ninety patients were retrospectively analyzed between March 2000 and August 2006. All were treated with three or more grafts and divided into two groups: Group 1 was the hybrid group - 45 patients who had been operated by the hybrid technique; Group 2 was the total group - 45 patients operated in on-pump. RESULTS: In the hybrid group, the CPB time varied from 20 min. to 81 min. In the total group, the CPB time varied from 60 min. to 210 min. (p<0.001). The aorta cross-clamping time varied in the first group from 7 min. to 70 min. In Group 2, from 34 to 100 min. (p<0.001). A statistically significant difference was found between these two groups in relation to the occurrence of postoperative atrium fibrillation and renal dysfunction. CONCLUSION: Using the hybrid technique it is possible to reduce the CPB time, as well as the occurrence of some postoperative complications. Probably, this decreasing in atrial fibrillation and renal dysfunction incidences could be explained due to a less significant inflammatory activation, which is a consequence of a shorter CPB time

Avaliação do gradiente pressórico aorto-radial em pacientes submetidos à intervenção cirúrgica com circulação extracorpórea

JUSTIFICATIVA E OBJETIVOS: Diversos estudos têm demonstrado diferença significativa entre a pressão aórtica e a pressão radial em pacientes submetidos à circulação extracorpórea (CEC). Os objetivos deste estudo foram avaliar o comportamento da diferença entre pressão arterial radial e a pressão aórtica durante revascularização do miocárdio (RM) com CEC e sua correlação com resistência vascular sistêmica. MÉTODO: Após aprovação pelo Comitê de Ética Hospitalar, 16 pacientes submetidos à RM com CEC hipotérmica foram estudados. Pressões sistólica, diastólica e média foram obtidas na raiz da aorta e na artéria radial, através de cateteres específicos. Débito cardíaco foi obtido com o uso de cateter de artéria pulmonar ou diretamente da máquina de CEC e resistência vascular sistêmica indexada (RVSi) foi calculada nos momentos pré-CEC, início da CEC, após a última RM, no fim da CEC e pós-CEC. A análise estatística foi realizada por meio de Análise de Variância para medidas repetidas e correlação de ordem de Spearman e o nível de significância foi fixado em 0,05. RESULTADOS: Após o início da CEC, a pressão arterial radial foi sistematicamente menor que a pressão aórtica em 3 a 5 mmHg. Foi observada correlação significativa entre o gradiente médio de pressão aorto-radial e a RVSi somente após a última RM, correspondendo ao aquecimento do paciente (Rho = 0,67, p = 0,009). CONCLUSÕES: A medida de pressão na arterial radial subestimou sistematicamente a pressão arterial na raiz da aorta após a CEC e a RVSi não forneceu estimativa acurada da magnitude do gradiente de pressão aorto-radial

Effect of a Perioperative Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in High-Risk Cardiac Surgery Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of perioperative intra-aortic balloon pump use in high-risk cardiac surgery patients. DESIGN: A single-center randomized controlled trial and a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. SETTING: Heart Institute of São Paulo University. PATIENTS: High-risk patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass surgery. INTERVENTION: Patients were randomized to receive preskin incision intra-aortic balloon pump insertion after anesthesia induction versus no intra-aortic balloon pump use. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of 30-day mortality and major morbidity (cardiogenic shock, stroke, acute renal failure, mediastinitis, prolonged mechanical ventilation, and a need for reoperation). A total of 181 patients (mean [SD] age 65.4 [9.4] yr; 32% female) were randomized. The primary outcome was observed in 43 patients (47.8%) in the intra-aortic balloon pump group and 42 patients (46.2%) in the control group (p = 0.46). The median duration of inotrope use (51 hr [interquartile range, 32-94 hr] vs 39 hr [interquartile range, 25-66 hr]; p = 0.007) and the ICU length of stay (5 d [interquartile range, 3-8 d] vs 4 d [interquartile range, 3-6 d]; p = 0.035) were longer in the intra-aortic balloon pump group than in the control group. A meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials confirmed a lack of survival improvement in high-risk cardiac surgery patients with perioperative intra-aortic balloon pump use. CONCLUSIONS: In high-risk patients undergoing cardiac surgery, the perioperative use of an intra-aortic balloon pump did not reduce the occurrence of a composite outcome of 30-day mortality and major complications compared with usual care alone.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe

Vasopressin versus Norepinephrine in Patients with Vasoplegic Shock after Cardiac Surgery

Background: Vasoplegic syndrome is a common complication after cardiac surgery and impacts negatively on patient outcomes. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether vasopressin is superior to norepinephrine in reducing postoperative complications in patients with vasoplegic syndrome. Methods: This prospective, randomized, double-blind trial was conducted at the Heart Institute, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil, between January 2012 and March 2014. Patients with vasoplegic shock (defined as mean arterial pressure less than 65 mmHg resistant to fluid challenge and cardiac index greater than 2.2 l · min -2 · m -2) after cardiac surgery were randomized to receive vasopressin (0.01 to 0.06 U/min) or norepinephrine (10 to 60 μg/min) to maintain arterial pressure. The primary endpoint was a composite of mortality or severe complications (stroke, requirement for mechanical ventilation for longer than 48 h, deep sternal wound infection, reoperation, or acute renal failure) within 30 days. Results: A total of 330 patients were randomized, and 300 were infused with one of the study drugs (vasopressin, 149; norepinephrine, 151). The primary outcome occurred in 32% of the vasopressin patients and in 49% of the norepinephrine patients (unadjusted hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.80; P = 0.0014). Regarding adverse events, the authors found a lower occurrence of atrial fibrillation in the vasopressin group (63.8% vs. 82.1%; P = 0.0004) and no difference between groups in the rates of digital ischemia, mesenteric ischemia, hyponatremia, and myocardial infarction. Conclusions: The authors' results suggest that vasopressin can be used as a first-line vasopressor agent in postcardiac surgery vasoplegic shock and improves clinical outcomes.SCOPUS: ar.jinfo:eu-repo/semantics/publishe