Carotid endarterectomy in patients with significant renal dysfunction

AbstractPurpose: Recent reports suggest that carotid endarterectomy (CEA) should not be performed in patients with end-stage renal disease (ESRD) because of an unacceptable rate of perioperative stroke and other morbidity. Because these conclusions were based on a small number of patients, we reviewed the perioperative and long-term outcome of patients with ESRD and chronic renal insufficiency (CRI) who underwent CEA at our institution. Methods: The 1081 patients who had a CEA between 1990 and 1997 were cross-referenced with those patients in whom renal insufficiency had been diagnosed. These charts were reviewed for patient demographics and perioperative and long-term outcome. Patients undergoing CEA during a 1-year period (1993) served as controls. Results: Fifty-one CEAs were performed in 44 patients with CRI (32 in 27 patients) and ESRD (19 in 17 patients). In the CRI+ESRD group, 66.7% were symptomatic, and 70.7% of the control group were symptomatic. Six operations (11.8%) in the CRI+ESRD group were redo endarterectomies. There were no perioperative strokes in the CRI+ESRD group, but one patient died 29 days postoperatively because of a myocardial infarction, for a combined stroke-mortality rate of 2.0%. The control group had a 2.6% combined stroke-mortality rate. Long-term survival analysis revealed a 4-year survival rate of 12% for patients with ESRD and 54% for patients with CRI, compared with 72% for controls (P < .05). Conclusion: CEA can be performed safely in patients with ESRD or CRI, with perioperative stroke and death rates equivalent to that of patients without renal dysfunction. However, the benefit of long-term stroke prevention in the asymptomatic patient with ESRD is in question because of the high 4-year mortality rate of this patient population. (J Vasc Surg 1999;29:672-7.

Functional status and survival after prolonged intensive care unit stay following cardiac surgery

OBJECTIVES: The clinical outcomes of patients discharged after prolonged postoperative intensive care unit (ICU) stay following cardiac surgery are unclear. The aim of this study was to assess survival and functional status in patients whose ICU stay exceeded 5 or 10 days in a tertiary cardiac surgical unit. METHODS: Patients undergoing adult cardiac surgery between October 2008 and October 2010 who stayed in an ICU for 5–10 days (Group A) or >10 days (Group B) were studied. Demographics, operative details and postoperative data were prospectively collected. The follow-up of all patients was performed by telephone questionnaire. Functional status was assessed using the Karnofsky performance score by only one investigator for uniformity of scoring. For those patients who could not be contacted, the electronic patient records and data from the UK Office for National Statistics were reviewed to determine mortality. RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2010, 2250 patients underwent adult cardiac surgery. Of these, 108 (4.7%) patients stayed >5 days (Group A, n = 53 and Group B, n = 55) in the ICU, having undergone various adult cardiac surgical procedures. The mean logistic EuroSCORE was 13 (range 1.5–86) for Group A and 16 (range 1–78) for Group B (P = 0.11). The mean ICU stay was 7 (range 6–8 days) for Group A and 21 (range 10–78 days) for Group B. Death in ICU occurred in 7 (13%) Group A patients and 11 (20%) Group B patients (P = 0.34). The median follow-up of patients who survived to the hospital discharge was 30 (range 13–38 months). Of the 90 survivors discharged from the hospital, there were 13 (25%) late deaths in Group A and 26 (47%) in Group B (P = 0.02). All survivors were contacted for the assessment of their functional status. The mean Karnofsky scores for Group A and Group B were 87 (range 70–100%) and 77.3% (range 40–100%), respectively, indicating satisfactory functional status. CONCLUSIONS: Patients who have a prolonged ICU stay following cardiac surgery have high early and late mortalities. However, the functional status of the survivors is satisfactory after 1 year and beyond

Practice guidelines for the supervising professional: intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring.

The American Society of Neurophysiological Monitoring (ASNM) was founded in 1989 as the American Society of Evoked Potential Monitoring. From the beginning, the Society has been made up of physicians, doctoral degree holders, Technologists, and all those interested in furthering the profession. The Society changed its name to the ASNM and held its first Annual Meeting in 1990. It remains the largest worldwide organization dedicated solely to the scientifically-based advancement of intraoperative neurophysiology. The primary goal of the ASNM is to assure the quality of patient care during procedures monitoring the nervous system. This goal is accomplished primarily through programs in education, advocacy of basic and clinical research, and publication of guidelines, among other endeavors. The ASNM is committed to the development of medically sound and clinically relevant guidelines for the performance of intraoperative neurophysiology. Guidelines are formulated based on exhaustive literature review, recruitment of expert opinion, and broad consensus among ASNM membership. Input is likewise sought from sister societies and related constituencies. Adherence to a literature-based, formalized process characterizes the construction of all ASNM guidelines. The guidelines covering the Professional Practice of intraoperative neurophysiological monitoring were initially published January 24th, 2013, and subsequently that document has undergone review and revision to accommodate broad inter- and intra-societal feedback. This current version of the ASNM Professional Practice Guideline was fully approved for publication according to ASNM bylaws on February 22nd, 2018, and thus overwrites and supersedes the initial guideline