Toracotomía de urgencia. Indicaciones, técnica quirúrgica y resultados

Emergency thoracotomyis a surgical technique that has been extended in the last few years, and is currently included in advanced cardiopulmonary resuscitation protocols. Despite its proven use in patients with penetrating heart wounds, it is often not used due to lack of knowledge of the technique. Currently, the increase in chest wounds due to violence, traffic accidents, crashes or suicides, and advances in extra-hospital medical care systems, has currently awakened new interest in this technique. A review of emergency thoracotomy is presented in this article: indications, surgical technique, results, and its usefulness in the extra-hospital setting

La orejuela izquierda como fuente de accidentes cerebrovasculares: cerrar (y cómo), o no cerrar (y por qué)

The left atrial appendage is considered the main source of emboli in strokes in patients with atrial fibrillation. Oral anticoagulant therapy significantly reduces the risk of cerebral embolic events compared to aspirin, but it is associated with bleeding complications, and is not always used. Closure of the left atrial appendage reduces the rate of thromboembolic events, and it is currently recommended in patients with atrial fibrillation submitted to mitral valve surgery. However, the formation of emboli in these patients may be due to other causes, as the role of the atrial appendage could be less important than is assumed. Moreover, not all patients are candidates for oral anticoagulation, and not all are kept in a proper therapeutic range, which could justify the formation of atrial thrombi. There are several methods for performing the closure of the appendage: direct suture in concomitant mitral surgery, epicardial exclusion by stapling or clips, or endovascular occlusion by percutaneous application. However, the results seem inconclusive with regards to their effectiveness for complete occlusion of the appendage, safety, and efficacy in preventing cerebral embolic events. To add to the confusion, some authors reveal no clear benefit in suture closure, and even describe an increased risk of thromboembolism. We present a review of left atrial appendage closure for the prevention of strokes, as well as the different procedures described above

Cirugía de la fibrilación auricular

Atrial fibrillation surgery is based on creating scars in the atrium, in order to avoid re-entry phenomena that may initiate and perpetuate arrhythmia, and driving the normal stimuli from the sinus node to the atrio-ventricular node. The complexity and increased risk of the initial surgical technique, based on a "cut-and-sew" procedure, have enhanced other current procedures, in which different energies are used making it possible to perform scars in a safer and less invasive way. At present, atrial fibrillation surgery is not performed routinely in all cardiothoracic surgical centers, and there is no consensus in which is the best type of technique. Even if the results are good, they depend on multiples factors such as duration of arrhythmia, atrial size and type of technique employed. In addition, there is some variability in the description within the scientific community of the results and procedures used, which makes its analysis confusing. In this paper we review the different techniques described, the results and their application in minimally invasive surgery

Left atrial appendage occlusion by invagination and double suture technique

Left atrial appendage (LAA) plays a crucial role as a source of atrial thrombus in patients with atrial fibrillation (AF). Thus, the need to close LAA becomes evident in patients with AF who undergo concomitant mitral valve surgery. Unfortunately, it has been reported a high rate of unsuccessful LAA occlusion, regardless of the technique employed.We propose a safe and simple method for LAA occlusion consisting in invagination of the appendage into the left atrium, followed by two sutures (purse string suture around the base of the LAA and a reinforce running suture)

Úlcera penetrante de aorta ascendente en un paciente asintomático

La úlcera penetrante de aorta (UPA) es la ulceración de una placa aterosclerótica que afecta a la lámina elástica interna de la aorta, y que puede evolucionar hacia un hematoma de pared o una disección aórtica si se produce el paso de sangre hacia la capa media. A pesar de que se localiza más frecuentemente en la aorta descendente, puede presentar una alta mortalidad en caso de situarse en la aorta ascendente, donde la cirugía está indicada aunque el paciente se encuentre asintomático. Presentamos el caso de un paciente sin sintomatología con úlcera penetrante de aorta ascendente (UPAA) ascendente sometido a sustitución de aorta ascendente por una prótesis vascular.Penetrating aortic ulcer (PAU) has been defined as an atherosclerotic plaque ulceration that breaks the internal elastic lamina of the aorta, which may progress to a wall hematoma or aortic dissection in case of blood seeping into the middle layer. Although PAU is commonly located in the descending aorta, the involvement of the ascending aorta can be fatal. Therefore, surgery is indicated even in asymptomatic patients presenting an ascending PAU. We report on an asymptomatic patient with ascending PAU referred for replacement of the ascending aorta with a composite prosthetic graft

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

Correction to: Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570