38 research outputs found
Microporous polysaccharide hemosphere absorbable hemostat use in cardiothoracic surgical procedures
BACKGROUND: Topical hemostatic agents are used to reduce bleeding and transfusion need during cardiothoracic surgery. We report our experience with Arista® AH Absorbable Hemostatic Particles (Arista® AH), a novel plant-based microporous polysaccharide hemostatic powder. METHODS: Data were retrospectively collected for patients (n = 240) that received cardiothoracic surgery at our institution from January 2009 to January 2013 with (n = 103) or without (n = 137) the use of Arista® AH. Endpoints included protamine to skin closure time (hemostasis time), cardiopulmonary bypass time, quantity of Arista® AH applied, intraoperative blood product usage, intraoperative blood loss, chest tube output 48 hours postoperatively, blood products required 48 hours postoperatively, length of stay in the intensive care unit, 30-day morbidity, and 30-day mortality. RESULTS: 240 patients (176 M: 64 F) underwent 240 cardiothoracic procedures including heart transplantation (n = 53), cardiac assist devices (n = 113), coronary artery bypass grafts (n = 20), valve procedures (n = 19), lung transplantation (n = 17), aortic dissection (n = 8), and other (n = 10). Application of Arista® AH led to significant reduction in hemostasis time versus the untreated control group (Arista® AH: 93.4 ± 41 min. vs. Control: 107.6 ± 56 min., p = 0.02). Postoperative chest tube output in the first 48 hours was also significantly reduced (Arista® AH: 1594 ± 949 mL vs. Control: 2112 ± 1437 mL, p < 0.001), as well as transfusion of packed red blood cells (Arista® AH: 2.4 ± 2.5 units vs. Control: 4.0 ± 5.1 units, p < 0.001). There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality or postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: Use of Arista® AH in complex cardiothoracic surgery resulted in a significant reduction in hemostasis time, postoperative chest tube output, and need for postoperative blood transfusion
International Consensus Statement on Rhinology and Allergy: Rhinosinusitis
Background: The 5 years since the publication of the first International Consensus Statement on Allergy and Rhinology: Rhinosinusitis (ICAR‐RS) has witnessed foundational progress in our understanding and treatment of rhinologic disease. These advances are reflected within the more than 40 new topics covered within the ICAR‐RS‐2021 as well as updates to the original 140 topics. This executive summary consolidates the evidence‐based findings of the document. Methods: ICAR‐RS presents over 180 topics in the forms of evidence‐based reviews with recommendations (EBRRs), evidence‐based reviews, and literature reviews. The highest grade structured recommendations of the EBRR sections are summarized in this executive summary. Results: ICAR‐RS‐2021 covers 22 topics regarding the medical management of RS, which are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Additionally, 4 topics regarding the surgical management of RS are grade A/B and are presented in the executive summary. Finally, a comprehensive evidence‐based management algorithm is provided. Conclusion: This ICAR‐RS‐2021 executive summary provides a compilation of the evidence‐based recommendations for medical and surgical treatment of the most common forms of RS
Recommended from our members
American Rhinologic Society expert practice statement part 1: Skull base reconstruction following endoscopic skull base surgery
The goal of this American Rhinologic Society expert practice statement (EPS) is to summarize the best available evidence for technical factors that optimize outcomes in skull base reconstruction following endoscopic skull base surgery for intradural pathologies. These topics include the use of free mucosal grafts versus vascularized pedicled nasoseptal flaps; the use of autologous versus synthetic grafts; and the roles of lumbar drains, dural sealants, and nasal packing. This EPS was developed following the recommended methodology and approval process as previously outlined. As there are a myriad of techniques and limited agreement on the accepted principles of skull base reconstruction, this EPS aims to summarize the existing evidence and provide clinically meaningful guidance on these divergent practices. Following a modified Delphi approach, five statements were developed, four of which reached consensus and one of which reached near consensus. These statements and the accompanying evidence are summarized along with an assessment of future needs