Restrictive or Liberal Red-Cell Transfusion for Cardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND The effect of a restrictive versus liberal red-cell transfusion strategy on clinical outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery remains unclear. METHODS In this multicenter, open-label, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned 5243 adults undergoing cardiac surgery who had a European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE) I of 6 or more (on a scale from 0 to 47, with higher scores indicating a higher risk of death after cardiac surgery) to a restrictive red-cell transfusion threshold (transfuse if hemoglobin level was <7.5 g per deciliter, starting from induction of anesthesia) or a liberal red-cell transfusion threshold (transfuse if hemoglobin level was <9.5 g per deciliter in the operating room or intensive care unit [ICU] or was <8.5 g per deciliter in the non-ICU ward). The primary composite outcome was death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new-onset renal failure with dialysis by hospital discharge or by day 28, whichever came first. Secondary outcomes included red-cell transfusion and other clinical outcomes. RESULTS The primary outcome occurred in 11.4% of the patients in the restrictive-threshold group, as compared with 12.5% of those in the liberal-threshold group (absolute risk difference, -1.11 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -2.93 to 0.72; odds ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.76 to 1.07; P<0.001 for noninferiority). Mortality was 3.0% in the restrictive-threshold group and 3.6% in the liberal-threshold group (odds ratio, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.62 to 1.16). Red-cell transfusion occurred in 52.3% of the patients in the restrictive-threshold group, as compared with 72.6% of those in the liberal-threshold group (odds ratio, 0.41; 95% CI, 0.37 to 0.47). There were no significant between-group differences with regard to the other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS In patients undergoing cardiac surgery who were at moderate-to-high risk for death, a restrictive strategy regarding red-cell transfusion was noninferior to a liberal strategy with respect to the composite outcome of death from any cause, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new-onset renal failure with dialysis, with less blood transfused. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; TRICS III ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02042898 .)

Oral hypoglycemics : increased postoperative mortality in coronary risk patients

BACKGROUND: Diabetes mellitus (DM), particularly if insulin-dependent, is a predictor of increased perioperative risk, whereas stringent metabolic control with insulin is beneficial in the critically ill. METHODS: The impact of oral hypoglycemics (OH) vs. insulin on outcome was determined as a secondary retrospective analysis of a cohort study in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) and DM undergoing major non-cardiac surgery. Primary end-point was 2-year all-cause mortality; secondary endpoints were perioperative myocardial ischemia and 2-year cardiac mortality. RESULTS: Of 173 patients, DM was diagnosed in 42 (24%) based on pre-existing treatment with OH (15%) or insulin (9%). During follow-up, 40/173 (23%) patients died. All-cause mortality was similar in the non-diabetic (20%) and insulin groups (19%) but significantly higher in the OH group (42%; p = 0.025). Cardiac mortality tended to be higher in the OH group compared with the insulin and non-diabetic groups (27 vs. 19% and 11%, respectively; p = 0.066). Multivariate analysis revealed renal failure (odds ratio [OR] = 4.9, 95% confidence interval [CI] = 1.8-13.0), treatment with OH (OR = 3.3, 95% CI = 1.2-9.0), peripheral vascular surgery (OR = 2.7, 95% CI = 1.2-6.0), and prior diuretic therapy (OR = 2.6, 95% CI = 1.1-5.7) being independently associated with 2-year all-cause death. No difference existed in postoperative ischemia among the different groups. CONCLUSIONS: Long-term mortality after major non-cardiac surgery is elevated in patients with CAD and diabetes mellitus only if they are treated with OH, but not if they are treated with insulin. Further evaluation of the impact of perioperative anti-diabetic treatment on morbidity and mortality in CAD is warranted

Principles and practice of thromboelastography in clinical coagulation management and transfusion practice

In the recent years, thromboelastography has become a popular monitoring device for hemostasis and transfusion management in major surgery, trauma, and hemophilia. Thromboelastography is performed in whole blood and assesses the viscoelastic property of clot formation under low shear condition. Thromboelastography can be performed with a variety of activator and inhibitors at different concentrations representing the most important factors for different intervals and clot formation variables reported in multiple studies and algorithms. Furthermore, fibrinogen levels and platelet counts have a major influence on thromboelastographic variables. In addition, differences in patient populations, devices, and preanalytical conditions contribute to some conflicting findings in different studies

[Perioperative management of chronic medication: to withhold, continue or intensify?]

All patients should undergo surgical procedures in the most stable and favourable condition with a continuation of chronic medication. Accordingly, this medication should be continued until the day before surgery in most patients. The preoperative period should be used to evaluate the completeness and quality of the medical treatment. Are all patient with cardiological indications for beta-receptor blocking agents, ACE-inhibitors and statins treated with these drugs? Is diabetes being adequately treated? Are the doses of the medication for the treatment of thyroid dysfunction within the optimal range? If there is room for improvement, adjustments should be done cautiously and well in advance. In contrast, there are no recognised situations in which a medication should be started preoperatively in the absence of a pre-established chronic indication. Management of antiplatelet agents and cumarins requires careful consideration. The hazards of continuing and withholding treatment must be evaluated. In patients who have suffered a cardiovascular event and/or have undergone (coronary) revascularisation, elective surgery must be delayed for weeks or months depending on the circumstances and the devices used