Incidence of postoperative acute kidney injury in patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing minimally invasive valve surgery

BackgroundWe hypothesize that minimally invasive valve surgery in patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD) is superior to a conventional median sternotomy.MethodsWe retrospectively analyzed 1945 consecutive patients who underwent isolated valve surgery. Included were patients with CKD stages 2 to 5. In-hospital mortality, composite complication rates, and intensive care unit and total hospital lengths of stay of those who underwent a minimally invasive approach were compared with those who underwent a standard median sternotomy. Resource use was approximated based on intensive care unit and total hospital lengths of stay.ResultsThere were 688 patients identified; 510 (74%) underwent minimally invasive surgery, and 178 (26%) underwent a median sternotomy. There was no significant difference in mortality. Minimally invasive surgery was associated with fewer composite complications (33.1% vs 49.4%; odds ratio, 0.5; P ≤ .001), shorter intensive care unit (48 [interquartile range {IQR}, 33-74] hours vs 71 [IQR, 42-96] hours; P < .01), and hospital (8 [IQR, 6-9] days vs 10 [IQR, 8-15] days; P < .001) lengths of stay, and a lower incidence of acute kidney injury (8% vs 14.7%; odds ratio, 0.5; P = .01), compared with median sternotomy. In a multivariable analysis, minimally invasive surgery was associated with a 60% reduction in the risk of development of postoperative acute kidney injury.ConclusionsIn patients with CKD undergoing isolated valve surgery, minimally invasive valve surgery is associated with reduced postoperative complications and lower resource use

Review of Acute Coronary Syndrome Diagnosis and Management

Acute coronary syndrome (ACS) refers to a group of clinical conditions caused by myocardial ischemia including unstable angina, non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction (NSTEMI), and ST-segmcnt elevation myocardial infarction (STEMI). Appropriate and accurate diagnosis has life-saving implications and requires a quick but thorough evaluation of the patient\u27s history, physical examination, electrocardiogram, radiographic studies, and cardiac biomarkers. The management of patients with suspected or confirmed ACS continues to evolve as new evidence from clinical trials is considered and as new technology becomes available to both primary care physicians and cardiologists. Low- and intermediate-risk patients have frequently been managed in a chest pain center or in the emergency department. While stress testing with or without radionuclide imaging is the most common evaluation method, a CT angiogram is sometimes substituted High-risk patients are often managed with an early invasive strategy involving left heart catheterization with a goal of prompt revascularization of at-risk, viable myocardium. With the increased availability of cardiac catheterization facilities, patients with STEMI are more commonly being managed with primary percutaneous coronary intervention, although thrombolysis is still used where such facilities are not immediately available. This article provides primary care physicians with a concise review of the pathophysiology, clinical evaluation, and management of ACS based on the best available evidence in 2008