RESUMO
Introduction: Perioperative hypertension, defined as increased blood pressure around the surgery, is a known risk factor for perioperative complications, including cardiovascular events. Identifying reasons associated with hypertension in each period is of great help in preventing and better managing perioperative hypertension. Objective: The aim of the study was to explore common etiologies of hypertension during the perioperative period (pre, intra, and post-operation) in patients who underwent noncardiac surgeries in University Health Network (UHN) hospitals, Canada, from 2015 to 2020. Patients and Methods: We retrospectively analyzed the medical records of 174 patients undergoing noncardiac surgeries who experienced perioperative hypertension. We assessed the prevalence of 10 reasons for perioperative hypertension as a whole and also each period separately according to the physicians' notes in patients' medical records. Two-way measurements ANOVA was used to determine the change of mean hypertension among patients for specific etiology. Results: The common etiologies of perioperative hypertension were poorly controlled hypertension (21.8%), excessive fluid therapy (19.5%), excessive vasopressor (18.4%), and medication withdrawal (13.7%). Regarding each period separately, the most common reasons were poorly controlled hypertension for pre (42.9%) and intraoperative period (22.7%) and fluid overload for the postoperative period (20.1%). Poor control of hypertension showed both within-subject statistical significance for systolic and between-subject statistical significance for diastolic blood pressure. Conclusion: Poorly controlled hypertension is the most significant etiology of perioperative hypertension in patients undergoing noncardiac surgeries. Apart from poorly controlled hypertension, as a patient-related factor, iatrogenic factors such as excessive vasopressor therapy, aggressive fluid replacement and poor management of antihypertensive medications can also cause perioperative hypertension.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) presents various phenotypes from asymptomatic involvement to death. Disseminated intravascular coagulopathy (DIC) is among the poor prognostic complications frequently observed in critical illness. To improve mortality, a timely diagnosis of DIC is essential. The International Society on Thrombosis and Hemostasis (ISTH) introduced a scoring system to detect overt DIC (score ≥5) and another category called sepsis-induced coagulopathy (SIC) to identify the initial stages of DIC (score ≥4). This study aimed to determine whether clinicians used these scoring systems while assessing COVID-19 patients and the role of relevant biomarkers in disease severity and outcome. MATERIALS AND METHODS: An exhaustive search was performed according to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses, using Medline, Embase, Cochrane, CINAHL, and PubMed until August 2020. Studies considering disease severity or outcome with at least two relevant biomarkers were included. For all studies, the definite, maximum, and minimum ISTH/SIC scores were calculated. RESULTS: A total of 37 papers and 12,463 cases were reviewed. Studies considering ISTH/SIC criteria to detect DIC suggested a higher rate of ISTH ≥5 and SIC ≥4 in severe cases and nonsurvivors compared with nonsevere cases and survivors. The calculated ISTH scores were dominantly higher in severe infections and nonsurvivors. Elevated D-dimer was the most consistent abnormality on admission. CONCLUSION: Higher ISTH and SIC scores positively correlate with disease severity and death. In addition, more patients with severe disease and nonsurvivors met the ISTH and SIC scores for DIC. Given the high prevalence of coagulopathy in COVID-19 infection, dynamic monitoring of relevant biomarkers in the form of ISTH and SIC scoring systems is of great importance to timely detect DIC in suspicious patients.
RESUMO
BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to predict significant coronary artery disease (CAD) in patients undergoing coronary angiography. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, data of 384 patients who underwent angiography during 2015-2017 were reviewed. Electrocardiograms (ECGs) were evaluated in terms of having positive T wave in lead V1 (TV1) described as T wave with amplitude of more than 0.15 mV and angiography records were assessed for presence of significant CAD defined as presence of ≥ 70% internal diameter stenosis in at least one major epicardial coronary artery or more than 50% stenosis in left main artery (LMA). RESULTS: Out of 384 patients who participated in this study with mean age of 63.6 ± 10.2 years (40-89 years), 71.6% showed positive TV1 and significant CAD simultaneously and left anterior descending artery (LAD) and left circumflex artery (LCX) lesions were more frequently reported in coronary angiography. Based on chi-square test, the prevalence of significant CAD was obviously more in those with positive TV1 as compared to those without this finding [odds ratio (OR) = 2.74, 95% confidence interval (CI): 1.80-4.19, P < 0.001]. Mann-Whitney test showed significant difference in number of coronary arteries involved in CAD between presence of positive and negative T wave in lead V1 (P < 0.001). Great number of patients with significant CAD had remarkably higher T wave amplitude in lead V1 in comparison to lead V6 (OR = 6.22, 95% CI: 3.14-12.30, P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: Positive TV1 and TV1 > TV6 pattern can be considered as a predictor for significant CAD in patients with otherwise normal ECG.
