Low Versus High Blood Pressure Targets in Critically Ill and Surgical Patients: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

OBJECTIVES: Hypotension is associated with adverse outcomes in critically ill and perioperative patients. However, these assumptions are supported by observational studies. This meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials aims to compare the impact of lower versus higher blood pressure targets on mortality. DATA SOURCES: We searched PubMed, Cochrane, and Scholar from inception to February 10, 2024. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized trials comparing lower versus higher blood pressure targets in the management of critically ill and perioperative settings. DATA EXTRACTION: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at the longest follow-up available. This review was registered in the Prospective International Register of Systematic Reviews, CRD42023452928. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 2940 studies identified by the search string, 28 (12 in critically ill and 16 in perioperative settings) were included totaling 15,672 patients. Patients in the low blood pressure target group had lower mortality (23 studies included: 1019/7679 [13.3%] vs. 1103/7649 [14.4%]; relative risk 0.93; 95% CI, 0.87-0.99; p = 0.03; I2 = 0%). This corresponded to a 97.4% probability of any increase in mortality with a Bayesian approach. These findings were mainly driven by studies performed in the ICU setting and with treatment lasting more than 24 hours; however, the magnitude and direction of the results were similar in the majority of sensitivity analyses including the analysis restricted to low risk of bias studies. We also observed a lower rate of atrial fibrillation and fewer patients requiring transfusion in low-pressure target groups. No differences were found in the other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Based on pooled randomized trial evidence, a lower compared with a higher blood pressure target results in a reduction of mortality, atrial fibrillation, and transfusion requirements. Lower blood pressure targets may be beneficial but there is ongoing uncertainty. However, the present meta-analysis does not confirm previous findings and recommendations. These results might inform future guidelines and promote the study of the concept of protective hemodynamics.

Impella as Bridge to Durable Left Ventricular Assist Device in Acute Myocardial Infarction Cardiogenic Shock Patients.

Implantation of durable left ventricular assist device (LVAD) in cardiogenic shock (CS) patients after acute myocardial infarction (AMI) poses specific challenges (small left ventricular size, acute infarct area, need for antithrombotic therapy, status Interagency Registry for Mechanically Assisted Circulatory Support (INTERMACS) 1 with impaired organ function and derangements in coagulation and inflammatory parameters) which may affect outcomes. We reviewed data of all AMI-CS patients who were implanted LVAD after Impella support at a referral center with the aim to analyze feasibility, timing, and outcomes of durable LVAD implantation after tMCS with Impella due to AMI-CS. Twenty-one patients were treated between 2013 and 2023: all were in Society for Cardiovascular Angiography & Interventions (SCAI) class D-E and INTERMACS 1-2 at presentation, median LV ejection fraction (EF) and LV end-diastolic diameter (EDD) were 15 (10-20)% and 57 (54-60) mm, respectively. Eleven patients (52%) were supported with Impella CP, seven with Impella 5.0 (33%), and three (14%) with Impella 2.5. Axillary cannulation was performed in nine patients (43%). Five patients (24%) had concomitant venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) support. Median duration of Impella support was 12 (8-14) days. Overall, the use of Impella was characterized by low rate of complications and allowed successful bridge to durable LVAD in all patients, with 100% 30 day survival rate.

Shaping the Anesthetic Approach to TricValve Implantation: Insights From a Case Series.

OBJECTIVES: Caval valve implantation (CAVI) represents a minimally invasive strategy for managing severe tricuspid regurgitation in high-risk patients unsuitable for surgical or transcatheter tricuspid valve implantation. This case series aimed to assess the anesthesia management challenges and outcomes associated with this procedure, seeking to generate insights that can inform and refine anesthesia protocols. DESIGN: A case series. SETTING: At a cardiac catheterization laboratory of a teaching hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Eight patients undergoing CAVI with the Tricvalve system INTERVENTIONS: The anesthetic protocol included preprocedural planning, fast-track general anesthesia, and postprocedural debriefing. Intraoperative management involved anesthesia depth monitoring, real-time guidance via transesophageal echocardiography, and hemodynamic stability maintenance. Postoperative analgesia involved preemptive intravenous paracetamol and morphine as needed. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: No anesthesia-related or implantation-related complications were observed, with a mean procedure duration of 112 ± 44 minutes. The median hospital stay was 4 days, and only 1 patient required brief intensive care unit monitoring. Postoperative right shoulder pain was reported by half of the patients, and was managed with morphine bolus administration (average dose 4.75 ± 3.6 mg). All patients had the device correctly positioned, as confirmed by postoperative transthoracic echocardiograms. None of the patients required outpatient analgesic therapy upon discharge. CONCLUSIONS: The authors' study demonstrated the potential of TricValve implantation in effectively managing severe tricuspid regurgitation with no procedure-related complications and a 100% survival rate. A collaborative, interdisciplinary approach and targeted anesthesia management proved crucial for this success. Postoperative shoulder pain emerged as a frequent complication, whose pathogenesis is still not clear, and successfully was managed using targeted analgesic therapy.