Haemodynamic monitoring in the perioperative setting.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The aim of this study was to review the role of haemodynamic monitoring in the perioperative setting, highlighting who are the patients who most benefit, to describe the type of devices, to analyse the scientific evidence and to suggest algorithms of haemodynamic care in high-risk surgical patients. RECENT FINDINGS: In the last 50 years, many advances have contributed to better understand cardiovascular physiology at bedside, and haemodynamic monitoring has moved from invasive methods to minimally invasive and noninvasive devices. Randomized clinical trials have shown benefits of perioperative haemodynamic therapy to improve outcomes in high-risk surgical patients. A multimodal approach is purposed in the perioperative setting to optimize haemodynamic parameters, involving clinical analysis at bedside, the use of dynamic tests for fluid responsiveness and integration of variables, including cardiac output, systolic volume, tissue oxygen markers and echocardiographic measures. SUMMARY: In this review, we summarize the benefits of haemodynamic monitoring, the type of devices with advantages and disadvantages, the scientific evidence supporting perioperative haemodynamic therapy, and we suggest a multimodal approach to improve patients' care.

Intensive care management of patients with COVID-19: a practical approach.

SARS-CoV-2, the causative agent of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), is responsible for the largest pandemic facing humanity since the Spanish flu pandemic in the early twentieth century. Since there is no specific antiviral treatment, optimized support is the most relevant factor in the patient's prognosis. In the hospital setting, the identification of high-risk patients for clinical deterioration is essential to ensure access to intensive treatment of severe conditions in a timely manner. The initial management of hypoxemia includes conventional oxygen therapy, high-flow nasal canula oxygen, and non-invasive ventilation. For patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation, lung-protective ventilation with low tidal volumes and plateau pressure is recommended. Cardiovascular complications are frequent and include myocardial injury, thrombotic events, myocarditis, and cardiogenic shock. Acute renal failure is a common complication and is a marker of poor prognosis, with significant impact in costs and resources allocation. Regarding promising therapies for COVID-19, the most promising drugs until now are remdesivir and corticosteroids although further studies may be needed to confirm their effectiveness. Other therapies such as, tocilizumab, anakinra, other anti-cytokine drugs, and heparin are being tested in clinical trials. Thousands of physicians are living a scenario that none of us have ever seen: demand for hospital exceed capacity in most countries. Until now, the certainty we have is that we should try to decrease the number of infected patients and that an optimized critical care support is the best strategy to improve patient's survival.

Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases during the COVID-19 Pandemic. / Câncer e Doenças Cardiovasculares na Pandemia de COVID-19.

The challenges that the COVID-19 pandemic cretead to the healthcare system have made it necessary to adapt routines and services, with the objectives of controlling the spread of the virus and preserving health. Safe and correct management of patients in risks groups, such as elderly patients, patients with cardiovascular diseases, and patients with cancer, has become even more important. Thus, cardio-oncology has gained a new dimension, with the aim of adapting to patients' needs during the pandemic by restructuring the system of care in a manner that offers quality and safety in healthcare.

O desafio imposto ao sistema de saúde pela pandemia da COVID-19 faz com que haja uma necessidade de readequações de rotinas e serviços de saúde, com os objetivos de controlar a disseminação do vírus e preservar a saúde. Torna-se ainda mais importante o manejo seguro e correto dos pacientes dos grupos de risco, como os pacientes idosos, os portadores de doenças cardiovasculares e os pacientes com câncer. Dessa forma, a cardio-oncologia ganha novo dimensionamento, no intuito de se adequar às necessidades dos pacientes diante de uma pandemia, reestruturando o sistema de atendimento de forma a oferecer qualidade e segurança na assistência à saúde.

Câncer e Doenças Cardiovasculares na Pandemia de COVID-19 / Cancer and Cardiovascular Diseases during the COVID-19 Pandemic

Resumo O desafio imposto ao sistema de saúde pela pandemia da COVID-19 faz com que haja uma necessidade de readequações de rotinas e serviços de saúde, com os objetivos de controlar a disseminação do vírus e preservar a saúde. Torna-se ainda mais importante o manejo seguro e correto dos pacientes dos grupos de risco, como os pacientes idosos, os portadores de doenças cardiovasculares e os pacientes com câncer. Dessa forma, a cardio-oncologia ganha novo dimensionamento, no intuito de se adequar às necessidades dos pacientes diante de uma pandemia, reestruturando o sistema de atendimento de forma a oferecer qualidade e segurança na assistência à saúde.

Abstract The challenges that the COVID-19 pandemic cretead to the healthcare system have made it necessary to adapt routines and services, with the objectives of controlling the spread of the virus and preserving health. Safe and correct management of patients in risks groups, such as elderly patients, patients with cardiovascular diseases, and patients with cancer, has become even more important. Thus, cardio-oncology has gained a new dimension, with the aim of adapting to patients' needs during the pandemic by restructuring the system of care in a manner that offers quality and safety in healthcare.

The Heart and COVID-19: What Cardiologists Need to Know. / O Coração e a COVID-19: O que o Cardiologista Precisa Saber.

In face of the pandemic of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the management of patients with cardiovascular risk factors and/or disease is challenging. The cardiovascular complications evidenced in patients with COVID-19 derive from several mechanisms, ranging from direct viral injury to complications secondary to the inflammatory and thrombotic responses to the infection. The proper care of patients with COVID-19 requires special attention to the cardiovascular system aimed at better outcomes.

Frente à pandemia da doença causada pelo novo coronavírus (COVID-19), o manejo do paciente com fator de risco e/ou doença cardiovascular é desafiador nos dias de hoje. As complicações cardiovasculares evidenciadas nos pacientes com COVID-19 resultam de vários mecanismos, que vão desde lesão direta pelo vírus até complicações secundárias à resposta inflamatória e trombótica desencadeada pela infecção. O cuidado adequado do paciente com COVID-19 exige atenção ao sistema cardiovascular em busca de melhores desfechos.

O Coração e a COVID-19: O que o Cardiologista Precisa Saber / The Heart and COVID-19: What Cardiologists Need to Know

Resumo Frente à pandemia da doença causada pelo novo coronavírus (COVID-19), o manejo do paciente com fator de risco e/ou doença cardiovascular é desafiador nos dias de hoje. As complicações cardiovasculares evidenciadas nos pacientes com COVID-19 resultam de vários mecanismos, que vão desde lesão direta pelo vírus até complicações secundárias à resposta inflamatória e trombótica desencadeada pela infecção. O cuidado adequado do paciente com COVID-19 exige atenção ao sistema cardiovascular em busca de melhores desfechos.

Abstract In face of the pandemic of the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), the management of patients with cardiovascular risk factors and/or disease is challenging. The cardiovascular complications evidenced in patients with COVID-19 derive from several mechanisms, ranging from direct viral injury to complications secondary to the inflammatory and thrombotic responses to the infection. The proper care of patients with COVID-19 requires special attention to the cardiovascular system aimed at better outcomes.

Vasopressin Versus Norepinephrine for the Management of Septic Shock in Cancer Patients: The VANCS II Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Previous trials suggest that vasopressin may improve outcomes in patients with vasodilatory shock. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether vasopressin could be superior to norepinephrine to improve outcomes in cancer patients with septic shock. DESIGN: Single-center, randomized, double-blind clinical trial, and meta-analysis of randomized trials. SETTING: ICU of a tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: Two-hundred fifty patients 18 years old or older with cancer and septic shock. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were assigned to either vasopressin or norepinephrine as first-line vasopressor therapy. An updated meta-analysis was also conducted including randomized trials published until October 2018. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. Prespecified secondary outcomes included 90-days all-cause mortality rate; number of days alive and free of advanced organ support at day 28; and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score 24 hours and 96 hours after randomization. We also measure the prevalence of adverse effects in 28 days. A total of 250 patients were randomized. The primary outcome was observed in 71 patients (56.8%) in the vasopressin group and 66 patients (52.8%) in the norepinephrine group (p = 0.52). There were no significant differences in 90-day mortality (90 patients [72.0%] and 94 patients [75.2%], respectively; p = 0.56), number of days alive and free of advanced organ support, adverse events, or Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. CONCLUSIONS: In cancer patients with septic shock, vasopressin as first-line vasopressor therapy was not superior to norepinephrine in reducing 28-day mortality rate.

The effect of a rapid molecular blood test on the use of antibiotics for nosocomial sepsis: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Appropriate use of antimicrobials is essential to improve outcomes in sepsis. The aim of this study was to determine whether the use of a rapid molecular blood test-SeptiFast (SF) reduces the antibiotic consumption through early de-escalation in patients with nosocomial sepsis compared with conventional blood cultures (BCs). METHODS: This was a prospective, randomized, superiority, controlled trial conducted at Sao Paulo Heart Institute in the period October 2012-May 2016. Adult patients admitted to the hospital for at least 48 h with a diagnosis of nosocomial sepsis underwent microorganism identification by both SF test and BCs. Patients randomized into the intervention group received antibiotic therapy adjustment according to the results of SF. Patients randomized into the control group received standard antibiotic adjustment according to the results of BCs. The primary endpoint was antimicrobial consumption during the first 14 days after randomization. RESULTS: A total of 200 patients were included (100 in each group). The intention to treat analysis found no significant differences in median antibiotic consumption. In the subgroup of patients with positive SF and blood cultures (19 and 25 respectively), we found a statistically significant reduction in the median antimicrobial consumption which was 1429 (1071-2000) days of therapy (DOT)/1000 patients-day in the intervention group and 1889 (1357-2563) DOT/1000 patients-day in the control group (p = 0.017), in the median time of antimicrobial de-escalation (8 versus 54 h-p < 0.001), in the duration of antimicrobial therapy (p = 0.039) and in anti-gram-positive antimicrobial costs (p = 0.002). Microorganism identification was possible in 24.5% of patients (45/184) by SF and 21.2% (39/184) by BC (p = 0.45). CONCLUSION: This randomized clinical trial showed that the use of a rapid molecular-based pathogen identification test does not reduce the median antibiotic consumption in nosocomial sepsis. However, in patients with positive microbiological tests, the use of SeptiFast reduced antimicrobial consumption through early de-escalation compared to conventional blood cultures. These results were driven by a reduction in the consumption of antimicrobials used for Gram-positive bacteria. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT01450358) on 12th October 2011.

Lactated Ringer's Versus 4% Albumin on Lactated Ringer's in Early Sepsis Therapy in Cancer Patients: A Pilot Single-Center Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effects of the administration of 4% albumin on lactated Ringer's, when compared with lactated Ringer's alone, in the early phase of sepsis in cancer patients. DESIGN: Single-center, randomized, double-blind, controlled-parallel trial. SETTING: A tertiary care university cancer hospital. PATIENTS: Cancer patients with severe sepsis or septic shock. INTERVENTIONS: Between October 2014 and December 2016, patients were randomly assigned to receive either bolus of albumin in a lactated Ringer's solution or lactated Ringer's solution alone during the first 6 hours of fluid resuscitation after intensive care medicine (ICU) admission. Primary outcome was defined as death from any cause at 7 days. Secondary outcomes were defined as death from any cause within 28 days, change in Sequence Organ Failure Assessment scores from baseline to day 7, days alive and free of mechanical ventilation, days alive and free of vasopressor, renal replacement therapy during ICU stay, and length of ICU and hospital stay. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A total of 360 patients were enrolled in the trial. At 7 days, 46 of 180 patients (26%) died in the albumin group and 40 of 180 (22%) died in the lactated Ringer's group (p = 0.5). At 28 days, 96 of 180 patients (53%) died in the albumin group and 83 of 180 (46%) died in the lactated Ringer's group (p = 0.2). No significant differences in secondary outcomes were observed. CONCLUSIONS: Adding albumin to early standard resuscitation with lactated Ringer's in cancer patients with sepsis did not improve 7-day survival.