High versus low blood pressure targets for cardiac surgery while on cardiopulmonary bypass.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac surgery is performed worldwide. Most types of cardiac surgery are performed using cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Cardiac surgery performed with CPB is associated with morbidities. CPB needs an extracorporeal circulation that replaces the heart and lungs, and performs circulation, ventilation, and oxygenation of the blood. The lower limit of mean blood pressure to maintain blood flow to vital organs increases in people with chronic hypertension. Because people undergoing cardiac surgery commonly have chronic hypertension, we hypothesised that maintaining a relatively high blood pressure improves desirable outcomes among the people undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the benefits and harms of higher versus lower blood pressure targets during cardiac surgery with CPB. SEARCH METHODS: We used standard, extensive Cochrane search methods. The latest search of databases was November 2021 and trials registries in January 2020. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing a higher blood pressure target (mean arterial pressure 65 mmHg or greater) with a lower blood pressure target (mean arterial pressure less than 65 mmHg) in adults undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We used standard Cochrane methods. Primary outcomes were 1. acute kidney injury, 2. cognitive deterioration, and 3. all-cause mortality. Secondary outcomes were 4. quality of life, 5. acute ischaemic stroke, 6. haemorrhagic stroke, 7. length of hospital stay, 8. renal replacement therapy, 9. delirium, 10. perioperative transfusion of blood products, and 11. perioperative myocardial infarction. We used GRADE to assess certainty of evidence. MAIN RESULTS: We included three RCTs with 737 people compared a higher blood pressure target with a lower blood pressure target during cardiac surgery with CPB. A high blood pressure target may result in little to no difference in acute kidney injury (risk ratio (RR) 1.30, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.81 to 2.08; I² = 72%; 2 studies, 487 participants; low-certainty evidence), cognitive deterioration (RR 0.82, 95% CI 0.45 to 1.50; I² = 0%; 2 studies, 389 participants; low-certainty evidence), and all-cause mortality (RR 1.33, 95% CI 0.30 to 5.90; I² = 49%; 3 studies, 737 participants; low-certainty evidence). No study reported haemorrhagic stroke. Although a high blood pressure target may increase the length of hospital stay slightly, we found no differences between a higher and a lower blood pressure target for the other secondary outcomes. We also identified one ongoing RCT which is comparing a higher versus a lower blood pressure target among the people who undergo cardiac surgery with CPB. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: A high blood pressure target may result in little to no difference in patient outcomes including acute kidney injury and mortality. Given the wide CIs, further studies are needed to confirm the efficacy of a higher blood pressure target among those who undergo cardiac surgery with CPB.

The incidence of hypotension during general anesthesia: a single-center study at a university hospital.

BACKGROUND: Although intraoperative hypotension (IOH) has been emerging as a serious concern during general anesthesia, the incidence of IOH has not been demonstrated clearly in the Japanese population. METHODS: This single-center retrospective study investigated the incidence and the characteristics of IOH in non-cardiac surgery at a university hospital. IOH was defined as at least one fall of MAP during general anesthesia, which was categorized into the following groups: mild (65 to < 75 mmHg), moderate (55 to < 65 mmHg), severe (45 to < 55 mmHg), and very severe (< 45 mmHg). The incidence of IOH was calculated as a percentage of the number of events to the total anesthesia cases. Logistic regression analysis was performed to examine factors affecting IOH. RESULTS: Eleven thousand two hundred ten cases out of 13,226 adult patients were included in the analysis. We found moderate to very severe hypotension occurred in 86.3% of the patients for at least 1 to 5 min, and 48.5% experienced severe or very severe hypotension. The results of the logistic regression analysis indicated female gender, vascular surgery, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification (ASA-PS) 4 or 5 in emergency surgery, and the combination with the epidural block (EDB) were significant factors of IOH. CONCLUSIONS: IOH during general anesthesia was very frequent in the Japanese population. Female gender, vascular surgery, ASA-PA 4 or 5 in emergency surgery, and the combination with EDB were independent risk factors associated with IOH. However, the association with patient outcomes were not elucidated.

Anesthesia Management via an Automated Control System for Propofol, Remifentanil, and Rocuronium Compared to Management by Anesthesiologists: An Investigator-Initiated Study.

BACKGROUND: We previously developed an automated total intravenous anesthesia control system that uses new closed-loop system algorithms to administer propofol, remifentanil, and rocuronium based on the bispectral index and train-of-four data. We recently improved this automated control system by adding a safety mechanism and using a modified monitoring device. METHODS: Patients scheduled for elective surgery were randomly assigned to closed-loop feedback control (automatic group) or the manual administration of propofol, remifentanil, and rocuronium (manual group). The proportion of time during which the proper management of three-agent anesthesia was maintained during surgery was determined as the primary endpoint. RESULTS: The proportion of time during which the three components of sedation, analgesia, and muscle relaxation were adequately controlled was 87.21 ± 12.79% in the automatic group, which was non-inferior to the proportion of 65.19 ± 20.16% in the manual group (p < 0.001). Adverse events during the operative or postoperative observation periods were significantly less frequent in the automatic group (54 patients, 90.0%) than in the manual group (60 patients, 100.0%; p = 0.027). CONCLUSION: Our three-agent automated control system, which features an improved muscle relaxation monitor and safety mechanism added to the basic control algorithms, maintained sedation, analgesia, and muscle relaxation appropriately in a manner non-inferior to anesthesiologists without compromising safety.