Effect of Cerebral Embolic Protection Devices on CNS Infarction in Surgical Aortic Valve Replacement: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Stroke is a major complication of surgical aortic valve replacement (SAVR). Objective: To determine the efficacy and adverse effects of cerebral embolic protection devices in reducing ischemic central nervous system (CNS) injury during SAVR. Design, Setting, and Participants: A randomized clinical trial of patients with calcific aortic stenosis undergoing SAVR at 18 North American centers between March 2015 and July 2016. The end of follow-up was December 2016. Interventions: Use of 1 of 2 cerebral embolic protection devices (n = 118 for suction-based extraction and n = 133 for intra-aortic filtration device) vs a standard aortic cannula (control; n = 132) at the time of SAVR. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was freedom from clinical or radiographic CNS infarction at 7 days (± 3 days) after the procedure. Secondary end points included a composite of mortality, clinical ischemic stroke, and acute kidney injury within 30 days after surgery; delirium; mortality; serious adverse events; and neurocognition. Results: Among 383 randomized patients (mean age, 73.9 years; 38.4% women; 368 [96.1%] completed the trial), the rate of freedom from CNS infarction at 7 days was 32.0% with suction-based extraction vs 33.3% with control (between-group difference, -1.3%; 95% CI, -13.8% to 11.2%) and 25.6% with intra-aortic filtration vs 32.4% with control (between-group difference, -6.9%; 95% CI, -17.9% to 4.2%). The 30-day composite end point was not significantly different between suction-based extraction and control (21.4% vs 24.2%, respectively; between-group difference, -2.8% [95% CI, -13.5% to 7.9%]) nor between intra-aortic filtration and control (33.3% vs 23.7%; between-group difference, 9.7% [95% CI, -1.2% to 20.5%]). There were no significant differences in mortality (3.4% for suction-based extraction vs 1.7% for control; and 2.3% for intra-aortic filtration vs 1.5% for control) or clinical stroke (5.1% for suction-based extraction vs 5.8% for control; and 8.3% for intra-aortic filtration vs 6.1% for control). Delirium at postoperative day 7 was 6.3% for suction-based extraction vs 15.3% for control (between-group difference, -9.1%; 95% CI, -17.1% to -1.0%) and 8.1% for intra-aortic filtration vs 15.6% for control (between-group difference, -7.4%; 95% CI, -15.5% to 0.6%). Mortality and overall serious adverse events at 90 days were not significantly different across groups. Patients in the intra-aortic filtration group vs patients in the control group experienced significantly more acute kidney injury events (14 vs 4, respectively; P = .02) and cardiac arrhythmias (57 vs 30; P = .004). Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients undergoing SAVR, cerebral embolic protection devices compared with a standard aortic cannula did not significantly reduce the risk of CNS infarction at 7 days. Potential benefits for reduction in delirium, cognition, and symptomatic stroke merit larger trials with longer follow-up. Trial Registration: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT02389894.

Operating Room Delays: Meaningful Use in Electronic Health Record.

Perioperative areas are the most costly to operate and account for more than 40% of expenses. The high costs prompted one organization to analyze surgical delays through a retrospective review of their new electronic health record. Electronic health records have made it easier to access and aggregate clinical data; 2123 operating room cases were analyzed. Implementing a new electronic health record system is complex; inaccurate data and poor implementation can introduce new problems. Validating the electronic health record development processes determines the ease of use and the user interface, specifically related to user compliance with the intent of the electronic health record development. The revalidation process after implementation determines if the intent of the design was fulfilled and data can be meaningfully used. In this organization, the data fields completed through automation provided quantifiable, meaningful data. However, data fields completed by staff that required subjective decision making resulted in incomplete data nearly 24% of the time. The ease of use was further complicated by 490 permutations (combinations of delay types and reasons) that were built into the electronic health record. Operating room delay themes emerged notwithstanding the significant complexity of the electronic health record build; however, improved accuracy could improve meaningful data collection and a more accurate root cause analysis of operating room delays. Accurate and meaningful use of data affords a more reliable approach in quality, safety, and cost-effective initiatives.