Quantitative assessment of required separator fluid volume in multi-infusion settings.

BACKGROUND: Administering a separator fluid between incompatible solutions can optimize the use of intravenous lumens. Factors affecting the required separator fluid volume to safely separate incompatible solutions are unknown. METHODS: An intravenous tube (2-m, 2-mL, 6-French) containing methylene blue dye was flushed with separator fluid until a methylene blue concentration ⩽2% from initial was reached. Independent variables were administration rate, dye solvent (glucose 5% and NaCl 0.9%), and separator fluid. In the second part of the study, methylene blue, separator fluid, and eosin yellow were administered in various administration profiles using 2- and 4-mL (2 × 2 m, 4-mL, 6-French) intravenous tubes. RESULTS: Neither administration rate nor solvent affected the separator fluid volume (p = 0.24 and p = 0.12, respectively). Glucose 5% as separator fluid required a marginally smaller mean ± SD separator fluid volume than NaCl 0.9% (3.64 ± 0.13 mL vs 3.82 ± 0.11 mL, p < 0.001). Using 2-mL tubing required less separator fluid volume than 4-mL tubing for methylene blue (3.89 ± 0.57 mL vs 4.91 ± 0.88 mL, p = 0.01) and eosin yellow (4.41 ± 0.56 mL vs 5.63 ± 0.15 mL, p < 0.001). Extended tubing required less separator fluid volume/mL of tubing than smaller tubing for both methylene blue (2 vs 4 mL, 1.54 ± 0.22 vs 1.10 ± 0.19, p < 0.001) and eosin yellow (2 vs 4 mL, 1.75 ± 0.22 vs 1.25 ± 0.03, p < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The separator fluid volume was neither affected by the administration rate nor by solvent. Glucose 5% required a marginally smaller separator fluid volume than NaCl 0.9%, however its clinical impact is debatable. A larger intravenous tubing volume requires a larger separator fluid volume. However, the ratio of separator fluid volume to the tubing's volume decreases as the tubing volume increases.

Heart Rehabilitation in patients awaiting Open heart surgery targeting to prevent Complications and to improve Quality of life (Heart-ROCQ): study protocol for a prospective, randomised, open, blinded endpoint (PROBE) trial.

INTRODUCTION: The rising prevalence of modifiable risk factors (eg, obesity, hypertension and physical inactivity) is causing an increase in possible avoidable complications in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. This study aims to assess whether a combined preoperative and postoperative multidisciplinary cardiac rehabilitation (CR) programme (Heart-ROCQ programme) can improve functional status and reduce surgical complications, readmissions and major adverse cardiac events (MACE) as compared with standard care. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Patients (n=350) are randomised to the Heart-ROCQ programme or standard care. The Heart-ROCQ programme consists of a preoperative optimisation phase while waiting for surgery (three times per week, minimum of 3 weeks), a postoperative inpatient phase (3 weeks) and an outpatient CR phase (two times per week, 4 weeks). Patients receive multidisciplinary treatment (eg, physical therapy, dietary advice, psychological sessions and smoking cessation). Standard care consists of 6 weeks of postsurgery outpatient CR with education and physical therapy (two times per week). The primary outcome is a composite weighted score of functional status, surgical complications, readmissions and MACE, and is evaluated by a blinded endpoint committee. The secondary outcomes are length of stay, physical and psychological functioning, lifestyle risk factors, and work participation. Finally, an economic evaluation is performed. Data are collected at six time points: at baseline (start of the waiting period), the day before surgery, at discharge from the hospital, and at 3, 7 and 12 months postsurgery. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: This study will be conducted according to the principles of the Declaration of Helsinki (V.8, October 2013). The protocol has been approved by the Medical Ethical Review Board of the UMCG (no 2016/464). Results of this study will be submitted to a peer-reviewed scientific journal and can be presented at national and international conferences. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02984449.

Cardiac rehabilitation for patients having cardiac surgery: a systematic review.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiac rehabilitation (CR) is recommended for all cardiac patients including patients after cardiac surgery. Since the effect of CR after cardiac surgery has not been well established yet, we conducted a systematic review on the effects of CR for patients after cardiac surgery compared to treatment as usual. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: A systematic review of randomized clinical trials (RCTs), quasi-randomized and prospective observational studies in The Cochrane Library, PubMed/MEDLINE and EMBASE was undertaken until October 18th, 2017. Adults after any kind of cardiac surgery were included. Primary outcome was all-cause mortality, other outcomes were serious adverse events, health-related quality of life, work participation, functioning and costs/cost-effectiveness. Risk of bias was evaluated, and the quality of evidence was assessed by the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) criteria. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Eighteen RCTs and 15 observational studies were included. Low risk of bias was only observed in one observational study. Meta-analysis of RCTs suggested no significant difference of CR compared to control on mortality (random-effects relative risk (RR) 0.93 (95% CI: 0.40-1.81), while observational studies suggested statistically significant beneficial effect associated with CR (random-effects RR=0.49, 95% CI: 0.35 - 0.68). CR did not significantly affect any of the other outcomes. Due to the limited data TSA could not be performed. CONCLUSIONS: The body of evidence does not allow us to reach any reliable conclusions about the effectiveness of CR following cardiac surgery. Future trials need to be conducted with low risks of bias and clearly defined outcomes.

Boussignac continuous positive airway pressure for the management of acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema: prospective study with a retrospective control group.

BACKGROUND: Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) treatment for acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema can have important benefits in acute cardiac care. However, coronary care units are usually not equipped and their personnel not adequately trained for applying CPAP with mechanical ventilators. Therefore we investigated in the coronary care unit setting the feasibility and outcome of the simple Boussignac mask-CPAP (BCPAP) system that does not need a mechanical ventilator. METHODS: BCPAP was introduced in a coronary care unit where staff had no CPAP experience. All consecutive patients transported to our hospital with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema, a respiratory rate > 25 breaths/min and a peripheral arterial oxygen saturation of < 95% while receiving oxygen, were included in a prospective BCPAP group that was compared with a historical control group that received conventional treatment with oxygen alone. RESULTS: During the 2-year prospective BCPAP study period 108 patients were admitted with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema. Eighty-four of these patients (78%) were treated at the coronary care unit of which 66 (61%) were treated with BCPAP. During the control period 66 patients were admitted over a 1-year period of whom 31 (47%) needed respiratory support in the intensive care unit. BCPAP treatment was associated with a reduced hospital length of stay and fewer transfers to the intensive care unit for intubation and mechanical ventilation. Overall estimated savings of approximately euro 3,800 per patient were achieved with the BCPAP strategy compared to conventional treatment. CONCLUSION: At the coronary care unit, BCPAP was feasible, medically effective, and cost-effective in the treatment of acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema. Endpoints included mortality, coronary care unit and hospital length of stay, need of ventilatory support, and cost (savings).