RESUMEN
Acute kidney injury (AKI) is a common complication in cardiac surgery patients, with a reported incidence of 20 to 30%. The development of AKI is associated with worse short- and long-term mortality, and longer hospital length of stay. The pathogenesis of cardiac surgery-associated AKI is poorly understood but likely involves an interplay between preoperative comorbidities and perioperative stressors. AKI is commonly diagnosed by using increases in serum creatinine or decreased urine output and staged using a standardized definition such as the Kidney Disease Improving Global Outcomes classification. Novel biomarkers under investigation may provide earlier detection and better prediction of AKI, enabling mitigating therapies early in the perioperative period. Recent clinical trials of cardiac surgery patients have demonstrated the benefit of goal-directed oxygen delivery, avoidance of hyperthermic perfusion and specific fluid and medication strategies. This review article highlights both advances and limitations regarding the prevention, prediction, and treatment of cardiac surgery-associated AKI.
Asunto(s)
Lesión Renal Aguda , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Cardíacos , Humanos , Procedimientos Quirúrgicos Cardíacos/efectos adversos , Lesión Renal Aguda/diagnóstico , Biomarcadores , Comorbilidad , Complicaciones Posoperatorias/diagnóstico , Factores de RiesgoRESUMEN
Introduction. Thoracic interfascial plane blocks are increasingly used for pain management after minimally invasive thoracotomy for valve repair and replacement procedures. We hypothesized that the addition of these blocks to the intercostal nerve block injected by the surgeon would further reduce pain scores and opioid utilization. Methods. In this retrospective cohort study, 400 consecutive patients who underwent minimally invasive thoracotomy for mitral or aortic valve replacement and were extubated within 2 hours of surgery were enrolled. The maximum pain score and opioid utilization on the day of surgery and other outcome variables were compared between patients who received interfascial plane blocks and those who did not. Results.193 (48%) received at least one interfascial plane block while 207 (52%) received no interfascial plane block. Patients who received a thoracic interfascial plane block had a maximum VAS score on the day of surgery (mean 7.4 ± 2.5) after the block was administered which was significantly lower than patients in the control group who did not receive the block (mean 7.9 ± 2.2) (P = .02). Opioid consumption in the interfascial plane block group on the day of surgery was not significantly different from the control group. Conclusion. Compared to intercostal blocks alone, the addition of thoracic interfascial plane blocks was associated with a modest reduction in maximum VAS score on the day of surgery. However, no difference in opioid consumption was noted. Patients who received interfascial plane blocks also had decreased blood transfusion requirements and a shorter hospital length of stay.
Asunto(s)
Analgésicos Opioides , Toracotomía , Humanos , Dolor Postoperatorio , Estudios Retrospectivos , Manejo del Dolor/métodosRESUMEN
INTRODUCTION: The goal of this investigation is to assess the association between prehospital use of aspirin (ASA) and patient-centered outcomes in a large global cohort of hospitalized COVID-19 patients. METHODS: This study utilizes data from the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study (VIRUS) Registry. Adult patients hospitalized from February 15th, 2020, to September 30th, 2021, were included. Multivariable regression analyses were utilized to assess the association between pre-hospital use of ASA and the primary outcome of overall hospital mortality. RESULTS: 21,579 patients were included from 185 hospitals (predominantly US-based, 71.3%), with 4691 (21.7%) receiving pre-hospital ASA. Patients receiving ASA, compared to those without pre-admission ASA use, were generally older (median 70 vs. 59 years), more likely to be male (58.7 vs. 56.0%), caucasian (57.4 vs. 51.6%), and more commonly had higher rates of medical comorbidities. In multivariable analyses, patients receiving pre-hospital ASA had lower mortality (HR: 0.89, 95% CI 0.82-0.97, p=0.01) and reduced hazard for progression to severe disease or death (HR: 0.91, 95% CI 0.84-0.99, p=0.02) and more hospital free days (1.00 days, 95% CI 0.66-1.35, p=0.01) compared to those without pre-hospital ASA use. The overall direction and significance of the results remained the same in sensitivity analysis, after adjusting the multivariable model for time since pandemic. CONCLUSIONS: In this large international cohort, pre-hospital use of ASA was associated with a lower hazard for death in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. Randomized controlled trials may be warranted to assess the utility of pre-hospital use of ASA.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Virosis , Adulto , Humanos , Masculino , Femenino , COVID-19/epidemiología , Aspirina/uso terapéutico , SARS-CoV-2 , Pandemias , Hospitalización , Mortalidad HospitalariaRESUMEN
OBJECTIVES: To determine the association of prior use of renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors (RAASIs) with mortality and outcomes in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective observational study. SETTING: Multicenter, international COVID-19 registry. SUBJECTS: Adult hospitalized COVID-19 patients on antihypertensive agents (AHAs) prior to admission, admitted from March 31, 2020, to March 10, 2021. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Data were compared between three groups: patients on RAASIs only, other AHAs only, and those on both medications. Multivariable logistic and linear regressions were performed after controlling for prehospitalization characteristics to estimate the effect of RAASIs on mortality and other outcomes during hospitalization. Of 26,652 patients, 7,975 patients were on AHAs prior to hospitalization. Of these, 1,542 patients (19.3%) were on RAASIs only, 3,765 patients (47.2%) were on other AHAs only, and 2,668 (33.5%) patients were on both medications. Compared with those taking other AHAs only, patients on RAASIs only were younger (mean age 63.3 vs 66.9 yr; p < 0.0001), more often male (58.2% vs 52.4%; p = 0.0001) and more often White (55.1% vs 47.2%; p < 0.0001). After adjusting for age, gender, race, location, and comorbidities, patients on combination of RAASIs and other AHAs had higher in-hospital mortality than those on RAASIs only (odds ratio [OR] = 1.28; 95% CI [1.19-1.38]; p < 0.0001) and higher mortality than those on other AHAs only (OR = 1.09; 95% CI [1.03-1.15]; p = 0.0017). Patients on RAASIs only had lower mortality than those on other AHAs only (OR = 0.87; 95% CI [0.81-0.94]; p = 0.0003). Patients on ACEIs only had higher mortality compared with those on ARBs only (OR = 1.37; 95% CI [1.20-1.56]; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 who were taking AHAs, prior use of a combination of RAASIs and other AHAs was associated with higher in-hospital mortality than the use of RAASIs alone. When compared with ARBs, ACEIs were associated with significantly higher mortality in hospitalized COVID-19 patients.
Asunto(s)
Tratamiento Farmacológico de COVID-19 , Hipertensión , Adulto , Antagonistas de Receptores de Angiotensina/uso terapéutico , Inhibidores de la Enzima Convertidora de Angiotensina/uso terapéutico , Antihipertensivos/uso terapéutico , Humanos , Hipertensión/tratamiento farmacológico , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Sistema Renina-Angiotensina , Estudios RetrospectivosRESUMEN
BACKGROUND: The use of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) and noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for hypoxemic respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 are recommended by critical-care guidelines; however, apprehension about viral particle aerosolization and patient self-inflicted lung injury may have limited use. We aimed to describe hospital variation in the use and clinical outcomes of HFNC and NIV for the management of COVID-19. METHODS: This was a retrospective observational study of adults hospitalized with COVID-19 who received supplemental oxygen between February 15, 2020, and April 12, 2021, across 102 international and United States hospitals by using the COVID-19 Registry. Associations of HFNC and NIV use with clinical outcomes were evaluated by using multivariable adjusted hierarchical random-effects logistic regression models. Hospital variation was characterized by using intraclass correlation and the median odds ratio. RESULTS: Among 13,454 adults with COVID-19 who received supplemental oxygen, 8,143 (60%) received nasal cannula/face mask only, 2,859 (21%) received HFNC, 878 (7%) received NIV, 1,574 (12%) received both HFNC and NIV, with 3,640 subjects (27%) progressing to invasive ventilation. The hospital of admission contributed to 24% of the risk-adjusted variation in HFNC and 30% of the risk-adjusted variation in NIV. The median odds ratio for hospital variation of HFNC was 2.6 (95% CI 1.4-4.9) and of NIV was 3.1 (95% CI 1.2-8.1). Among 5,311 subjects who received HFNC and/or NIV, 2,772 (52%) did not receive invasive ventilation and survived to hospital discharge. Hospital-level use of HFNC or NIV were not associated with the rates of invasive ventilation or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital variation in the use of HFNC and NIV for acute respiratory failure secondary to COVID-19 was great but was not associated with intubation or mortality. The wide variation and relatively low use of HFNC/NIV observed within our study signaled that implementation of increased HFNC/NIV use in patients with COVID-19 will require changes to current care delivery practices. (ClinicalTrials.gov registration NCT04323787.).
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Ventilación no Invasiva , Insuficiencia Respiratoria , Adulto , COVID-19/terapia , Cánula , Humanos , Oxígeno , Terapia por Inhalación de Oxígeno , Insuficiencia Respiratoria/etiología , Insuficiencia Respiratoria/terapiaRESUMEN
To describe the prevalence, associated risk factors, and outcomes of serious neurologic manifestations (encephalopathy, stroke, seizure, and meningitis/encephalitis) among patients hospitalized with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. DESIGN: Prospective observational study. SETTING: One hundred seventy-nine hospitals in 24 countries within the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Infection and Respiratory Illness Universal Study COVID-19 Registry. PATIENTS: Hospitalized adults with laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection. INTERVENTIONS: None. RESULTS: Of 16,225 patients enrolled in the registry with hospital discharge status available, 2,092 (12.9%) developed serious neurologic manifestations including 1,656 (10.2%) with encephalopathy at admission, 331 (2.0%) with stroke, 243 (1.5%) with seizure, and 73 (0.5%) with meningitis/encephalitis at admission or during hospitalization. Patients with serious neurologic manifestations of COVID-19 were older with median (interquartile range) age 72 years (61.0-81.0 yr) versus 61 years (48.0-72.0 yr) and had higher prevalence of chronic medical conditions, including vascular risk factors. Adjusting for age, sex, and time since the onset of the pandemic, serious neurologic manifestations were associated with more severe disease (odds ratio [OR], 1.49; p < 0.001) as defined by the World Health Organization ordinal disease severity scale for COVID-19 infection. Patients with neurologic manifestations were more likely to be admitted to the ICU (OR, 1.45; p < 0.001) and require critical care interventions (extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: OR, 1.78; p = 0.009 and renal replacement therapy: OR, 1.99; p < 0.001). Hospital, ICU, and 28-day mortality for patients with neurologic manifestations was higher (OR, 1.51, 1.37, and 1.58; p < 0.001), and patients had fewer ICU-free, hospital-free, and ventilator-free days (estimated difference in days, -0.84, -1.34, and -0.84; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Encephalopathy at admission is common in hospitalized patients with SARS-CoV-2 infection and is associated with worse outcomes. While serious neurologic manifestations including stroke, seizure, and meningitis/encephalitis were less common, all were associated with increased ICU support utilization, more severe disease, and worse outcomes.
RESUMEN
RATIONALE: The impact of palliative care consultation on end-of-life care has not previously been evaluated in a multi-center study. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of palliative care consultation on the incidence of cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) performed and comfort care received at the end-of-life in hospitalized patients with COVID-19. METHODS: We used the Society of Critical Care Medicine's COVID-19 registry to extract clinical data on patients hospitalized with COVID-19 between March 31st, 2020 to March 17th, 2021 and died during their hospitalization. The proportion of patients who received palliative care consultation was assessed in patients who did and did not receive CPR (primary outcome) and comfort care (secondary outcome). Propensity matching was used to account for potential confounding variables. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: 3,227 patients were included in the analysis. There was no significant difference in the incidence of palliative care consultation between the CPR and no-CPR groups (19.9% vs. 19.4%, p = 0.8334). Patients who received comfort care at the end-of-life were significantly more likely to have received palliative care consultation (43.3% vs. 7.7%, p < 0.0001). After propensity matching for comfort care on demographic characteristics and comorbidities, this relationship was still significant (43.2% vs. 8.5%; p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Palliative care consultation was not associated with CPR performed at the end-of-life but was associated with increased incidence of comfort care being utilized. These results suggest that utilizing palliative care consultation at the end-of-life may better align the needs and values of patients with the care they receive.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19 , Cuidado Terminal , Muerte , Humanos , Cuidados Paliativos , Derivación y Consulta , Estudios Retrospectivos , SARS-CoV-2RESUMEN
Importance: Obesity, diabetes, and hypertension are common comorbidities in patients with severe COVID-19, yet little is known about the risk of acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) or death in patients with COVID-19 and metabolic syndrome. Objective: To determine whether metabolic syndrome is associated with an increased risk of ARDS and death from COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter cohort study used data from the Society of Critical Care Medicine Discovery Viral Respiratory Illness Universal Study collected from 181 hospitals across 26 countries from February 15, 2020, to February 18, 2021. Outcomes were compared between patients with metabolic syndrome (defined as ≥3 of the following criteria: obesity, prediabetes or diabetes, hypertension, and dyslipidemia) and a control population without metabolic syndrome. Participants included adult patients hospitalized for COVID-19 during the study period who had a completed discharge status. Data were analyzed from February 22 to October 5, 2021. Exposures: Exposures were SARS-CoV-2 infection, metabolic syndrome, obesity, prediabetes or diabetes, hypertension, and/or dyslipidemia. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality. Secondary outcomes included ARDS, intensive care unit (ICU) admission, need for invasive mechanical ventilation, and length of stay (LOS). Results: Among 46â¯441 patients hospitalized with COVID-19, 29â¯040 patients (mean [SD] age, 61.2 [17.8] years; 13â¯059 [45.0%] women and 15713 [54.1%] men; 6797 Black patients [23.4%], 5325 Hispanic patients [18.3%], and 16â¯507 White patients [57.8%]) met inclusion criteria. A total of 5069 patients (17.5%) with metabolic syndrome were compared with 23â¯971 control patients (82.5%) without metabolic syndrome. In adjusted analyses, metabolic syndrome was associated with increased risk of ICU admission (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 1.32 [95% CI, 1.14-1.53]), invasive mechanical ventilation (aOR, 1.45 [95% CI, 1.28-1.65]), ARDS (aOR, 1.36 [95% CI, 1.12-1.66]), and mortality (aOR, 1.19 [95% CI, 1.08-1.31]) and prolonged hospital LOS (median [IQR], 8.0 [4.2-15.8] days vs 6.8 [3.4-13.0] days; P < .001) and ICU LOS (median [IQR], 7.0 [2.8-15.0] days vs 6.4 [2.7-13.0] days; P < .001). Each additional metabolic syndrome criterion was associated with increased risk of ARDS in an additive fashion (1 criterion: 1147 patients with ARDS [10.4%]; P = .83; 2 criteria: 1191 patients with ARDS [15.3%]; P < .001; 3 criteria: 817 patients with ARDS [19.3%]; P < .001; 4 criteria: 203 patients with ARDS [24.3%]; P < .001). Conclusions and Relevance: These findings suggest that metabolic syndrome was associated with increased risks of ARDS and death in patients hospitalized with COVID-19. The association with ARDS was cumulative for each metabolic syndrome criteria present.
Asunto(s)
COVID-19/epidemiología , COVID-19/mortalidad , Hospitalización , Síndrome Metabólico/epidemiología , Síndrome de Dificultad Respiratoria/epidemiología , Adulto , COVID-19/terapia , Comorbilidad , Cuidados Críticos , Femenino , Mortalidad Hospitalaria , Humanos , Tiempo de Internación , Masculino , Persona de Mediana Edad , Pronóstico , Estudios Prospectivos , Respiración Artificial , Factores de Riesgo , SARS-CoV-2RESUMEN
Morbid obesity is associated with impairment of cardiovascular, pulmonary, gastrointestinal, and renal physiology with significant perioperative consequences and has been linked with higher morbidity and mortality after cardiac surgery. Cardiac surgery patients have a higher incidence of difficult airway and difficult laryngoscopy than general surgery patients do, and obesity is associated with difficult mask ventilation and direct laryngoscopy. Positioning injuries occur more frequently because obese patients are at greater risk of pressure injury, such as rhabdomyolysis and compartment syndrome. Despite the association between obesity and several chronic disease states, the effects of obesity on perioperative outcomes are conflicting. Studies examining outcomes of overweight and obese patients in cardiac surgery have reported varying results. An "obesity paradox" has been described, in which the mortality for overweight and obese patients is lower compared with patients of normal weight. This review describes the physiologic abnormalities and clinical implications of obesity in cardiac surgery and summarizes recommendations for anesthesiologists to optimize perioperative care of the obese cardiac surgical patient.