Application of goal-directed therapy for the use of concentrated antithrombin for heparin resistance during cardiac surgery.

The maintenance of anticoagulation in adult patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass is dependent upon a number of factors, including heparin concentration and adequate antithrombin activity. Inadequate anticoagulation increases the risk of thrombosis and jeopardizes both vascular and extracorporeal circuit integrity. The purpose of this study was to evaluate a goal-directed approach for the use of antithrombin in patients who were resistant to heparin. Following institutional review board approval, data were obtained from quality improvement records. A goal-directed protocol for antithrombin was established based upon heparin dosing (400 IU kg-1 body weight) and achieving an activated clotting time of ⩾500 seconds prior to cardiopulmonary bypass. Two groups of patients were identified as those receiving antithrombin and those not receiving antithrombin. Outcome measures included activated clotting time values and transfusion rates. Consecutive patients (n = 140) were included in the study with 10 (7.1%) in the antithrombin group. The average antithrombin dose was 1,029.0 ± 164.5 IU and all patients had restoration to the activated clotting time levels. Patients in the antithrombin group were on preoperative heparin therapy (80.0% vs. 24.6%, p = 0.001). Prior to cardiopulmonary bypass the activated clotting time values were lower in the antithrombin group (417.7 ± 56.1 seconds vs. 581.1 ± 169.8 seconds, p = 0.003). Antithrombin patients had a lower heparin sensitivity index (0.55 ± 0.17 vs. 1.05 ± 0.44 seconds heparin-1 IU kg-1, p = 0.001), received more total heparin (961.3 ± 158.5 IU kg-1 vs. 677.5 ± 199.0 IU kg-1, p = 0.001), more cardiopulmonary bypass heparin (22,500 ± 10,300 IU vs. 12,100 ± 13,200 IU, p = 0.016), and more protamine (5.4 ± 1.2 vs. 4.1 ± 1.1 mg kg-1, p = 0.003). The intraoperative transfusion rate was higher in the antithrombin group (70.0% vs. 35.4%, p = 0.035), but no differences were seen postoperatively. Utilization of a goal-directed algorithm for the administration of antithrombin for the treatment of heparin resistance is effective in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

The Effect of Standardizing Autologous Prime Techniques in Patients Undergoing Cardiac Surgery with Cardiopulmonary Bypass.

Autologous priming (AP) of the extracorporeal circuit has been used as a technique to reduce iatrogenic anemia in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). The purpose of this study was to review the results of standardizing AP techniques to reduce variation among clinicians and its effect on clinical outcomes. Standardized goal-directed protocols for AP were established by the cardiac team and applied to all adult cardiac surgical patients where CPB was used. Following Institutional Review Board approval, data were analyzed for two sequential groups of patients: Non-standardized AP (NST-AP) and standardized AP (ST-AP). Exclusion criteria included pre-CPB hemodynamic instability and preoperative hematocrit (Hct) values less than 30%. The primary end point was the transfusion of red blood cells (RBCs), whereas secondary end points included Hct change and other perioperative allogeneic blood product transfusions. Data are presented as mean and SD. Of the 192 patients evaluated, 82 were in the NST-AP group and 110 in the ST-AP group. There were no preoperative demographic differences across groups. Total AP volume was lower in the NST-AP group than in the ST-AP patients (486.8 ± 259.6 mL vs. 1,048.2 ± 218.7 mL, p < .001). Whereas pre-CPB Hct values were identical between the groups, the first on-CPB (25.7% ± 4.5% vs. 27.9% ± 4.2%, p < .001), high CPB (27.7% ± 3.5% vs. 29.1% ± 3.6%, p < .008), and first postoperative (32.5% ± 4.0% vs. 34.3% ± 3.9%, p < .003) were all significantly higher in ST-AP patients. Perioperative transfusion rate was higher in NST-AP patients (63.6%) vs. ST-AP (44.6%), p < .01. There was no difference in intraoperative RBC transfusion, but postoperatively, more patients in the NST-AP group received RBCs than those in the ST-AP group (51.2% vs. 28.2%, p < .01). The application of an ST-AP protocol was effective in reducing hemodilution, which was associated within higher Hcts and lower postoperative transfusion rates.

Goal-Directed Perfusion Methodology for Determining Oxygenator Performance during Clinical Cardiopulmonary Bypass.

New generation oxygenators incorporate arterial line filtration either sequential to, or directly in, the gas exchange module. This unique design may affect gas exchange performance by altering the operational characteristics of the device. The present study was designed to evaluate three oxygenators in a clinical setting using a goal-directed perfusion algorithm during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). After institutional review board approval, 60 adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery for acquired heart disease were matched for disease state and body size into three groups based on oxygenator type: Terumo SX18™ (n = 20), Terumo FX15™ (n = 20), and LivaNova Inspire6F™ 6 Dual (n = 20). An external arterial line filter was used with the FX15, whereas the SX18 and Inspire6F had integrated arterial filters. All perfusion, anesthetic and postoperative care management was standardized using institutional goal-directed patient management processes. Data were collected and stored according to quality improvement guidelines. There were no differences in demographics or type of surgical procedure performed among groups. The Inspire6F patients required lower fraction of inspired oxygen values as compared to the SX18 (67.9% ± 6.2% vs. 75.4% ± 6.5%, p < .005) and FX15 (79.1% ± 8.4%, p < .0001) groups. Arterial oxygen content and oxygen delivery were slightly higher in the FX15 group as compared to SX18 (13.1 ± 1.4 mL O2/dL vs. 12.4 ± 1.1 mL O2/dL, 611.1 ± 150.4 mL O2 vs. 528.2 ± 102.3 mL O2, p < .05). The FX15 patients had significantly higher CPB hematocrits compared to SX18 patients (30.3% ± 3.9% vs. 27.7% ± 2.6%, p < .05), but were not different when compared to the Inspire6F group (28.8% ± 3.5%, p < .50). There were no differences in intraoperative transfusion rates, but a higher percent of patients received postoperative transfusions in the SX18 group as compared to either FX15 or Inspire6F groups (p < .039). There were no differences in postoperative morbidity or complications in any group. In conclusion, the use of the SX18 was comparable to newer generation oxygenators in regard to gas exchange performance and the degree of hemodilution.