Retrospective observational analysis of a coronary artery bypass grafting surgery patient cohort: Off-pump versus on-pump.

Objectives: To determine whether surgical technique has an effect on prognosis in coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). Design: Retrospective observational. Setting: Single center. Participants: All the off-pump (OPCABG) and on-pump (ONCABG) patients at Turku University Central Hospital in 2018. Interventions: None. Measurements and main results: After propensity score matching, perioperative, 1-year and 3-year mortality did not differ between the groups. The ONCABG patients received more allogenic red blood cells (1.3 vs. 0.6 units, p = 0.020), autologous red blood cells (564 vs. 285 ml, p < 0.001) and crystalloids (3388 vs. 2808 ml, p < 0.001), and had higher postoperative values of troponin T (581 vs. 222, p = 0.001) and lactate (1.69 vs. 1.23, p < 0.001) than the OPCABG patients. Conclusions: The both techniques seem equally safe. However, there may be some benefits to avoiding using a heart-lung machine, such as lower infused fluid volumes. Myocardial damage may also be milder and postoperative hemodynamics more balanced in OPCABG patients, based on lower levels of troponin T and lactate.

Effects of implementing rotational thromboelastometry in cardiac surgery: A retrospective cohort study.

Since 2013, rotational thromboelastometry has been available in our hospital to assess coagulopathy. The aim of the study was to retrospectively evaluate the effect of thromboelastometry testing in cardiac surgery patients. Altogether 177 patients from 2012 and 177 patients from 2014 were included. In 2014, the thromboelastometry testing was performed on 56 patients. The mean blood drainage volume decreased and the number of patients receiving platelets decreased between 2012 and 2014. In addition, the use of fresh frozen plasma units decreased, and the use of prothrombin complex concentrate increased in 2014. When studied separately, the patients with a thromboelastometry testing received platelets, fresh frozen plasma, fibrinogen and prothrombin complex concentrate more often, but smaller amounts of red blood cells. In conclusion, after implementing the thromboelastometry testing to the practice, the blood products were given more cautiously overall. The use of thromboelastometry testing was associated with increased possibility to receive coagulation product transfusions. However, it appears that thromboelastometry testing was mostly used to assist in management of major bleeding.

Effects of terbinafine and itraconazole on the pharmacokinetics of orally administered tramadol.

BACKGROUND: Tramadol is widely used for acute, chronic, and neuropathic pain. Its primary active metabolite is O-desmethyltramadol (M1), which is mainly accountable for the µ-opioid receptor-related analgesic effect. Tramadol is metabolized to M1 mainly by cytochrome P450 (CYP)2D6 enzyme and to other metabolites by CYP3A4 and CYP2B6. We investigated the possible interaction of tramadol with the antifungal agents terbinafine (CYP2D6 inhibitor) and itraconazole (CYP3A4 inhibitor). METHODS: We used a randomized placebo-controlled crossover study design with 12 healthy subjects, of which 8 were extensive and 4 were ultrarapid CYP2D6 metabolizers. On the pretreatment day 4 with terbinafine (250 mg once daily), itraconazole (200 mg once daily) or placebo, subjects were given tramadol 50 mg orally. Plasma concentrations of tramadol and M1 were determined over 48 h and some pharmacodynamic effects over 12 h. Pharmacokinetic variables were calculated using standard non-compartmental methods. RESULTS: Terbinafine increased the area under plasma concentration-time curve (AUC0-∞) of tramadol by 115 % and decreased the AUC0-∞ of M1 by 64 % (P < 0.001). Terbinafine increased the peak concentration (C max) of tramadol by 53 % (P < 0.001) and decreased the C max of M1 by 79 % (P < 0.001). After terbinafine pretreatment the elimination half-life of tramadol and M1 were increased by 48 and 50 %, respectively (P < 0.001). Terbinafine reduced subjective drug effect of tramadol (P < 0.001). Itraconazole had minor effects on tramadol pharmacokinetics. CONCLUSIONS: Terbinafine may reduce the opioid effect of tramadol and increase the risk of its monoaminergic adverse effects. Itraconazole has no meaningful interaction with tramadol in subjects who have functional CYP2D6 enzyme.

Ticlopidine inhibits both O-demethylation and renal clearance of tramadol, increasing the exposure to it, but itraconazole has no marked effect on the ticlopidine-tramadol interaction.

PURPOSE: We assessed possible drug interactions of tramadol given concomitantly with the potent CYP2B6 inhibitor ticlopidine, alone or together with the potent CYP3A4 and P-glycoprotein inhibitor itraconazole. METHODS: In a randomized, placebo-controlled cross-over study, 12 healthy subjects ingested 50 mg of tramadol after 4 days of pretreatment with either placebo, ticlopidine (250 mg twice daily) or ticlopidine plus itraconazole (200 mg once daily). Plasma and urine concentrations of tramadol and its active metabolite O-desmethyltramadol (M1) were monitored over 48 h and 24 h, respectively. RESULTS: Ticlopidine increased the mean area under the plasma concentration-time curve (AUC0-∞) of tramadol by 2.0-fold (90 % confidence interval (CI) 1.6-2.4; p < 0.001) and Cmax by 1.4-fold (p < 0.001), and reduced its oral and renal clearance (p < 0.01). Ticlopidine reduced the AUC0-3 of M1 (p < 0.001) and the ratio of the AUC0-∞ of M1 to that of tramadol, but did not influence the AUC0-∞ of M1. Tramadol or M1 pharmacokinetics did not differ between the ticlopidine alone and ticlopidine plus itraconazole phases. CONCLUSIONS: Ticlopidine increased exposure to tramadol, reduced its renal clearance and inhibited the formation of M1, most likely via inhibition of CYP2B6 and/or CYP2D6. The addition of itraconazole to ticlopidine did not modify the outcome of the drug interaction. Concomitant clinical use of ticlopidine and tramadol may enhance the risk of serotonergic effects, especially when higher doses of tramadol are used.

Rifampicin markedly decreases the exposure to oral and intravenous tramadol.

PURPOSE: Tramadol is mainly metabolized by the cytochrome P450 (CYP) 2D6, CYP2B6 and CYP3A4 enzymes. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of enzyme induction with rifampicin on the pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of oral and intravenous tramadol. METHODS: This was a randomized placebo-controlled crossover study design with 12 healthy subjects. After pretreatment for 5 days with rifampicin (600 mg once daily) or placebo, subjects were given tramadol either 50 mg intravenously or 100 mg orally. Plasma concentrations of tramadol and its active main metabolite O-desmethyltramadol (M1) were determined over 48 h. Analgesic and behavioral effects and whole blood 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT) and 5-hydroxyindoleacetic acid (5-HIAA) concentrations were measured. RESULTS: Rifampicin reduced the mean area under the time-concentration curve (AUC0-∞) of intravenously administered tramadol by 43 % and that of M1 by 58 % (P < 0.001); it reduced the AUC0-∞ of oral tramadol by 59 % and that of M1 by 54 % (P < 0.001). Rifampicin increased the clearance of intravenous tramadol by 67 % (P < 0.001). Bioavailability of oral tramadol was reduced by rifampicin from 66 to 49 % (P = 0.002). The pharmacological effects of tramadol or whole blood serotonin concentrations were not influenced by pretreatment with rifampicin. CONCLUSIONS: Rifampicin markedly decreased the exposure to tramadol and M1 after both oral and intravenous administration. Therefore, rifampicin and other potent enzyme inducers may have a clinically important interaction with tramadol regardless of the route of its administration.