Acute normovolemic hemodilution in cardiac surgery: rationale and design of a multicenter randomized trial

BACKGROUND: Minimizing the use of blood component can reduce known and unknown blood transfusion risks, preserve blood bank resources, and decrease healthcare costs. Red Blood Cell (RBC) transfusion is common after cardiac surgery and associated with adverse perioperative outcomes, including mortality. Acute normovolemic hemodilution (ANH) may reduce bleeding and the need for blood product transfusion after cardiac surgery. However, its blood-saving effect and impact on major outcomes remain uncertain. METHODS: This is a single-blinded, multinational, pragmatic, randomized controlled trial with a 1:1 allocation ratio conducted in Tertiary and University hospitals. The study is designed to enroll patients scheduled for elective cardiac surgery with planned cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Patients are randomized to receive ANH before CPB or the best available treatment without ANH. We identified an ANH volume of at least 650 mL as the critical threshold for clinically relevant benefits. Larger ANH volumes, however, are allowed and tailored to the patient's characteristics and clinical conditions. RESULTS: The primary outcome is the percentage of patients receiving RBCs transfusion from randomization until hospital discharge, which we hypothesize will be reduced from 35% to 28% with ANH. Secondary outcomes are all-cause 30-day mortality, acute kidney injury, bleeding complications, and ischemic complications. CONCLUSION: The trial is designed to determine whether ANH can safely reduce RBC transfusion after elective cardiac surgery with CPB. STUDY Registration: This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov in April 2019 with the trial identification number NCT03913481.

Effect of volatile anesthetics on myocardial infarction after coronary artery surgery: a post hoc analysis of a randomized trial

OBJECTIVE: To investigate the effect of volatile anesthetics on the rates of postoperative myocardial infarction (MI) and cardiac death after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). DESIGN: A post hoc analysis of a randomized trial. SETTING: Cardiac surgical operating rooms. PARTICIPANTS: Patients undergoing elective, isolated CABG. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to receive a volatile anesthetic (desflurane, isoflurane, or sevoflurane) or total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA). The primary outcome was hemodynamically relevant MI (MI requiring high-dose inotropic support or prolonged intensive care unit stay) occurring within 48 hours from surgery. The secondary outcome was 1-year death due to cardiac causes. Measurements and main Results: A total of 5,400 patients were enrolled between April 2014 and September 2017 (2,709 patients randomized to the volatile anesthetics group and 2,691 to TIVA). The mean age was 62 ± 8.4 years, and the median baseline ejection fraction was 57% (50-67), without differences between the 2 groups. Patients in the volatile group had a lower incidence of MI with hemodynamic complications both in the per-protocol (14 of 2,530 [0.6%] v 27 of 2,501 [1.1%] in the TIVA group; p = 0.038) and as-treated analyses (16 of 2,708 [0.6%] v 29 of 2,617 [1.1%] in the TIVA group; p = 0.039), but not in the intention-to-treat analysis (17 of 2,663 [0.6%] v 28 of 2,667 [1.0%] in the TIVA group; p = 0.10). Overall, deaths due to cardiac causes were lower in the volatile group (23 of 2,685 [0.9%] v 40 of 2,668 [1.5%] than in the TIVA group; p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: An anesthetic regimen, including volatile agents, may be associated with a lower rate of postoperative MI with hemodynamic complication in patients undergoing CABG. Furthermore, it may reduce long-term cardiac mortality.

Vasopressin Versus Norepinephrine for the Management of Septic Shock in Cancer Patients: The VANCS II Randomized Clinical Trial.

OBJECTIVES: Previous trials suggest that vasopressin may improve outcomes in patients with vasodilatory shock. The aim of this study was to evaluate whether vasopressin could be superior to norepinephrine to improve outcomes in cancer patients with septic shock. DESIGN: Single-center, randomized, double-blind clinical trial, and meta-analysis of randomized trials. SETTING: ICU of a tertiary care hospital. PATIENTS: Two-hundred fifty patients 18 years old or older with cancer and septic shock. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were assigned to either vasopressin or norepinephrine as first-line vasopressor therapy. An updated meta-analysis was also conducted including randomized trials published until October 2018. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was all-cause mortality at 28 days after randomization. Prespecified secondary outcomes included 90-days all-cause mortality rate; number of days alive and free of advanced organ support at day 28; and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score 24 hours and 96 hours after randomization. We also measure the prevalence of adverse effects in 28 days. A total of 250 patients were randomized. The primary outcome was observed in 71 patients (56.8%) in the vasopressin group and 66 patients (52.8%) in the norepinephrine group (p = 0.52). There were no significant differences in 90-day mortality (90 patients [72.0%] and 94 patients [75.2%], respectively; p = 0.56), number of days alive and free of advanced organ support, adverse events, or Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score. CONCLUSIONS: In cancer patients with septic shock, vasopressin as first-line vasopressor therapy was not superior to norepinephrine in reducing 28-day mortality rate.

Volatile Anesthetics versus Total Intravenous Anesthesia for Cardiac Surgery

BACKGROUND: Volatile (inhaled) anesthetic agents have cardioprotective effects, which might improve clinical outcomes in patients undergoing coronary-artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODS: We conducted a pragmatic, multicenter, single-blind, controlled trial at 36 centers in 13 countries. Patients scheduled to undergo elective CABG were randomly assigned to an intraoperative anesthetic regimen that included a volatile anesthetic (desflurane, isoflurane, or sevoflurane) or to total intravenous anesthesia. The primary outcome was death from any cause at 1 year. RESULTS: A total of 5400 patients were randomly assigned: 2709 to the volatile anesthetics group and 2691 to the total intravenous anesthesia group. On-pump CABG was performed in 64% of patients, with a mean duration of cardiopulmonary bypass of 79 minutes. The two groups were similar with respect to demographic and clinical characteristics at baseline, the duration of cardiopulmonary bypass, and the number of grafts. At the time of the second interim analysis, the data and safety monitoring board advised that the trial should be stopped for futility. No significant difference between the groups with respect to deaths from any cause was seen at 1 year (2.8% in the volatile anesthetics group and 3.0% in the total intravenous anesthesia group; relative risk, 0.94; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.69 to 1.29; P = 0.71), with data available for 5353 patients (99.1%), or at 30 days (1.4% and 1.3%, respectively; relative risk, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.70 to 1.76), with data available for 5398 patients (99.9%). There were no significant differences between the groups in any of the secondary outcomes or in the incidence of prespecified adverse events, including myocardial infarction. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing elective CABG, anesthesia with a volatile agent did not result in significantly fewer deaths at 1 year than total intravenous anesthesia. (Funded by the Italian Ministry of Health; MYRIAD ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02105610.). (AU)

Predictors of major complications after elective abdominal surgery in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing abdominal surgery for solid tumours frequently develop major postoperative complications, which negatively affect quality of life, costs of care and survival. Few studies have identified the determinants of perioperative complications in this group. METHODS: We performed a prospective observational study including all patients (age > 18) undergoing abdominal surgery for cancer at a single institution between June 2011 and August 2013. Patients undergoing emergency surgery, palliative procedures, or participating in other studies were excluded. Primary outcome was a composite of 30-day all-cause mortality and infectious, cardiovascular, respiratory, neurologic, renal and surgical complications. Univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictive factors for major perioperative adverse events. RESULTS: Of a total 308 included patients, 106 (34.4%) developed a major complication during the 30-day follow-up period. Independent predictors of postoperative major complications were: age (odds ratio [OR] 1.03 [95% CI 1.01-1.06], p = 0.012 per year), ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) physical status greater than or equal to 3 (OR 2.61 [95% CI 1.33-5.17], p = 0.003), a preoperative haemoglobin level lower than 12 g/dL (OR 2.13 [95% CI 1.21-4.07], p = 0.014), intraoperative use of colloids (OR 1.89, [95% CI 1.03-4.07], p = 0.047), total amount of intravenous fluids (OR 1.22 [95% CI 0.98-1.59], p = 0.106 per litre), intraoperative blood losses greater than 500 mL (2.07 [95% CI 1.00-4.31], p = 0.043), and hypotension needing vasopressor support (OR 4.68 [95% CI 1.55-27.72], p = 0.004). The model had good discrimination with the area under the ROC curve being 0.80 (95% CI 0.75-0.84, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that a perioperative strategy aimed at reducing perioperative complications in cancer surgery should include treatment of preoperative anaemia and an optimal fluid strategy, avoiding fluid overload and intraoperative use of colloids.

Effect of Levosimendan on Renal Outcome in Cardiac Surgery Patients With Chronic Kidney Disease and Perioperative Cardiovascular Dysfunction: A Substudy of a Multicenter Randomized Trial.

OBJECTIVE: Acute kidney injury (AKI) occurs frequently after cardiac surgery. Levosimendan might reduce the incidence of AKI in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. The authors investigated whether levosimendan administration could reduce AKI incidence in a high-risk cardiac surgical population. DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of a multicenter randomized trial. SETTING: Cardiac surgery operating rooms and intensive care units of 14 centers in 3 countries. PARTICIPANTS: The study comprised 90 patients who underwent mitral valve surgery with an estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2 and perioperative myocardial dysfunction. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were assigned randomly to receive levosimendan (0.025-0.2 µg/kg/min) or placebo in addition to standard inotropic treatment. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Forty-six patients were assigned to receive levosimendan and 44 to receive placebo. Postoperative AKI occurred in 14 (30%) patients in the levosimendan group versus 23 (52%) in the placebo group (absolute difference -21.8; 95% confidence interval -41.7 to -1.97; p = 0.035). The incidence of major complications also was lower (18 [39%]) in the levosimendan group versus that in the placebo group (29 [66%]) (absolute difference -26.8 [-46.7 to -6.90]; p = 0.011). A trend toward lower serum creatinine at intensive care unit discharge was observed in the levosimendan group (1.18 [0.99-1.49] mg/dL) versus that in the placebo group (1.39 [1.05-1.76] mg/dL) (95% confidence interval -0.23 [-0.49 to 0.01]; p = 0.07). CONCLUSIONS: Levosimendan may improve renal outcome in cardiac surgery patients with chronic kidney disease undergoing mitral valve surgery who develop perioperative myocardial dysfunction. Results of this exploratory analysis should be investigated in future properly designed randomized controlled trials.

Randomized evidence for reduction of perioperative mortality: an updated consensus process

Objective: Out of the 230 million patients undergoing major surgical procedure every year, morethan 1 million will die within 30 days. Thus, any nonsurgical interventions that help reduce perioperative mortality might save thousands of lives. We decided to update a previous consensus process to identify all the nonsurgical interventions, supported by randomized evidence, that may help reduce perioperative mortality. Design and Setting: A web-based international consensus conference. Participants: 500 hundred clinicians from 61 countries. Interventions: A systematic literature search was performed to identify published literature aboutnonsurgical interventions, supported by randomized evidence showing a statistically significant impact on mortality. Eligible papers were discussed by a Consensus Conference of experts. The interventions identified by the conference were then submitted to colleagues worldwide through aweb-based survey...

Beneficial impact of levosimendanin critically ill patients with or at riskfor acute renal failure: a meta-analysisof randomized clinical trials

The incidence of Acute Kidney Injury is nowadays high in critically ill patients. Its etiology ismultifactorial and a primary role is played by low cardiac output syndrome. Everything targeted to normalizecardiac output should increase the renal perfusion and abolish the secondary vasoconstriction. Levosimendanis a calcium sensitizer drug with inotropic properties that improves cardiac output and seems to increase renalblood flow. The aim of this meta-analysis was to evaluate the role of levosimendan in critically ill patients withor at risk of Acute Kidney Injury.Methods: We performed a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials searching for trials that comparedlevosimendan with any comparator. The endpoints were the number of patients receiving Renal ReplacementTherapy after randomization and the number of patients developing Acute Kidney Injury.Results: Final analysis included 33 trials and 3,879 patients (2,024 levosimendan and 1,855 control). Theoverall analysis showed that the use of levosimendan was associated with a significant reduction in the riskof Renal Replacement Therapy (17 of 492 [3.5%] in the levosimendan group versus 37 of 427 [8.7%] in thecontrol group, relative risk =0.52 [0.32 to 0.86], p for effect =0.01) and of Acute Kidney Injury (114 of 1,598[7.1%] in the levosimendan group versus 143 of 1,529 [9.4%] in the control arm, relative risk =0.79 [0.63 to0.99], p for effect =0.048).Conclusions: This meta-analysis suggests that the use of levosimendan is associated with a significant reductionof Renal Replacement Therapy in critically ill patients.