Perioperative care in infective endocarditis.

Patients undergoing surgery for acute infective endocarditis are among those with the highest risk. Their preoperative condition has significant impact on outcomes. There are specific issues related with the preoperative situation, intraoperative findings, and postoperative management. In this narrative review, focus is placed on the most critical aspects in the perioperative period including the management and weaning from mechanical ventilation, the management of vasoplegia, the management of the chest open, antithrombotic therapy, transfusion, coagulopathy, management of atrial fibrillation, the duration of antibiotic therapy, and pacemaker implantation.

Significance and current approaches to vascular graft infection.

Vascular graft/endograft infection (VGEI) is a constant in cardiovascular surgery with published rates between 1 and 5%. Every graft type and anatomical location is a potential target for infectious complications. These patients are sick patients with high frailty burden. Management of VGEI entails a multidisciplinary and multimodality approach. Here we review some aspects of the problem of VGEI including prevention, diagnosis, and surgical therapy with focus on recent developments in the field.

Reintervenciones en una Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos de Cirugía Cardiovascular / Surgery in the Cardiovascular Surgical Intensive Care Unit

INTRODUCCIÓN: Analizar las indicaciones, acciones y resultados de las operaciones realizadas en la Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos (UCI) de Cirugía Cardiovascular. MÉTODOS: Análisis retrospectivo de pacientes adultos consecutivos intervenidos en la Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos (UCI). Se incluyeron todas las intervenciones practicadas. Se realizó estadística descriptiva. RESULTADOS: Entre 2008 y 2013 se intervinieron 3379 pacientes adultos consecutivos. Se practicaron en la UCI 124 intervenciones en 109 pacientes, 70 hombres (64,2%) y 39 mujeres (35,8%) con un promedio de edad de 61,6 años (12-80). Ello ha representado un 3,2%. Durante el mismo periodo de tiempo, se intervinieron en quirófano 185 pacientes por taponamiento cardiaco/hemorragia postoperatoria (5,5%). Las intervenciones previas fueron por cardiopatía valvular (34,9%), patología aórtica (22,9%), cardiopatía isquémica (15,6%), valvular/isquémica (12%), valvular/de la aorta (11%) y miscelánea (3,6%). Las indicaciones de intervención fueron hemorragia persistente 54 (43,5%), taponamiento cardiaco 41 (33%), bajo gasto cardiaco 13 (10,5%), parada cardíaca/arritmias 8 (6,5%), insuficiencia respiratoria 6 (4,8%) e isquemia de extremidades 2 (1,7%). Las intervenciones fueron: exploración mediastínica 73 (58,9%), colocación/retirada de ECMO 17 (13,7%), cierre esternal 16 (12,9%), resucitación abierta 9 (7,3%), drenaje subxifoideo 7 (5,6%) y embolectomía femoral 2 (1,6%). La mortalidad fue 33%. Hubo un caso de mediastinitis (0,9%), sin diferencias con la tasa de infecciones profundas en pacientes no intervenidos en UCI. CONCLUSIONES: La intervención en UCI es una alternativa segura y de rescate en subgrupos específicos de pacientes. no incrementa el riesgo de infección, evita el transporte de pacientes inestables y permite ahorrar tiempo en la decisión quirúrgica postoperatoria

BACKGROUND: To analyze the indications, actions and results of the operations performed in the Cardiovascular Surgery Intensive Care Unit. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of consecutive non-selected adult patients operated in the ICU. All operations were included. Descriptive statistics were used. RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2013, 3379 consecutive adult patients were operated upon. A total of 124 operations were performed in the ICU in 109 patients, 70 male (64.2%) and 39 female (35.8%) with a mean age of 61.6 years (12-80). This represented 3.2% of all operations. During the study period, 185 patients (5.5%) were reoperated for postoperative bleeding/tamponade in the operating room. The index interventions were for valvular heart disease (34.9%), aortic disease (22.9%), ischemic heart disease (15.6%), combined valvular/ischemic (12%), valvular/aorta (11%) and miscellaneous (3.6%). The indications for reoperation were persistent bleeding 54 (43.5%), pericardial tamponade 41 (33%), low cardiac output 13 (10.5%), cardiac arrest/arrhythmia 8 (6.5%), respiratory insufficiency 6 (4.8%) and acute ischemic limb 2 (1.7%). Operations performed were: mediastinal exploration 73 (58.9%), implant/removal of ECMO 17 (13.7%), sternal closure 16 (12.9%), open resuscitation 9 (7.3%), subxyphoid drainage 7 (5.6%) and femoral embolectomy 2 (1.6%). Overall mortality was 33%. There was one case of mediastinitis (0,9%), with no difference from patients operated in the regular operating room. CONCLUSIONS: Operations in the ICU represent a safe, life-saving alternative in specific subgroups of patients. The risk of wound infection is not increased, unstable patients are not transferred and there is time savings

[Surgery in the Cardiovascular Surgical Intensive Care Unit]. / Reintervenciones en una Unidad de Cuidados Intensivos de Cirugía Cardiovascular.

BACKGROUND: To analyze the indications, actions and results of the operations performed in the Cardiovascular Surgery Intensive Care Unit. METHODS: Retrospective analysis of consecutive non-selected adult patients operated in the ICU. All operations were included. Descriptive statistics were used. RESULTS: Between 2008 and 2013, 3379 consecutive adult patients were operated upon. A total of 124 operations were performed in the ICU in 109 patients, 70 male (64.2%) and 39 female (35.8%) with a mean age of 61.6 years (12-80). This represented 3.2% of all operations. During the study period, 185 patients (5.5%) were reoperated for postoperative bleeding/tamponade in the operating room. The index interventions were for valvular heart disease (34.9%), aortic disease (22.9%), ischemic heart disease (15.6%), combined valvular/ischemic (12%), valvular/aorta (11%) and miscellaneous (3.6%). The indications for reoperation were persistent bleeding 54 (43.5%), pericardial tamponade 41 (33%), low cardiac output 13 (10.5%), cardiac arrest/arrhythmia 8 (6.5%), respiratory insufficiency 6 (4.8%) and acute ischemic limb 2 (1.7%). Operations performed were: mediastinal exploration 73 (58.9%), implant/removal of ECMO 17 (13.7%), sternal closure 16 (12.9%), open resuscitation 9 (7.3%), subxyphoid drainage 7 (5.6%) and femoral embolectomy 2 (1.6%). Overall mortality was 33%. There was one case of mediastinitis (0,9%), with no difference from patients operated in the regular operating room. CONCLUSIONS: Operations in the ICU represent a safe, life-saving alternative in specific subgroups of patients. The risk of wound infection is not increased, unstable patients are not transferred and there is time savings.

Heart fatty acid binding protein in the diagnosis of myocardial infarction: where do we stand today?

Heart fatty acid binding protein (hFABP) is a novel small cytosolic protein that is abundant in the heart. It is highly cardiac-specific (i.e. expressed primarily in cardiac tissue), but is also expressed at low concentrations in tissues outside the heart. After myocardial ischemic damage, hFABP can be detected in the blood as early as 1-3 h after onset of chest pain, with peak values reached at 6-8 h and plasma levels returning to normal within 24-30 h. hFABP's clinical diagnostic value is very limited in the presence of renal failure and skeletal muscle diseases as it is completely renally eliminated. In these conditions, the diagnosis of acute myocardial infarction (AMI) may be overestimated. The combination of initial hFABP release after symptom onset, rapid kidney clearance from the circulation and high cardiac specificity suggests great potential for clinical use. Serial measurements of hFABP in the first 24 h after onset of symptoms in AMI patients can: (a) identify patients who are susceptible to reperfusion strategies, (b) detect perioperative AMIs, (c) distinguish patients who reperfuse their infarct-related artery from those who do not, as early as 30 min after starting thrombolytic treatment, (d) detect re-infarction if it occurs within 10 h after symptom onset, and (e) permit an accurate estimation of myocardial infarct size providing important prognosis information.

Triflusal versus oral anticoagulation for primary prevention of thromboembolism after bioprosthetic valve replacement (trac): prospective, randomized, co-operative trial.

OBJECTIVE: Antiplatelet agents are used for prevention of thromboembolism in surgical patients and in patients with chronic atrial fibrillation. Up to date, however, results of randomized studies comparing antiplatelet agents and oral anticoagulation have not been reported. The aim of this study was to compare the efficacy and safety of triflusal (an antiplatelet agent) versus acenocoumarol for primary prevention of thromboembolism in the early postoperative period after implantation of a bioprosthesis. METHODS: In this prospective, multicentric, randomized, open pilot trial, patients were assigned to treatment with triflusal (600mg/d) or acenocoumarol (target INR 2.0-3.0). Study medication was started 24-48h after valve replacement with a bioprosthesis, and continued for 3 months. Four follow-up visits were scheduled: baseline, and at 1, 3 and 6 months thereafter. The primary end-point was a composite of the rate of thromboembolism, severe hemorrhage and valve-related mortality. RESULTS: A total of 193 patients were included (97 received triflusal and 96 acenocoumarol), with a mean age of 72.5 years. Half were men. Aortic valve replacement was performed in 181 patients (93.8%), mitral valve replacement in 10 patients (5.2%) and double valve replacement in 2 (1.0%). Hospital mortality was 11 (5.7%). Primary outcome was recorded in 9 patients with triflusal (9.4%) and in 10 patients with acenocoumarol (11%). There were nine episodes (4.7%) of thromboembolism, six in the triflusal group and three in the acenocoumarol group, and three episodes of permanent neurological deficits, one in the triflusal group and two in the acenocoumarol group. Severe hemorrhage: nine episodes, six in the acenocoumarol group and three in the triflusal group. None of the observed differences in efficacy were statistically significant. Regarding safety, three patients in triflusal group reported at least one hemorrhage, compared to 10 in acenocoumarol group (P=0.048). CONCLUSIONS: There were no significant differences in efficacy between both groups, however, triflusal showed a significantly lower incidence of bleeding episodes.