Acute kidney injury after surgical treatment of failed endovascular aneurysm repair.

Background: This study aims to report the incidence of acute kidney injury following surgical reconstruction after a failed endovascular aneurysm repair (EVAR) in patients with abdominal aortic aneurysms. Methods: This retrospective study included 44 patients (39 males, 5 females; mean age: 70±11.3 years; range, 35 to 84 years) who underwent emergency or elective surgical reconstruction after failed EVAR between February 2015 and January 2019. Patients were divided into two groups: acute kidney injury group and no acute kidney injury group. The primary end-point of the study was to evaluate the development of acute kidney injury following surgery. The secondary end-points included the 30-day and one-year mortality rates. Results: Surgical reconstruction of the abdominal aorta was performed electively in 29 (65.9%) patients and urgently in 15 (34.1%) patients. Acute kidney injury occurred in 12 (27.3%) patients. The interval from endovascular aneurysm repair to surgical reconstruction was statistically significantly higher in the no acute kidney injury group than in the acute kidney injury group (24.6±11.5 and 18.1±13.3 months, respectively; p=0.145). The mean abdominal aortic aneurysm diameter, neck angulation, and neck diameter were statistically significantly higher in the acute kidney injury group than in the no acute kidney injury group (p=0.001, p=0.009, and p<0.001, respectively). No statistically significant difference was observed between the acute kidney injury and no acute kidney injury groups for the overall 30-day mortality (p=0.185) and oneyear mortality (p=0.999). Conclusion: Acute kidney injury is not uncommon after the surgical reconstruction of a failed EVAR. Aneurysm-related anatomical factors may have an impact on the development of postoperative acute kidney injury. Comprehensive surgical planning should be performed for open abdominal aortic surgery after a failed EVAR.

Inr tracking with face-to-face and phone app.

BACKGROUND: Warfarin has a narrow therapeutic window. Maintaining the patient's international normalized ratio (INR) within a predefined therapeutic range is one of the main challenges of warfarin treatment. This study aimed to compare the INR values of patients followed by face-to-face and telephone applications. METHODS: This study was designed as a randomized controlled trial. Twelve patients living in a distant place were assigned to the experimental group, and 12 patients living nearby and followed-up in the outpatient clinic were assigned to the control group. A Patient Information Form and the Adherence to Refills and Medications Scale were used to collect data. RESULTS: There was no significant difference between the groups in terms of demographic and clinical characteristics except for age (P > .05). The INR values of 67% of the patients followed in the outpatient clinic and 72% of the patients followed with the application were in the therapeutic range. There was no significant difference between the groups and medication adherence was high in both groups (P > .05). CONCLUSION: In light of the findings of our study, which demonstrated that the INR levels of patients who were monitored both face-to-face and via a telephone application were within the same therapeutic range, it was concluded that the telephone application can be used to manage warfarin therapy.

Heparin-coated vs. Non-coated Cardiopulmonary Bypass Circuits: Comparing Immediate Results with Different Target Activated Clotting Time.

OBJECTIVE: To compare immediate postoperative results in patients receiving heparin-albumin-coated and non-coated circuits. METHODS: A total of 241 patients undergoing on-pump cardiac surgery were divided into two groups: those receiving heparin-coated circuits (Bioline®, Maquet Cardiopulmonary AG., Hirrlingen, Germany) and those receiving non-coated circuits (Maquet Cardiopulmonary AG., Hirrlingen, Germany). RESULTS: Activated clotting times (ACT) during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) were significantly shorter in the heparin-albumin-coated group than in the non-coated group (355.64±34.12 vs. 560.38±90.20, respectively, P=0.001). In-hospital mortality and postoperative stroke rates and lengths of intensive care unit stay were similar between the groups; in contrast, in the heparin-albumin-coated group, patients had significantly better outcomes for hospital stay, drainage, and need for erythrocyte transfusion. CONCLUSION: Heparin-coated circuits and reduced level of systemic heparinization with 300 seconds of target ACT level in cardiac surgery under CPB are safe and result in a very satisfactory clinical course.

Heparin-coated vs. non-coated cardiopulmonary bypass circuits: comparing immediate results with different target activated clotting time

Abstract Objective: To compare immediate postoperative results in patients receiving heparin-albumin-coated and non-coated circuits. Methods: A total of 241 patients undergoing on-pump cardiac surgery were divided into two groups: those receiving heparin-coated circuits (Bioline®, Maquet Cardiopulmonary AG., Hirrlingen, Germany) and those receiving non-coated circuits (Maquet Cardiopulmonary AG., Hirrlingen, Germany). Results: Activated clotting times (ACT) during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) were significantly shorter in the heparin-albumin-coated group than in the non-coated group (355.64±34.12 vs. 560.38±90.20, respectively, P=0.001). In-hospital mortality and postoperative stroke rates and lengths of intensive care unit stay were similar between the groups; in contrast, in the heparin-albumin-coated group, patients had significantly better outcomes for hospital stay, drainage, and need for erythrocyte transfusion. Conclusion: Heparin-coated circuits and reduced level of systemic heparinization with 300 seconds of target ACT level in cardiac surgery under CPB are safe and result in a very satisfactory clinical course.

Sutureless versus Conventional Aortic Valve Replacement: Outcomes in 70 High-Risk Patients Undergoing Concomitant Cardiac Procedures.

In elderly, high-risk surgical patients, sutureless aortic valve replacement (AVR) can often be an alternative to conventional AVR; shorter aortic cross-clamp and cardiopulmonary bypass times are the chief advantages. We compared the outcomes of sutureless AVR with those of conventional AVR in 70 elderly patients who underwent concomitant cardiac surgical procedures. We retrospectively analyzed the cases of 42 men and 28 women (mean age, 70.4 ± 10.3 yr; range, 34-93 yr) who underwent cardiac operations plus AVR with either a sutureless valve (group 1, n=38) or a conventional bioprosthetic or mechanical valve (group 2, n=32). Baseline patient characteristics were similar except for worse New York Heart Association functional status and the prevalence of diabetes mellitus in group 1. In group 1, the operative, cross-clamp, and cardiopulmonary bypass times were shorter (all P=0.001), postoperative drainage amounts were lower (P=0.009), hospital stays were shorter (P=0.004), and less red blood cell transfusion was needed (P=0.037). Echocardiograms before patients' discharge from the hospital showed lower peak and mean aortic gradients in group 1 (mean transvalvular gradient, 8.4 ± 2.8 vs 12.2 ± 5.2 mmHg; P=0.012). We found that elderly, high-risk patients who underwent multiple cardiac surgical procedures and sutureless AVR had better hemodynamic outcomes and shorter ischemic times than did patients who underwent conventional AVR.

Early Outcomes of Sutureless Aortic Valves.

BACKGROUND: In elderly high-risk surgical patients, sutureless aortic valve replacement (AVR) should be an alternative to standard AVR. The potential advantages of sutureless aortic prostheses include reducing cross-clamping and cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time and facilitating minimally invasive surgery and complex cardiac interventions, while maintaining satisfactory hemodynamic outcomes and low rates of paravalvular leakage. The current study reports our single-center experience regarding the early outcomes of sutureless aortic valve implantation. METHODS: Between October 2012 and June 2015, 65 patients scheduled for surgical valve replacement with symptomatic aortic valve disease and New York Heart Association function of class II or higher were included to this study. Perceval S (Sorin Biomedica Cardio Srl, Sallugia, Italy) and Edwards Intuity (Edwards Lifesciences, Irvine, CA, USA) valves were used. RESULTS: The mean age of the patients was 71.15±8.60 years. Forty-four patients (67.7%) were female. The average preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction was 56.9±9.93. The CPB time was 96.51±41.27 minutes and the cross-clamping time was 60.85±27.08 minutes. The intubation time was 8.95±4.19 hours, and the intensive care unit and hospital stays were 2.89±1.42 days and 7.86±1.42 days, respectively. The mean quantity of drainage from chest tubes was 407.69±149.28 mL. The hospital mortality rate was 3.1%. A total of five patients (7.69%) died during follow-up. The mean follow-up time was 687.24±24.76 days. The one-year survival rate was over 90%. CONCLUSION: In the last few years, several models of valvular sutureless bioprostheses have been developed. The present study evaluating the single-center early outcomes of sutureless aortic valve implantation presents the results of an innovative surgical technique, finding that it resulted in appropriate hemodynamic conditions with acceptable ischemic time.