Balanced Nonopioid General Anesthesia With Lidocaine Is Associated With Lower Postoperative Complications Compared With Balanced Opioid General Anesthesia With Sufentanil for Cardiac Surgery With Cardiopulmonary Bypass: A Propensity Matched Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: There are no data on the effect of balanced nonopioid general anesthesia with lidocaine in cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. The main study objective was to evaluate the association between nonopioid general balanced anesthesia and the postoperative complications in relation to opioid side effects. METHODS: Patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass between 2019 and 2021 were identified. After exclusion of patients for heart transplantation, left ventricular assistance device, and off-pump surgery, we classified patients according to an opioid general balanced anesthesia or a nonopioid balanced anesthesia with lidocaine. The primary outcome was a collapsed composite of postoperative complications that comprise respiratory failure and confusion, whereas secondary outcomes were acute renal injury, pneumoniae, death, intensive care unit (ICU), and hospital length of stay. RESULTS: We identified 859 patients exposed to opioid-balanced general anesthesia with lidocaine and 913 patients exposed to nonopioid-balanced general anesthesia. Propensity score matching yielded 772 individuals in each group with balanced baseline covariates. Two hundred thirty-six patients (30.5%) of the nonopioid-balanced general anesthesia versus 186 patients (24.1%) presented postoperative composite complications. The balanced lidocaine nonopioid general anesthesia group was associated with a lower proportion with the postoperative complication composite outcome OR, 0.72 (95% CI, 0.58-0.92; P = .027). The number of patients with acute renal injury, death, and hospital length of stay did not differ between the 2 groups. CONCLUSIONS: A balanced nonopioid general anesthesia protocol with lidocaine was associated with lower odds of postoperative complication composite outcome based on respiratory failure and confusion.

Determinants of Arterial Pressure of Oxygen and Carbon Dioxide in Patients Supported by Veno-Arterial ECMO.

Background: The present study aimed to assess the determinants of arterial partial pressure of oxygen (PaO2) and carbon dioxide (PaCO2) in the early phase of veno-arterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) support. Even though the guidelines considered both the risks of hypoxemia and hyperoxemia during ECMO support, there are a lack of data concerning the patients supported by VA ECMO. Methods: This is a retrospective, monocentric, observational cohort study in a university-affiliated cardiac intensive care unit. Hemodynamic parameters, ECMO parameters, ventilator settings, and blood gas analyses were collected at several time points during the first 48 h of VA ECMO support. For each timepoint, the blood samples were drawn simultaneously from the right radial artery catheter, VA ECMO venous line (before the oxygenator), and from VA ECMO arterial line (after the oxygenator). Univariate followed by multivariate mixed-model analyses were performed for longitudinal data analyses. Results: Forty-five patients with femoro-femoral peripheral VA ECMO were included. In multivariate analysis, the patients' PaO2 was independently associated with QEC, FDO2, and time of measurement. The patients' PaCO2 was associated with the sweep rate flow and the PpreCO2. Conclusions: During acute VA ECMO support, the main determinants of patient oxygenation are determined by VA ECMO parameters.

Oral Water Has Cardiovascular Effects Up to 60 min in Shock Patients.

Aim: Little is known about the cardiovascular effects of oral water intake in shock patients. This study was designed to assess the effect of oral water on stroke volume and blood pressure during a 1-h time period. Method and Results: This open-label, randomized clinical trial included patients admitted to intensive care with acute circulatory failure. Three ICU units at the anesthesia and critical care department of the Dijon Bourgogne University Hospital. Patients were randomized 1:1 to an intervention or standard care group. The intervention group received 500 ml of oral water while the standard care group received intravenous administration of 500 ml of physiological saline solution. Baseline SV did not differ between the two groups (36 ml [28;51] vs. 38 ml [30;51], p = 0.952). The number of patients who were fluid responders did not differ between the two groups [n = 19 (76%) vs. n = 18 (72%), p = 1]. The median change in stroke volume during the three time points did not differ between the two groups (p < 0.05). In the intervention group, blood pressure increased up to 60 min. In the control group, blood pressure quickly increased at the end of fluid expansion, then returned close to baseline value at 60 min. Conclusion: Shock patients who were administered oral water experienced improvements in blood pressure and blood flow up to 60 min when compared with patients who received intravenous saline solution. Further studies are warranted to confirm these effects. Clinical Trial Registration: www.clinicaltrials.gov, identifier: NCT03951519.