High-Sensitivity Troponin I after Cardiac Surgery and 30-Day Mortality.

BACKGROUND: Consensus recommendations regarding the threshold levels of cardiac troponin elevations for the definition of perioperative myocardial infarction and clinically important periprocedural myocardial injury in patients undergoing cardiac surgery range widely (from >10 times to ≥70 times the upper reference limit for the assay). Limited evidence is available to support these recommendations. METHODS: We undertook an international prospective cohort study involving patients 18 years of age or older who underwent cardiac surgery. High-sensitivity cardiac troponin I measurements (upper reference limit, 26 ng per liter) were obtained 3 to 12 hours after surgery and on days 1, 2, and 3 after surgery. We performed Cox analyses using a regression spline that explored the relationship between peak troponin measurements and 30-day mortality, adjusting for scores on the European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II (which estimates the risk of death after cardiac surgery on the basis of 18 variables, including age and sex). RESULTS: Of 13,862 patients included in the study, 296 (2.1%) died within 30 days after surgery. Among patients who underwent isolated coronary-artery bypass grafting or aortic-valve replacement or repair, the threshold troponin level, measured within 1 day after surgery, that was associated with an adjusted hazard ratio of more than 1.00 for death within 30 days was 5670 ng per liter (95% confidence interval [CI], 1045 to 8260), a level 218 times the upper reference limit. Among patients who underwent other cardiac surgery, the corresponding threshold troponin level was 12,981 ng per liter (95% CI, 2673 to 16,591), a level 499 times the upper reference limit. CONCLUSIONS: The levels of high-sensitivity troponin I after cardiac surgery that were associated with an increased risk of death within 30 days were substantially higher than levels currently recommended to define clinically important periprocedural myocardial injury. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; VISION Cardiac Surgery ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01842568.).

Rationale and design of the PeriOperative ISchemic Evaluation-3 (POISE-3): a randomized controlled trial evaluating tranexamic acid and a strategy to minimize hypotension in noncardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: For patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, bleeding and hypotension are frequent and associated with increased mortality and cardiovascular complications. Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an antifibrinolytic agent with the potential to reduce surgical bleeding; however, there is uncertainty about its efficacy and safety in noncardiac surgery. Although usual perioperative care is commonly consistent with a hypertension-avoidance strategy (i.e., most patients continue their antihypertensive medications throughout the perioperative period and intraoperative mean arterial pressures of 60 mmHg are commonly accepted), a hypotension-avoidance strategy may improve perioperative outcomes. METHODS: The PeriOperative Ischemic Evaluation (POISE)-3 Trial is a large international randomized controlled trial designed to determine if TXA is superior to placebo for the composite outcome of life-threatening, major, and critical organ bleeding, and non-inferior to placebo for the occurrence of major arterial and venous thrombotic events, at 30 days after randomization. Using a partial factorial design, POISE-3 will additionally determine the effect of a hypotension-avoidance strategy versus a hypertension-avoidance strategy on the risk of major cardiovascular events, at 30 days after randomization. The target sample size is 10,000 participants. Patients ≥45 years of age undergoing noncardiac surgery, with or at risk of cardiovascular and bleeding complications, are randomized to receive a TXA 1 g intravenous bolus or matching placebo at the start and at the end of surgery. Patients, health care providers, data collectors, outcome adjudicators, and investigators are blinded to the treatment allocation. Patients on ≥ 1 chronic antihypertensive medication are also randomized to either of the two blood pressure management strategies, which differ in the management of patient antihypertensive medications on the morning of surgery and on the first 2 days after surgery, and in the target mean arterial pressure during surgery. Outcome adjudicators are blinded to the blood pressure treatment allocation. Patients are followed up at 30 days and 1 year after randomization. DISCUSSION: Bleeding and hypotension in noncardiac surgery are common and have a substantial impact on patient prognosis. The POISE-3 trial will evaluate two interventions to determine their impact on bleeding, cardiovascular complications, and mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03505723. Registered on 23 April 2018.

Volatile and Intravenous Anesthetics for Brain Protection in Cardiac Surgery: Does the Choice of Anesthesia Matter?

Postoperative neurologic complications have a significant effect on morbidity, mortality, and long-term disability in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. The etiology of brain injury in patients undergoing cardiac surgery is multifactorial and remains unclear. There are several perioperative causative factors for neurologic complications, including microembolization, hypoperfusion, and systemic inflammatory response syndrome. Despite technologic advances and the development of new anesthetic drugs, there remains a high rate of postoperative neurologic complications. Moreover, despite the strong evidence that volatile anesthesia exerts cardioprotective effects in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, the neuroprotective effects of volatile agents remain unclear. Several studies have reported an association of using volatile anesthetics with improvement of biochemical markers of brain injury and postoperative neurocognitive function. However, there is a need for additional studies to define the optimal anesthetic drug for protecting the brain in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Long-term outcome of perioperative low cardiac output syndrome in cardiac surgery: 1-year results of a multicenter randomized trial.

PURPOSE: Perioperative myocardial dysfunction occurs frequently in cardiac surgery, and is a risk factor for morbidity and mortality. Levosimendan has been suggested to reduce mortality of patients with perioperative myocardial dysfunction. However, long-term outcome data on its efficacy in cardiac surgery are lacking. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Cardiac surgery patients with perioperative myocardial dysfunction were randomized to levosimendan or placebo, in addition to standard inotropic care. One-year mortality data were collected. RESULTS: We randomized 506 patients (248 to levosimendan 258 to placebo). At 1-year follow-up, 41 patients (16.5%) died in the levosimendan group, while 47 (18.3%) died in the placebo group (absolute risk difference -1.8; 95% CI -8.4 to 4.9; P = .60). Female sex, history of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, previous myocardial infarction, serum creatinine, hematocrit, mean arterial pressure, and duration of cardiopulmonary bypass were independently associated with 1-year mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Levosimendan administration does not improve 1-year survival in cardiac surgery patients with perioperative myocardial dysfunction. One-year mortality in these patients is 17%. Six predictive factors for long-term mortality were identified. STUDY REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT00994825 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

The immunosuppressive effects of volatile versus intravenous anesthesia combined with epidural analgesia on kidney cancer: a pilot randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to test the hypothesis that the use of inhalational anesthesia leads to higher suppression of the cell-mediated immunity compared to total intravenous anesthesia in patients undergoing kidney cancer surgery under combined low thoracic epidural analgesia and general anesthesia. METHODS: Patients were randomly allocated to either propofol-based (intravenous anesthetic) or sevoflurane-based (volatile anesthetic) anesthesia group with 10 patients in each group, along with epidural analgesia in both groups. Amounts of natural killer (NK) cells, total T lymphocytes, and T lymphocyte subpopulations in the blood samples collected from the patients before surgery, at the end of the surgery and postoperative days 1, 3 and 7 were determined by flow cytometric analysis. The NK cell count served as the primary endpoint of the study, whereas the total T lymphocyte count and cell counts for T lymphocyte subpopulations were used as the secondary endpoint. RESULTS: Our study showed that there were no significant differences in the amount of NK cells, total T lymphocytes, regulatory T cells, and T-helper cells, cytotoxic T lymphocytes, and their subpopulations between the propofol- and sevoflurane-based anesthesia groups when the anesthesia was administered in combination with epidural analgesia. CONCLUSIONS: The results of this pilot study did not support the hypothesis that the use of inhalational anesthesia leads to higher suppression of the cell-mediated immunity than that of total intravenous anesthesia in patients undergoing kidney cancer surgery under combined low thoracic epidural analgesia and general anesthesia.

Sustained High-dose Thiamine Supplementation in High-risk Cardiac Patients Undergoing Cardiopulmonary Bypass: A Pilot Feasibility Study (The APPLY trial).

OBJECTIVE: To test the feasibility and investigate possible cardiovascular effects of a sustained high-dose intravenous thiamine protocol in patients undergoing combined valvular and coronary artery bypass graft surgery. DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-controlled, pilot feasibility trial. SETTING: Cardiac surgery department of a tertiary hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Forty patients undergoing combined valvular and coronary artery bypass surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Intravenous thiamine (600 mg on the day of surgery, and 400 mg/day on postoperative days 1, 2, and 3) or placebo. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary feasibility endpoints were recruitment rate and protocol compliance. Secondary endpoints included markers of possible biological and physiological effects. The mean recruitment rate was 8 patients per month and protocol compliance was 97.5%. There were no differences in median peak postoperative lactate (2.7 mmol/L [interquartile range [IQR] 1.4-4.6] for thiamine v 2.5 mmol/L [IQR 1.4-3.6] for placebo; p = 0.53), median peak postoperative creatinine (104 µmol/L [IQR 92.5-129] for thiamine v 99 µmol/L [IQR 86.5-109.5] for placebo; p = 0.53), median nadir postoperative cardiac index (1.8 L/min/m2 [IQR 1.5-2.1] for thiamine v 2.2 L/min/m2 [IQR 1.5-2.5] for placebo; p = 0.25), or the number of patients on vasopressor/inotropic agents (thiamine, 12 [63%]; placebo, 12 [60%]; p = 0.80), or in the total inotrope/vasopressor dose 0.14 µg/kg for thiamine v 0.12 µg/kg for placebo; p = 0.88). CONCLUSIONS: A double-blind trial of sustained high-dose intravenous thiamine supplementation in higher-risk cardiac surgery patients was feasible and appeared to be safe. However, such treatment did not demonstrate evidence of biological or physiological effects.

Levosimendan for Hemodynamic Support after Cardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Acute left ventricular dysfunction is a major complication of cardiac surgery and is associated with increased mortality. Meta-analyses of small trials suggest that levosimendan may result in a higher rate of survival among patients undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients in whom perioperative hemodynamic support was indicated after cardiac surgery, according to prespecified criteria. Patients were randomly assigned to receive levosimendan (in a continuous infusion at a dose of 0.025 to 0.2 µg per kilogram of body weight per minute) or placebo, for up to 48 hours or until discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU), in addition to standard care. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. RESULTS: The trial was stopped for futility after 506 patients were enrolled. A total of 248 patients were assigned to receive levosimendan and 258 to receive placebo. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality between the levosimendan group and the placebo group (32 patients [12.9%] and 33 patients [12.8%], respectively; absolute risk difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -5.7 to 5.9; P=0.97). There were no significant differences between the levosimendan group and the placebo group in the durations of mechanical ventilation (median, 19 hours and 21 hours, respectively; median difference, -2 hours; 95% CI, -5 to 1; P=0.48), ICU stay (median, 72 hours and 84 hours, respectively; median difference, -12 hours; 95% CI, -21 to 2; P=0.09), and hospital stay (median, 14 days and 14 days, respectively; median difference, 0 days; 95% CI, -1 to 2; P=0.39). There was no significant difference between the levosimendan group and the placebo group in rates of hypotension or cardiac arrhythmias. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who required perioperative hemodynamic support after cardiac surgery, low-dose levosimendan in addition to standard care did not result in lower 30-day mortality than placebo. (Funded by the Italian Ministry of Health; CHEETAH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00994825 .).