Do all cardiac surgery patients benefit from antifibrinolytic therapy?

BACKGROUND: In trauma patients, the recognition of fibrinolysis phenotypes has led to a re-evaluation of the risks and benefits of antifibrinolytic therapy (AF). Many cardiac patients also receive AF, but the distribution of fibrinolytic phenotypes in that population is unknown. The purpose of this hypothesis-generating study was to fill that gap. METHODS: Seventy-eight cardiac surgery patients were retrospectively reviewed. Phenotypes were defined as hypofibrinolytic (LY30 <0.8%), physiologic (0.8%-3.0%), and hyperfibrinolytic (>3%) based on thromboelastogram. RESULTS: The population was 65 ± 10-years old, 74% male, average body mass index of 29 ± 5 kg/m2 . Fibrinolytic phenotypes were distributed as physiologic = 45% (35 of 78), hypo = 32% (25 of 78), and hyper = 23% (18 of 78). There was no obvious effect of age, gender, race, or ethnicity on this distribution; 47% received AF. For AF versus no AF, the time with chest tube was longer (4 [1] vs. 3 [1] days, p = .037), and all-cause morbidity was more prevalent (51% vs. 25%, p = .017). However, when these two groups were further stratified by phenotypes, there were within-group differences in the percentage of patients with congestive heart failure (p = .022), valve disease (p = .024), on-pump surgery (p < .0001), estimated blood loss during surgery (p = .015), transfusion requirement (p = .015), and chest tube output (p = .008), which highlight other factors along with AF that might have affected all-cause morbidity. CONCLUSION: This is the first description of the prevalence of three different fibrinolytic phenotypes and their potential influence on cardiac surgery patients. The use of AF was associated with increased morbidity, but because of the small sample size and treatment allocation bias, additional confirmatory studies are necessary. We hope these present findings open the dialog on whether it is safe to administer AFs to cardiac surgery patients who are normo- or hypofibrinolytic.

The Key to Combat Readiness Is a Strong Military-Civilian Partnership.

INTRODUCTION: In peacetime, it is challenging for Army Forward Resuscitative Surgical Teams (FRST) to maintain combat readiness as trauma represents <0.5% of military hospital admissions and not all team members have daily clinical responsibilities. Military surgeon clinical experience has been described, but no data exist for other members of the FRST. We test the hypothesis that the clinical experience of non-physician FRST members varies between active duty (AD) and Army reservists (AR). METHODS: Over a 3-year period, all FRSTs were surveyed at one civilian center. RESULTS: Six hundred and thirteen FRST soldiers were provided surveys and 609 responded (99.3%), including 499 (81.9%) non-physicians and 110 (18.1%) physicians/physician assistants. The non-physician group included 69% male with an average age of 34 ± 11 years and consisted of 224 AR (45%) and 275 AD (55%). Rank ranged from Private to Colonel with officers accounting for 41%. For AD vs. AR, combat experience was similar: 50% vs. 52% had ≥1 combat deployment, 52% vs. 60% peri-deployment patient load was trauma-related, and 31% vs. 32% had ≥40 patient contacts during most recent deployment (all P > .15). However, medical experience differed for AD and AR: 18% vs. 29% had >15 years of experience in practice and 4% vs. 17% spent >50% of their time treating critically injured patients (all P < .001). These differences persisted across all specialties, including perioperative nurses, certified registered nurse anesthetists, operating room (OR) techs, critical-care nurses, emergency room (ER) nurses, licensed practical nurse (LPN), and combat medics. CONCLUSIONS: This is the first study of clinical practice patterns in AD vs. AR, non-physician members of Army FRSTs. In concordance with previous studies of military surgeons, FRST non-physicians seem to be lacking clinical experience as well. To maintain readiness and to provide optimal care for our injured warriors, the entire FRST, not just individuals, should embed within civilian centers.