Anesthetic Considerations in Combined TAVR and Aortic Endovascular Procedures, a Case Report.

ABSTRACT: We report a case of simultaneous transcatheter aortic valve replacement and endovascular aneurysm repair. Our aim was to advocate the role of local and regional anesthesia as a key contributor in maintaining hemodynamic stability and avoiding abrupt blood pressure change. Endovascular combined procedures are gaining popularity for their numerous advantages. Nevertheless, they carry significant risks for their hemodynamic implications. It is imperative to acknowledge the modifications occurring after each correction and act accordingly. Different anesthesia approaches can dramatically influence hemodynamics; among all, we found local and regional anesthesia would better serve this objective.

[Management of cardiogenic shock: a proposal for a shared protocol]. / Gestione dello shock cardiogeno: una proposta di percorso integrato.

Cardiogenic shock (CS) is a complex and relatively rare disease. Whilst its mortality remains unacceptably high, a multidisciplinary approach based on pre-established and shared protocols may improve prognosis and ensure appropriate resource allocation. Comprehensive hemodynamic assessment and monitoring as well as tailored, goal-directed medical therapy are part of an optimal management. Moreover, mechanical support devices may be helpful as they sustain hemodynamics to a greater extent as compared to inotropes and vasopressors, while lacking their cardiotoxic effects. Therefore, they are increasingly used in CS patients. In 2019, a new protocol for the management of patients with CS was adopted at the Ospedale Policlinico San Martino (HSM) in Genoa, Italy. Following in the footsteps of similar international experiences, the HSM protocol aims at streamlining the management of these high-risk patients improving the cooperation among healthcare specialists, and also addressing the key issues of mechanical support device implantation and appropriate referral for palliative care.

Randomized Evidence for Reduction of Perioperative Mortality: An Updated Consensus Process.

OBJECTIVE: Of the 230 million patients undergoing major surgical procedures every year, more than 1 million will die within 30 days. Thus, any nonsurgical interventions that help reduce perioperative mortality might save thousands of lives. The authors have updated a previous consensus process to identify all the nonsurgical interventions, supported by randomized evidence, that may help reduce perioperative mortality. DESIGN AND SETTING: A web-based international consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS: The study comprised 500 clinicians from 61 countries. INTERVENTIONS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify published literature about nonsurgical interventions, supported by randomized evidence, showing a statistically significant impact on mortality. A consensus conference of experts discussed eligible papers. The interventions identified by the conference then were submitted to colleagues worldwide through a web-based survey. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The authors identified 11 interventions contributing to increased survival (perioperative hemodynamic optimization, neuraxial anesthesia, noninvasive ventilation, tranexamic acid, selective decontamination of the gastrointestinal tract, insulin for tight glycemic control, preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump, leuko-depleted red blood cells transfusion, levosimendan, volatile agents, and remote ischemic preconditioning) and 2 interventions showing increased mortality (beta-blocker therapy and aprotinin). Interventions then were voted on by participating clinicians. Percentages of agreement among clinicians in different countries differed significantly for 6 interventions, and a variable gap between evidence and clinical practice was noted. CONCLUSIONS: The authors identified 13 nonsurgical interventions that may decrease or increase perioperative mortality, with variable agreement by clinicians. Such interventions may be optimal candidates for investigation in high-quality trials and discussion in international guidelines to reduce perioperative mortality.

Randomized evidence for reduction of perioperative mortality: an updated consensus process

Objective: Out of the 230 million patients undergoing major surgical procedure every year, morethan 1 million will die within 30 days. Thus, any nonsurgical interventions that help reduce perioperative mortality might save thousands of lives. We decided to update a previous consensus process to identify all the nonsurgical interventions, supported by randomized evidence, that may help reduce perioperative mortality. Design and Setting: A web-based international consensus conference. Participants: 500 hundred clinicians from 61 countries. Interventions: A systematic literature search was performed to identify published literature aboutnonsurgical interventions, supported by randomized evidence showing a statistically significant impact on mortality. Eligible papers were discussed by a Consensus Conference of experts. The interventions identified by the conference were then submitted to colleagues worldwide through aweb-based survey...

A randomized controlled trial of levosimendan to reduce mortality in high-risk cardiac surgery patients (CHEETAH): Rationale and design.

OBJECTIVE: Patients undergoing cardiac surgery are at risk of perioperative low cardiac output syndrome due to postoperative myocardial dysfunction. Myocardial dysfunction in patients undergoing cardiac surgery is a potential indication for the use of levosimendan, a calcium sensitizer with 3 beneficial cardiovascular effects (inotropic, vasodilatory, and anti-inflammatory), which appears effective in improving clinically relevant outcomes. DESIGN: Double-blind, placebo-controlled, multicenter randomized trial. SETTING: Tertiary care hospitals. INTERVENTIONS: Cardiac surgery patients (n = 1,000) with postoperative myocardial dysfunction (defined as patients with intraaortic balloon pump and/or high-dose standard inotropic support) will be randomized to receive a continuous infusion of either levosimendan (0.05-0.2 µg/[kg min]) or placebo for 24-48 hours. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary end point will be 30-day mortality. Secondary end points will be mortality at 1 year, time on mechanical ventilation, acute kidney injury, decision to stop the study drug due to adverse events or to start open-label levosimendan, and length of intensive care unit and hospital stay. We will test the hypothesis that levosimendan reduces 30-day mortality in cardiac surgery patients with postoperative myocardial dysfunction. CONCLUSIONS: This trial is planned to determine whether levosimendan could improve survival in patients with postoperative low cardiac output syndrome. The results of this double-blind, placebo-controlled randomized trial may provide important insights into the management of low cardiac output in cardiac surgery.

Mortality in Multicenter Critical Care Trials: An Analysis of Interventions With a Significant Effect.

OBJECTIVES: We aimed to identify all treatments that affect mortality in adult critically ill patients in multicenter randomized controlled trials. We also evaluated the methodological aspects of these studies, and we surveyed clinicians' opinion and usual practice for the selected interventions. DATA SOURCES: MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were searched. Further articles were suggested for inclusion from experts and cross-check of references. STUDY SELECTION: We selected the articles that fulfilled the following criteria: publication in a peer-reviewed journal; multicenter randomized controlled trial design; dealing with nonsurgical interventions in adult critically ill patients; and statistically significant effect in unadjusted landmark mortality. A consensus conference assessed all interventions and excluded those with lack of reproducibility, lack of generalizability, high probability of type I error, major baseline imbalances between intervention and control groups, major design flaws, contradiction by subsequent larger higher quality trials, modified intention to treat analysis, effect found only after adjustments, and lack of biological plausibility. DATA EXTRACTION: For all selected studies, we recorded the intervention and its comparator, the setting, the sample size, whether enrollment was completed or interrupted, the presence of blinding, the effect size, and the duration of follow-up. DATA SYNTHESIS: We found 15 interventions that affected mortality in 24 multicenter randomized controlled trials. Median sample size was small (199 patients) as was median centers number (10). Blinded trials enrolled significantly more patients and involved more centers. Multicenter randomized controlled trials showing harm also involved significantly more centers and more patients (p = 0.016 and p = 0.04, respectively). Five hundred fifty-five clinicians from 61 countries showed variable agreement on perceived validity of such interventions. CONCLUSIONS: We identified 15 treatments that decreased/increased mortality in critically ill patients in 24 multicenter randomized controlled trials. However, design affected trial size and larger trials were more likely to show harm. Finally, clinicians view of such trials and their translation into practice varied.