Impact of Baseline Anemia in Patients Undergoing Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement: A Prognostic Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.

Transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TAVR) is currently the treatment of choice for patients aged ≥75 years with severe aortic stenosis. Preoperative anemia is present in a large proportion of patients and may increase the risk of post-procedural complications. The purpose of this prognostic systematic review was to analyze the impact of baseline anemia on short- and mid-term outcomes following TAVR. A computerized search was performed on PubMed and Web of Science databases for studies published between January 2013 and December 2022. Primary outcomes were 30-day need for transfusion, acute renal failure, 30-day and mid-term mortality, and readmission during the first year post-TAVR. Data were analyzed via random effects model using inverse variance method with 95% confidence intervals. Eleven observational studies met our eligibility criteria and included a total of 12,588 patients. The prevalence of baseline anemia ranged between 39% and 72%, with no relevant sex differences. Patients with preprocedural anemia received more blood transfusions [OR: 2.95 (2.13-4.09)]), and exhibited increased rates of acute kidney injury [OR:1.74 (1.45-2.10)], short-term mortality [OR: 1.47 (1.07-2.01], and mid-term [OR: 1.89 (1.58-2.25)] mortality following TAVR compared with those without anemia. Baseline anemia determined an increased risk for blood transfusion, acute kidney injury, and short/mid-term mortality among TAVR recipients.

Documento multidisciplinar de consenso sobre el manejo de la hemorragia masiva. Primera actualización 2023 (documento HEMOMAS-II) / Multidisciplinary consensus document on the management of massive haemorrhage. First update 2023 (document HEMOMAS-II)

El presente documento supone una puesta al día del documento multidisciplinar HEMOMAS, publicado en el año 2016 con el aval de las Sociedades Científicas Españolas de Anestesiología y Reanimación (SEDAR), Medicina Intensiva, Crítica y Unidades Coronarias (SEMICYUC) y de Trombosis y Hemostasia (SETH). El objetivo de este documento fue revisar y actualizar las recomendaciones existentes sobre el manejo de la hemorragia masiva (HM). Se siguió una metodología basada en elementos del método ADAPTE (búsqueda y adaptación de guías publicadas en el ámbito específico de la HM desde 2014, más búsqueda bibliográfica en PubMed y EMBASE desde enero-2014 hasta junio-2021). Tras la revisión de nueve guías y 207 artículos seleccionados, se actualizaron las 47 recomendaciones existentes en el artículo original, manteniendo, suprimiendo o modificando cada una de ellas y sus grados de recomendación y evidencia. Consensuadamente, los autores aprobaron la redacción final del artículo y las 41 recomendaciones resultantes.(AU)

This document is an update of the multidisciplinary document HEMOMAS, published in 2016 with the endorsement of the Spanish Scientific Societies of Anaesthesiology (SEDAR), Intensive Care (SEMICYUC) and Thrombosis and Haemostasis (SETH). The aim of this document was to review and update existing recommendations on the management of massive haemorrhage. The methodology of the update was based on several elements of the ADAPTE method by searching and adapting guidelines published in the specific field of massive bleeding since 2014, plus a literature search performed in PubMed and EMBASE from January 2014 to June 2021. Based on the review of 9 guidelines and 207 selected articles, the 47 recommendations in the original article were reviewed, maintaining, deleting, or modifying each of them and the accompanying grades of recommendation and evidence. Following a consensus process, the final wording of the article and the resulting 41 recommendations were approved by all authors.(AU)

Multidisciplinary consensus document on the management of massive haemorrhage. First update 2023 (document HEMOMAS-II).

This document is an update of the multidisciplinary document HEMOMAS, published in 2016 with the endorsement of the Spanish Scientific Societies of Anaesthesiology (SEDAR), Intensive Care (SEMICYUC) and Thrombosis and Haemostasis (SETH). The aim of this document was to review and update existing recommendations on the management of massive haemorrhage. The methodology of the update was based on several elements of the ADAPTE method by searching and adapting guidelines published in the specific field of massive bleeding since 2014, plus a literature search performed in PubMed and EMBASE from January 2014 to June 2021. Based on the review of 9 guidelines and 207 selected articles, the 47 recommendations in the original article were reviewed, maintaining, deleting, or modifying each of them and the accompanying grades of recommendation and evidence. Following a consensus process, the final wording of the article and the resulting 41 recommendations were approved by all authors.

Multidisciplinary consensus document on the management of massive haemorrhage. First update 2023 (document HEMOMAS-II).

This document is an update of the multidisciplinary document HEMOMAS, published in 2016 with the endorsement of the Spanish Scientific Societies of Anaesthesiology (SEDAR), Intensive Care (SEMICYUC) and Thrombosis and Haemostasis (SETH). The aim of this document was to review and update existing recommendations on the management of massive haemorrhage. The methodology of the update was based on several elements of the ADAPTE method by searching and adapting guidelines published in the specific field of massive bleeding since 2014, plus a literature search performed in PubMed and EMBASE from January 2014 to June 2021. Based on the review of 9 guidelines and 207 selected articles, the 47 recommendations in the original article were reviewed, maintaining, deleting, or modifying each of them and the accompanying grades of recommendation and evidence. Following a consensus process, the final wording of the article and the resulting 41 recommendations were approved by all authors.

Documento multidisciplinar de consenso sobre el manejo de la hemorragia masiva. Primera actualización 2023 (documento HEMOMAS-II) / Multidisciplinary consensus document on the management of massive haemorrhage. First update 2023 (document HEMOMAS-II)

El presente documento supone una puesta al día del documento multidisciplinar HEMOMAS, publicado en el año 2016 con el aval de las Sociedades Científicas Españolas de Anestesiología y Reanimación (SEDAR), Medicina Intensiva, Crítica y Unidades Coronarias (SEMICYUC) y de Trombosis y Hemostasia (SETH). El objetivo de este documento fue revisar y actualizar las recomendaciones existentes sobre el manejo de la hemorragia masiva (HM). Se siguió una metodología basada en elementos del método ADAPTE (búsqueda y adaptación de guías publicadas en el ámbito específico de la HM desde 2014, más búsqueda bibliográfica en PubMed y EMBASE desde enero-2014 hasta junio-2021). Tras la revisión de nueve guías y 207 artículos seleccionados, se actualizaron las 47 recomendaciones existentes en el artículo original, manteniendo, suprimiendo o modificando cada una de ellas y sus grados de recomendación y evidencia. Consensuadamente, los autores aprobaron la redacción final del artículo y las 41 recomendaciones resultantes (AU)

This document is an update of the multidisciplinary document HEMOMAS, published in 2016 with the endorsement of the Spanish Scientific Societies of Anaesthesiology (SEDAR), Intensive Care (SEMICYUC) and Thrombosis and Haemostasis (SETH). The aim of this document was to review and update existing recommendations on the management of massive haemorrhage. The methodology of the update was based on several elements of the ADAPTE method by searching and adapting guidelines published in the specific field of massive bleeding since 2014, plus a literature search performed in PubMed and EMBASE from January 2014 to June 2021. Based on the review of 9 guidelines and 207 selected articles, the 47 recommendations in the original article were reviewed, maintaining, deleting, or modifying each of them and the accompanying grades of recommendation and evidence. Following a consensus process, the final wording of the article and the resulting 41 recommendations were approved by all authors (AU)

Hypotension-Avoidance Versus Hypertension-Avoidance Strategies in Noncardiac Surgery : An International Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Among patients having noncardiac surgery, perioperative hemodynamic abnormalities are associated with vascular complications. Uncertainty remains about what intraoperative blood pressure to target and how to manage long-term antihypertensive medications perioperatively. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of a hypotension-avoidance and a hypertension-avoidance strategy on major vascular complications after noncardiac surgery. DESIGN: Partial factorial randomized trial of 2 perioperative blood pressure management strategies (reported here) and tranexamic acid versus placebo. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03505723). SETTING: 110 hospitals in 22 countries. PATIENTS: 7490 patients having noncardiac surgery who were at risk for vascular complications and were receiving 1 or more long-term antihypertensive medications. INTERVENTION: In the hypotension-avoidance strategy group, the intraoperative mean arterial pressure target was 80 mm Hg or greater; before and for 2 days after surgery, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors were withheld and the other long-term antihypertensive medications were administered only for systolic blood pressures 130 mm Hg or greater, following an algorithm. In the hypertension-avoidance strategy group, the intraoperative mean arterial pressure target was 60 mm Hg or greater; all antihypertensive medications were continued before and after surgery. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was a composite of vascular death and nonfatal myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, stroke, and cardiac arrest at 30 days. Outcome adjudicators were masked to treatment assignment. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in 520 of 3742 patients (13.9%) in the hypotension-avoidance group and in 524 of 3748 patients (14.0%) in the hypertension-avoidance group (hazard ratio, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.12]; P = 0.92). Results were consistent for patients who used 1 or more than 1 antihypertensive medication in the long term. LIMITATION: Adherence to the assigned strategies was suboptimal; however, results were consistent across different adherence levels. CONCLUSION: In patients having noncardiac surgery, our hypotension-avoidance and hypertension-avoidance strategies resulted in a similar incidence of major vascular complications. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and Research Grant Council of Hong Kong.

Tranexamic Acid in Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative bleeding is common in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Tranexamic acid is an antifibrinolytic drug that may safely decrease such bleeding. METHODS: We conducted a trial involving patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. Patients were randomly assigned to receive tranexamic acid (1-g intravenous bolus) or placebo at the start and end of surgery (reported here) and, with the use of a partial factorial design, a hypotension-avoidance or hypertension-avoidance strategy (not reported here). The primary efficacy outcome was life-threatening bleeding, major bleeding, or bleeding into a critical organ (composite bleeding outcome) at 30 days. The primary safety outcome was myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, nonhemorrhagic stroke, peripheral arterial thrombosis, or symptomatic proximal venous thromboembolism (composite cardiovascular outcome) at 30 days. To establish the noninferiority of tranexamic acid to placebo for the composite cardiovascular outcome, the upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% confidence interval for the hazard ratio had to be below 1.125, and the one-sided P value had to be less than 0.025. RESULTS: A total of 9535 patients underwent randomization. A composite bleeding outcome event occurred in 433 of 4757 patients (9.1%) in the tranexamic acid group and in 561 of 4778 patients (11.7%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.67 to 0.87; absolute difference, -2.6 percentage points; 95% CI, -3.8 to -1.4; two-sided P<0.001 for superiority). A composite cardiovascular outcome event occurred in 649 of 4581 patients (14.2%) in the tranexamic acid group and in 639 of 4601 patients (13.9%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 1.02; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.14; upper boundary of the one-sided 97.5% CI, 1.14; absolute difference, 0.3 percentage points; 95% CI, -1.1 to 1.7; one-sided P = 0.04 for noninferiority). CONCLUSIONS: Among patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, the incidence of the composite bleeding outcome was significantly lower with tranexamic acid than with placebo. Although the between-group difference in the composite cardiovascular outcome was small, the noninferiority of tranexamic acid was not established. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; POISE-3 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03505723.).

Effect of a Perioperative Hypotension-Avoidance Strategy Versus a Hypertension-Avoidance Strategy on the Risk of Acute Kidney Injury: A Clinical Research Protocol for a Substudy of the POISE-3 Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Most patients who take antihypertensive medications continue taking them on the morning of surgery and during the perioperative period. However, growing evidence suggests this practice may contribute to perioperative hypotension and a higher risk of complications. This protocol describes an acute kidney injury substudy of the Perioperative Ischemic Evaluation-3 (POISE-3) trial, which is testing the effect of a perioperative hypotension-avoidance strategy versus a hypertension-avoidance strategy in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. OBJECTIVE: To conduct a substudy of POISE-3 to determine whether a perioperative hypotension-avoidance strategy reduces the risk of acute kidney injury compared with a hypertension-avoidance strategy. DESIGN: Randomized clinical trial with 1:1 randomization to the intervention (a perioperative hypotension-avoidance strategy) or control (a hypertension-avoidance strategy). INTERVENTION: If the presurgery systolic blood pressure (SBP) is <130 mmHg, all antihypertensive medications are withheld on the morning of surgery. If the SBP is ≥130 mmHg, some medications (but not angiotensin receptor blockers [ACEIs], angiotensin receptor blockers [ARBs], or renin inhibitors) may be continued in a stepwise manner. During surgery, the patients' mean arterial pressure (MAP) is maintained at ≥80 mmHg. During the first 48 hours after surgery, some antihypertensive medications (but not ACEIs, ARBs, or renin inhibitors) may be restarted in a stepwise manner if the SBP is ≥130 mmHg. CONTROL: Patients receive their usual antihypertensive medications before and after surgery. The patients' MAP is maintained at ≥60 mmHg from anesthetic induction until the end of surgery. SETTING: Recruitment from 108 centers in 22 countries from 2018 to 2021. PATIENTS: Patients (~6800) aged ≥45 years having noncardiac surgery who have or are at risk of atherosclerotic disease and who routinely take antihypertensive medications. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome of the substudy is postoperative acute kidney injury, defined as an increase in serum creatinine concentration of either ≥26.5 µmol/L (≥0.3 mg/dL) within 48 hours of randomization or ≥50% within 7 days of randomization. METHODS: The primary analysis (intention-to-treat) will examine the relative risk and 95% confidence interval of acute kidney injury in the intervention versus control group. We will repeat the primary analysis using alternative definitions of acute kidney injury and examine effect modification by preexisting chronic kidney disease, defined as a prerandomization estimated glomerular filtration rate <60 mL/min/1.73 m2. RESULTS: Substudy results will be analyzed in 2022. LIMITATIONS: It is not possible to mask patients or providers to the intervention; however, objective measures will be used to assess acute kidney injury. CONCLUSIONS: This substudy will provide generalizable estimates of the effect of a perioperative hypotension-avoidance strategy on the risk of acute kidney injury.

CONTEXTE: La plupart des patients qui prennent des médicaments antihypertenseurs continuent de les prendre le matin d'une intervention chirurgicale et pendant la période périopératoire. De plus en plus de preuves suggèrent que cette pratique pourrait entraîner l'hypotension périopératoire et augmenter le risque de complications. Ce protocole décrit une sous-étude sur l'insuffisance rénale aiguë (IRA) découlant de l'essai Perioperative Ischemic Evaluation-3 (POISE-3). Cet essai teste l'effet d'une stratégie d'évitement de l'hypotension périopératoire par rapport à une stratégie d'évitement de l'hypertension chez des patients qui subissent une chirurgie non cardiaque. OBJECTIFS: Cette sous-étude de l'essai POISE-3 vise à déterminer si une stratégie d'évitement de l'hypotension périopératoire réduit le risque d'IRA comparativement à la stratégie d'évitement de l'hypertension. TYPE D'ÉTUDE: Essai clinique randomisé à répartition 1:1 au groupe intervention (stratégie d'évitement de l'hypotension périopératoire) ou au groupe témoin (stratégie d'évitement de l'hypertension). GROUPE INTERVENTION: Si la pression artérielle systolique (PAS) avant l'opération est <130 mmHg, tous les médicaments antihypertenseurs sont suspendus le matin de la chirurgie. Si la PAS est ≥130 mmHg, certains médicaments (excluant les inhibiteurs de l'enzyme de conversion de l'angiotensine [IECA], les antagonistes du récepteur de l'angiotensine [ARA] ou les inhibiteurs de la rénine) peuvent être poursuivis de façon graduelle. Pendant la chirurgie, la pression artérielle moyenne (PAM) du patient est maintenue à ≥80 mmHg. Dans les 48 heures suivant l'intervention chirurgicale, certains médicaments antihypertenseurs (excluant les IECA, les ARA ou les inhibiteurs de la rénine) peuvent être réintroduits par étapes si la PAS est ≥130 mmHg. GROUPE TÉMOIN: Les patients reçoivent leurs médicaments antihypertenseurs habituels avant et après la chirurgie. La PAM du patient est maintenue à ≥60 mmHg de l'induction de l'anesthésie à la fin de l'intervention chirurgicale. CADRE: Recrutement à partir de 108 centres dans 22 pays entre 2018 à 2021. SUJETS: Des patients (~6 800) âgés de 45 ans et plus atteints d'athérosclérose, ou présentant un risque de l'être, devant subir une chirurgie non cardiaque et prenant des médicaments antihypertenseurs sur une base régulière. MESURES: Le principal critère d'évaluation de cette sous-étude est une IRA postopératoire définie par une hausse d'au moins 26,5 µmol/L (≥0,3 mg/dL) de la créatinine sérique dans les 48 heures suivant la randomisation ou d'au moins 50 % dans les 7 jours suivant la randomisation. MÉTHODOLOGIE: L'analyse primaire (par intention de traiter) examinera le risque relatif d'une IRA et l'intervalle de confiance à 95 % dans le groupe intervention par rapport au groupe témoin. Nous répéterons l'analyse primaire en utilisant d'autres définitions de l'IRA et nous examinerons la modification de l'effet en présence d'une insuffisance rénale préexistante (définie par un DFGe prérandomisation <60 ml/min/1,73 m2). RÉSULTATS: Les résultats de cette sous-étude seront analysés en 2022. LIMITES: Il n'est pas possible de procéder à l'insu des patients ou des prestataires de soins pour cette intervention; des mesures objectives seront toutefois utilisées pour évaluer l'IRA. CONCLUSION: Cette sous-étude fournira des estimations généralisables de l'effet d'une stratégie visant à éviter l'hypotension périopératoire sur le risque d'insuffisance rénale aiguë.

Persistent Incisional Pain after Noncardiac Surgery: An International Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: The purpose of this study was to determine the incidence, characteristics, impact, and risk factors associated with persistent incisional pain. The hypothesis was that patient demographics and perioperative interventions are associated with persistent pain. METHODS: This was a secondary analysis of an international prospective cohort study from 2012 to 2014. This study included patients who were 45 yr of age or older who underwent major inpatient noncardiac surgery. Data were collected perioperatively and at 1 yr after surgery to assess for the development of persistent incisional pain (pain present around incision at 1 yr after surgery). RESULTS: Among 14,831 patients, 495 (3.3%; 95% CI, 3.1 to 3.6) reported persistent incisional pain at 1 yr, with an average pain intensity of 3.6 ± 2.5 (0 to 10 numeric rating scale), with 35% and 14% reporting moderate and severe pain intensities, respectively. More than half of patients with persistent pain reported needing analgesic medications, and 85% reported interference with daily activities (denominator = 495 in the above proportions). Risk factors for persistent pain included female sex (P = 0.007), Asian ethnicity (P < 0.001), surgery for fracture (P < 0.001), history of chronic pain (P < 0.001), coronary artery disease (P < 0.001), history of tobacco use (P = 0.048), postoperative patient-controlled analgesia (P < 0.001), postoperative continuous nerve block (P = 0.010), insulin initiation within 24 h of surgery (P < 0.001), and withholding nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory medication or cyclooxygenase-2 inhibitors on the day of surgery (P = 0.029 and P < 0.001, respectively). Older age (P < 0.001), endoscopic surgery (P = 0.005), and South Asian (P < 0.001), Native American/Australian (P = 0.004), and Latin/Hispanic ethnicities (P < 0.001) were associated with a lower risk of persistent pain. CONCLUSIONS: Persistent incisional pain is a common complication of inpatient noncardiac surgery, occurring in approximately 1 in 30 adults. It results in significant morbidity, interferes with daily living, and is associated with persistent analgesic consumption. Certain demographics, ethnicities, and perioperative practices are associated with increased risk of persistent pain.

Perception of genetically engineered crops in Paraguay.

Paraguay is integrated into the world mainly through its agricultural activity. The population's perception of genetically engineered crops is relevant to design communication strategies that convey the advantages and limitations of the various technologies used in the country. We aimed to know the perception of the population of four Departments of the country where such crops are grown through a survey, which revealed a low level of knowledge about genetically engineered crops in general, and specifically about the effects of genetically engineered crops on production, nutrition, and the environment. Respondents expressed a willingness to receive information on genetically engineered crops, in particular from the National Government and the Health Sector.

One-year Results of a Factorial Randomized Trial of Aspirin versus Placebo and Clonidine versus Placebo in Patients Having Noncardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: The authors previously reported that perioperative aspirin and/or clonidine does not prevent a composite of death or myocardial infarction 30 days after noncardiac surgery. Moreover, aspirin increased the risk of major bleeding and clonidine caused hypotension and bradycardia. Whether these complications produce harm at 1 yr remains unknown. METHODS: The authors randomized 10,010 patients with or at risk of atherosclerosis and scheduled for noncardiac surgery in a 1:1:1:1 ratio to clonidine/aspirin, clonidine/aspirin placebo, clonidine placebo/aspirin, or clonidine placebo/aspirin placebo. Patients started taking aspirin or placebo just before surgery; those not previously taking aspirin continued daily for 30 days, and those taking aspirin previously continued for 7 days. Patients were also randomly assigned to receive clonidine or placebo just before surgery, with the study drug continued for 72 h. RESULTS: Neither aspirin nor clonidine had a significant effect on the primary 1-yr outcome, a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction, with a 1-yr hazard ratio for aspirin of 1.00 (95% CI, 0.89 to 1.12; P = 0.948; 586 patients [11.8%] vs. 589 patients [11.8%]) and a hazard ratio for clonidine of 1.07 (95% CI, 0.96 to 1.20; P = 0.218; 608 patients [12.1%] vs. 567 patients [11.3%]), with effect on death or nonfatal infarction. Reduction in death and nonfatal myocardial infarction from aspirin in patients who previously had percutaneous coronary intervention at 30 days persisted at 1 yr. Specifically, the hazard ratio was 0.58 (95% CI, 0.35 to 0.95) in those with previous percutaneous coronary intervention and 1.03 (95% CI, 0.91to 1.16) in those without (interaction P = 0.033). There was no significant effect of either drug on death, cardiovascular complications, cancer, or chronic incisional pain at 1 yr (all P > 0.1). CONCLUSIONS: Neither perioperative aspirin nor clonidine have significant long-term effects after noncardiac surgery. Perioperative aspirin in patients with previous percutaneous coronary intervention showed persistent benefit at 1 yr, a plausible sub-group effect.

Predictors, Prognosis, and Management of New Clinically Important Atrial Fibrillation After Noncardiac Surgery: A Prospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Despite the frequency of new clinically important atrial fibrillation (AF) after noncardiac surgery and its increased association with the risk of stroke at 30 days, there are limited data informing their prediction, association with outcomes, and management. METHODS: We used the data from the PeriOperative ISchemic Evaluation trial to determine, in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, the association of new clinically important AF with 30-day outcomes, and to assess management of these patients. We also aimed to derive a clinical prediction rule for new clinically important AF in this population. We defined new clinically important AF as new AF that resulted in symptoms or required treatment. We recorded an electrocardiogram 6 to 12 hours postoperatively and on the 1st, 2nd, and 30th days after surgery. RESULTS: A total of 211 (2.5% [8351 patients]; 95% confidence interval, 2.2%-2.9%) patients developed new clinically important AF within 30 days of randomization (8140 did not develop new AF). AF was independently associated with an increased length of hospital stay by 6.0 days (95% confidence interval, 3.5-8.5 days) and vascular complications (eg, stroke or congestive heart failure). The usage of an oral anticoagulant at the time of hospital discharge among patients with new AF and a CHADS2 score of 0, 1, 2, 3, and ≥4 was 6.9%, 10.2%, 23.0%, 9.4%, and 33.3%, respectively. Two independent predictors of patients developing new clinically important AF were identified (ie, age and surgery). The prediction rule included the following factors and assigned weights: age ≥85 years (4 points), age 75 to 84 years (3 points), age 65 to 74 years (2 points), intrathoracic surgery (3 points), major vascular surgery (2 points), and intra-abdominal surgery (1 point). The incidence of new AF based on scores of 0 to 1, 2, 3 to 4, and 5 to 6 was 0.5%, 1.0%, 3.1%, and 5.3%, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Age and surgery are independent predictors of new clinically important AF in the perioperative setting. A minority of patients developing new clinically important AF with high CHADS2 scores are discharged on an oral anticoagulant. There is a need to develop effective and safe interventions to prevent this outcome and to optimize the management of this event when it occurs.

Active body surface warming systems for preventing complications caused by inadvertent perioperative hypothermia in adults.

BACKGROUND: Inadvertent perioperative hypothermia is a phenomenon that can occur as a result of the suppression of the central mechanisms of temperature regulation due to anaesthesia, and of prolonged exposure of large surfaces of skin to cold temperatures in operating rooms. Inadvertent perioperative hypothermia has been associated with clinical complications such as surgical site infection and wound-healing delay, increased bleeding or cardiovascular events. One of the most frequently used techniques to prevent inadvertent perioperative hypothermia is active body surface warming systems (ABSW), which generate heat mechanically (heating of air, water or gels) that is transferred to the patient via skin contact. OBJECTIVES: To assess the effectiveness of pre- or intraoperative active body surface warming systems (ABSW), or both, to prevent perioperative complications from unintended hypothermia during surgery in adults. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; Issue 9, 2015); MEDLINE (PubMed) (1964 to October 2015), EMBASE (Ovid) (1980 to October 2015), and CINAHL (Ovid) (1982 to October 2015). SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) that compared an ABSW system aimed at maintaining normothermia perioperatively against a control or against any other ABSW system. Eligible studies also had to include relevant clinical outcomes other than measuring temperature alone. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Several authors, by pairs, screened references and determined eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We resolved disagreements by discussion and consensus, with the collaboration of a third author. MAIN RESULTS: We included 67 trials with 5438 participants that comprised 79 comparisons. Forty-five RCTs compared ABSW versus control, whereas 18 compared two different types of ABSW, and 10 compared two different techniques to administer the same type of ABSW. Forced-air warming (FAW) was by far the most studied intervention.Trials varied widely regarding whether the interventions were applied alone or in combination with other active (based on a different mechanism of heat transfer) and/or passive methods of maintaining normothermia. The type of participants and surgical interventions, as well as anaesthesia management, co-interventions and the timing of outcome measurement, also varied widely. The risk of bias of included studies was largely unclear due to limitations in the reports. Most studies were open-label, due to the nature of the intervention and the fact that temperature was usually the principal outcome. Nevertheless, given that outcome measurement could have been conducted in a blinded manner, we rated the risk of detection and performance bias as high.The comparison of ABSW versus control showed a reduction in the rate of surgical site infection (risk ratio (RR) 0.36, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.20 to 0.66; 3 RCTs, 589 participants, low-quality evidence). Only one study at low risk of bias observed a beneficial effect with forced-air warming on major cardiovascular complications (RR 0.22, 95% CI 0.05 to 1.00; 1 RCT with 12 events, 300 participants, low-quality evidence) in people at high cardiovascular risk. We found no beneficial effect for mortality. ABSW also reduced blood loss during surgery but the magnitude of this effect seems to be irrelevant (MD -46.17 mL, 95% CI -82.74 to -9.59; I² = 78%; 20 studies, 1372 participants). The same conclusion applies to total fluids infused during surgery (MD -144.49 mL, 95% CI -221.57 to -67.40; I² = 73%; 24 studies, 1491 participants). These effects did not translate into a significant reduction in the number of participants being transfused or the average amount of blood transfused. ABSW was associated with a reduction in shivering (RR 0.39, 95% CI 0.28 to 0.54; 29 studies, 1922 participants) and in thermal comfort (standardized mean difference (SMD) 0.76, 95% CI 0.29 to 1.24; I² = 77%, 4 trials, 364 participants).For the comparison between different types of ABSW system or modes of administration of a particular type of ABSW, we found no evidence for the superiority of any system in terms of clinical outcomes, except for extending systemic warming to the preoperative period in participants undergoing major abdominal surgery (one study at low risk of bias).There were limited data on adverse effects (the most relevant being thermal burns). While some trials included a narrative report mentioning that no adverse effects were observed, the majority made no reference to it. Nothing so far suggests that ABSW involves a significant risk to patients. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Forced-air warming seems to have a beneficial effect in terms of a lower rate of surgical site infection and complications, at least in those undergoing abdominal surgery, compared to not applying any active warming system. It also has a beneficial effect on major cardiovascular complications in people with substantial cardiovascular disease, although the evidence is limited to one study. It also improves patient's comfort, although we found high heterogeneity among trials. While the effect on blood loss is statistically significant, this difference does not translate to a significant reduction in transfusions. Again, we noted high heterogeneity among trials for this outcome. The clinical relevance of blood loss reduction is therefore questionable. The evidence for other types of ABSW is scant, although there is some evidence of a beneficial effect in the same direction on chills/shivering with electric or resistive-based heating systems. Some evidence suggests that extending systemic warming to the preoperative period could be more beneficial than limiting it only to during surgery. Nothing suggests that ABSW systems pose a significant risk to patients.The difficulty in observing a clinically-relevant beneficial effect with ABSW in outcomes other than temperature may be explained by the fact that many studies applied concomitant procedures that are routinely in place as co-interventions to prevent hypothermia, whether passive or active warming systems based in other physiological mechanisms (e.g. irrigation fluid or gas warming), as well as a stricter control of temperature in the context of the study compared with usual practice. These may have had a beneficial effect on the participants in the control group, leading to an underestimation of the net benefit of ABSW.

Clonidine in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Marked activation of the sympathetic nervous system occurs during and after noncardiac surgery. Low-dose clonidine, which blunts central sympathetic outflow, may prevent perioperative myocardial infarction and death without inducing hemodynamic instability. METHODS: We performed a blinded, randomized trial with a 2-by-2 factorial design to allow separate evaluation of low-dose clonidine versus placebo and low-dose aspirin versus placebo in patients with, or at risk for, atherosclerotic disease who were undergoing noncardiac surgery. A total of 10,010 patients at 135 centers in 23 countries were enrolled. For the comparison of clonidine with placebo, patients were randomly assigned to receive clonidine (0.2 mg per day) or placebo just before surgery, with the study drug continued until 72 hours after surgery. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction at 30 days. RESULTS: Clonidine, as compared with placebo, did not reduce the number of primary-outcome events (367 and 339, respectively; hazard ratio with clonidine, 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.93 to 1.26; P=0.29). Myocardial infarction occurred in 329 patients (6.6%) assigned to clonidine and in 295 patients (5.9%) assigned to placebo (hazard ratio, 1.11; 95% CI, 0.95 to 1.30; P=0.18). Significantly more patients in the clonidine group than in the placebo group had clinically important hypotension (2385 patients [47.6%] vs. 1854 patients [37.1%]; hazard ratio 1.32; 95% CI, 1.24 to 1.40; P<0.001). Clonidine, as compared with placebo, was associated with an increased rate of nonfatal cardiac arrest (0.3% [16 patients] vs. 0.1% [5 patients]; hazard ratio, 3.20; 95% CI, 1.17 to 8.73; P=0.02). CONCLUSIONS: Administration of low-dose clonidine in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery did not reduce the rate of the composite outcome of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction; it did, however, increase the risk of clinically important hypotension and nonfatal cardiac arrest. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; POISE-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01082874.).

Aspirin in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: There is substantial variability in the perioperative administration of aspirin in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, both among patients who are already on an aspirin regimen and among those who are not. METHODS: Using a 2-by-2 factorial trial design, we randomly assigned 10,010 patients who were preparing to undergo noncardiac surgery and were at risk for vascular complications to receive aspirin or placebo and clonidine or placebo. The results of the aspirin trial are reported here. The patients were stratified according to whether they had not been taking aspirin before the study (initiation stratum, with 5628 patients) or they were already on an aspirin regimen (continuation stratum, with 4382 patients). Patients started taking aspirin (at a dose of 200 mg) or placebo just before surgery and continued it daily (at a dose of 100 mg) for 30 days in the initiation stratum and for 7 days in the continuation stratum, after which patients resumed their regular aspirin regimen. The primary outcome was a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction at 30 days. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in 351 of 4998 patients (7.0%) in the aspirin group and in 355 of 5012 patients (7.1%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio in the aspirin group, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.86 to 1.15; P=0.92). Major bleeding was more common in the aspirin group than in the placebo group (230 patients [4.6%] vs. 188 patients [3.8%]; hazard ratio, 1.23; 95% CI, 1.01, to 1.49; P=0.04). The primary and secondary outcome results were similar in the two aspirin strata. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of aspirin before surgery and throughout the early postsurgical period had no significant effect on the rate of a composite of death or nonfatal myocardial infarction but increased the risk of major bleeding. (Funded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research and others; POISE-2 ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01082874.).

Myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery: a large, international, prospective cohort study establishing diagnostic criteria, characteristics, predictors, and 30-day outcomes.

BACKGROUND: Myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS) was defined as prognostically relevant myocardial injury due to ischemia that occurs during or within 30 days after noncardiac surgery. The study's four objectives were to determine the diagnostic criteria, characteristics, predictors, and 30-day outcomes of MINS. METHODS: In this international, prospective cohort study of 15,065 patients aged 45 yr or older who underwent in-patient noncardiac surgery, troponin T was measured during the first 3 postoperative days. Patients with a troponin T level of 0.04 ng/ml or greater (elevated "abnormal" laboratory threshold) were assessed for ischemic features (i.e., ischemic symptoms and electrocardiography findings). Patients adjudicated as having a nonischemic troponin elevation (e.g., sepsis) were excluded. To establish diagnostic criteria for MINS, the authors used Cox regression analyses in which the dependent variable was 30-day mortality (260 deaths) and independent variables included preoperative variables, perioperative complications, and potential MINS diagnostic criteria. RESULTS: An elevated troponin after noncardiac surgery, irrespective of the presence of an ischemic feature, independently predicted 30-day mortality. Therefore, the authors' diagnostic criterion for MINS was a peak troponin T level of 0.03 ng/ml or greater judged due to myocardial ischemia. MINS was an independent predictor of 30-day mortality (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.87; 95% CI, 2.96-5.08) and had the highest population-attributable risk (34.0%, 95% CI, 26.6-41.5) of the perioperative complications. Twelve hundred patients (8.0%) suffered MINS, and 58.2% of these patients would not have fulfilled the universal definition of myocardial infarction. Only 15.8% of patients with MINS experienced an ischemic symptom. CONCLUSION: Among adults undergoing noncardiac surgery, MINS is common and associated with substantial mortality.

Postoperative costs associated with outcomes after cardiac surgery with extracorporeal circulation: role of antithrombin levels.

OBJECTIVE: To study the impact on postoperative costs of a patient's antithrombin levels associated with outcomes after cardiac surgery with extracorporeal circulation. DESIGN: An analytic decision model was designed to estimate costs and clinical outcomes after cardiac surgery in a typical patient with low antithrombin levels (<63.7%) compared with a patient with normal antithrombin levels (≥63.7%). The data used in the model were obtained from a literature review and subsequently validated by a panel of experts in cardiothoracic anesthesiology. SETTING: Multi-institutional (14 Spanish hospitals). PARTICIPANTS: Consultant anesthesiologists. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: A sensitivity analysis of extreme scenarios was carried out to assess the impact of the major variables in the model results. The average cost per patient was €18,772 for a typical patient with low antithrombin levels and €13,881 for a typical patient with normal antithrombin levels. The difference in cost was due mainly to the longer hospital stay of a patient with low antithrombin levels compared with a patient with normal levels (13 v 10 days, respectively, representing a €4,596 higher cost) rather than to costs related to the management of postoperative complications (€215, mostly owing to transfusions). Sensitivity analysis showed a high variability range of approximately ±55% of the base case cost between the minimum and maximum scenarios, with the hospital stay contributing more significantly to the variation. CONCLUSIONS: Based on this analytic decision model, there could be a marked increase in the postoperative costs of patients with low antithrombin activity levels at the end of cardiac surgery, mainly ascribed to a longer hospitalization.

Los bloqueadores betaadrenérgicos en pacientes sometidos a cirugía no cardiaca: más riesgos que beneficios / Beta-blockers in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery: risks overweight benefits

No disponible