Overview and Clinical Applications of Artificial Intelligence and Machine Learning in Cardiac Anesthesiology.

Artificial intelligence- (AI) and machine learning (ML)-based applications are becoming increasingly pervasive in the healthcare setting. This has in turn challenged clinicians, hospital administrators, and health policymakers to understand such technologies and develop frameworks for safe and sustained clinical implementation. Within cardiac anesthesiology, challenges and opportunities for AI/ML to support patient care are presented by the vast amounts of electronic health data, which are collected rapidly, interpreted, and acted upon within the periprocedural area. To address such challenges and opportunities, in this article, the authors review 3 recent applications relevant to cardiac anesthesiology, including depth of anesthesia monitoring, operating room resource optimization, and transthoracic/transesophageal echocardiography, as conceptual examples to explore strengths and limitations of AI/ML within healthcare, and characterize this evolving landscape. Through reviewing such applications, the authors introduce basic AI/ML concepts and methodologies, as well as practical considerations and ethical concerns for initiating and maintaining safe clinical implementation of AI/ML-based algorithms for cardiac anesthesia patient care.

Penny-wise and pound-foolish: the challenges of preoperative anaemia management.

The timely correction of anaemia before major surgery is important for optimising perioperative patient outcomes. However, multiple barriers have precluded the global expansion of preoperative anaemia treatment programmes, including misconceptions about the true cost/benefit ratio for patient care and health system economics. Institutional investment and buy-in from stakeholders could lead to significant cost savings through avoided complications of anaemia and red blood cell transfusions, and through containment of direct and variable costs of blood bank laboratories. In some health systems, billing for iron infusions could generate revenue and promote growth of treatment programmes. The aim of this work is to galvanise integrated health systems worldwide to diagnose and treat anaemia before major surgery.

Efficacy of parasternal peripheral nerve catheters versus no block for median sternotomy: a single-centre retrospective study.

Background: Sternal pain after cardiac surgery results in considerable discomfort. Single-injection parasternal fascial plane blocks have been shown to reduce pain scores and opioid consumption during the first 24 h after surgery, but the efficacy of continuous infusion has not been evaluated. This retrospective cohort study examined the effect of a continuous infusion of local anaesthetic through parasternal catheters on the integrated Pain Intensity and Opioid Consumption (PIOC) score up to 72 h. Methods: We performed a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing cardiac surgery with median sternotomy at a single academic centre before and after the addition of parasternal nerve catheters to a standard multimodal analgesic protocol. Outcomes included PIOC score, total opioid consumption in oral morphine equivalents, and time-weighted area under the curve pain scores up to 72 h after surgery. Results: Continuous infusion of ropivacaine 0.1% through parasternal catheters resulted in a significant reduction in PIOC scores at 24 h (-62, 95% confidence interval -108 to -16; P<0.01) and 48 h (-50, 95% CI -97 to -2.2; P=0.04) compared with no block. A significant reduction in opioid consumption up to 72 h was the primary factor in reduction of PIOC. Conclusions: This study suggests that continuous infusion of local anaesthetic through parasternal catheters may be a useful addition to a multimodal analgesic protocol in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with sternotomy. Further prospective study is warranted to determine the full benefits of continuous infusion compared with single injection or no block.

Impella Versus Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in Patients With Cardiogenic Shock Treated With Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation: An Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA-ECMO) is increasingly used for patients with cardiogenic shock. Although Impella or intra-aortic balloon pump (IABP) is frequently used for left ventricular unloading (LVU) during VA-ECMO treatment, there are limited data on comparative outcomes. We compared outcomes of Impella and IABP for LVU during VA-ECMO. METHODS AND RESULTS: Using the Nationwide Readmissions Database between 2016 and 2020, we analyzed outcomes in 3 groups of patients with cardiogenic shock requiring VA-ECMO based on LVU strategies: extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) only, ECMO with IABP, and ECMO with Impella. Of 15 980 patients on VA-ECMO, IABP and Impella were used in 19.4% and 16.4%, respectively. The proportion of patients receiving Impella significantly increased from 2016 to 2020 (6.5% versus 25.8%; P-trend<0.001). In-hospital mortality was higher with ECMO with Impella (54.8%) compared with ECMO only (50.4%) and ECMO with IABP (48.4%). After adjustment, ECMO with IABP versus ECMO only was associated with lower in-hospital mortality (adjusted odds ratio [aOR], 0.83; P=0.02). ECMO with Impella versus ECMO only had similar in-hospital mortality (aOR, 1.09; P=0.695) but was associated with more bleeding (aOR, 1.21; P=0.007) and more acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis (aOR, 1.42; P<0.001). ECMO with Impella versus ECMO with IABP was associated with greater risk of acute kidney injury requiring hemodialysis (aOR, 1.49; P=0.002), higher in-hospital mortality (aOR, 1.32; P=0.001), and higher 40-day mortality (hazard ratio, 1.25; P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with cardiogenic shock on VA-ECMO, LVU with Impella, particularly with 2.5/CP, was not associated with improved survival at 40 days but was associated with increased adverse events compared with IABP. More data are needed to assess Impella platform-specific comparative outcomes of LVU.

Sex Disparities in the Management, Outcomes, and Transfer of Patients Hospitalized for Cardiogenic Shock.

Background: Previous studies have shown that women have worse outcomes for cardiogenic shock (CS) than men. Patients who receive care in CS "hubs" have also been shown to have improved outcomes when compared to those treated at "spokes." This study aimed to examine the presence of sex disparities in the outcomes of CS in relation to hospital type. Methods: Hospitalizations of adults with a diagnosis of CS were identified using data from the 2016-2019 Nationwide Readmissions Database. CS "hubs" were defined as any centers receiving at least 1 interhospital transfer with CS, while those without such transfers were classified as "spokes." Data were combined across years and multivariable logistic regression modeling was used to evaluate the association of sex with in-hospital mortality, invasive procedures, and transfer to hubs. Results: There were a total of 618,411 CS hospitalizations (62.2% men) with CS related to acute myocardial infarction comprising 15.3 to 17.3% of women hospitalizations and 17.8 to 20.3% of men hospitalizations. In-hospital mortality was lower at hubs (34.5% for direct admissions, 31.6% for transfers) than at spokes (40.3%, all P < .01). Women underwent fewer invasive procedures (right heart catheterization, percutaneous coronary intervention, mechanical circulatory support) and had higher mortality than men. Female sex was independently associated with decreased transfers to hubs (odds ratio, 0.93; 95% CI, 0.89-0.96) and increased mortality (odds ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 1.05-1.12). Conclusions: Women with CS were less likely to be treated at a hub or transferred to a hub, had higher in-hospital mortality, and had a lower likelihood of receiving CS-related procedures than men. Further research is needed to understand sex-specific gaps in CS outcomes.