Comparison of Screening Scores for Heparin- Induced Thrombocytopenia After Cardiopulmonary Bypass.

OBJECTIVES: To compare screening scores for heparin-induced thrombocytopenia (HIT) after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). DESIGN: Retrospective cohort study. SETTING: Cardiothoracic surgery units within a large tertiary healthcare facility from September 2010 to January 2020. PARTICIPANTS: All adult patients tested for heparin-induced platelet antibody (HIPA) within 2 weeks after surgery requiring CPB. INTERVENTIONS: Using data available to providers at the time HIPA were checked, the 4T's Score, a modified 4T's Score, and a score proposed by Lillo-Le Louet (LLL) et al. were calculated. A retrospective chart review was performed for each patient to determine actual presence of HIT, and screening scores were compared for accuracy. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Criteria for inclusion were met in 266 patients. Of these, 34 (12.8%) were high likelihood of HIT, 16 (6.0%), additional patients were clinically ambiguous, and 216 (81.2%) were high likelihood of alternative cause for thrombocytopenia. HIPA tests done before postoperative day 5 were not associated with any high-likelihood cases of HIT regardless of preoperative heparin exposure. Although traditional 4T's ≥4, modified 4T's ≥3, and LLL ≥2 had statistically similar sensitivity for predicting HIT, the modified 4T's and LLL had superior specificity (p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Appropriate screening for HIT curbed inappropriate HIPA testing, and reduced the need for empirical treatment while awaiting confirmatory test results. Traditional 4T's was statistically inferior to both the LLL score and a modified version of the 4T's to screen for HIT within 2 weeks of CPB.

A Randomized Comparison of Positional Stability: The EZ-Blocker Versus Left-Sided Double-Lumen Endobronchial Tubes in Adult Patients Undergoing Thoracic Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: To assess if there is a difference in the repositioning rate of the EZ-Blocker versus a left-sided double-lumen endobronchial tube (DLT) in patients undergoing thoracic surgery and one-lung ventilation. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized. SETTING: Single center, university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: One hundred sixty-three thoracic surgery patients. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized to either EZ-Blocker or a DLT. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The primary outcome was positional stability of either the EZ-Blocker or a left-sided double-lumen endobronchial tube, defined as the number of repositionings per hour of surgery and one-lung ventilation. Secondary outcomes included an ordinal isolation score from 1 to 3, in which 1 was poor, up to 3, which represented excellent isolation, and a visual analog postoperative sore throat score (0-100) on postoperative days (POD) one and two. Rate of repositionings per hour during one-lung ventilation and surgical manipulation in left-sided cases was similar between the two devices: 0.08 ± 0.15 v 0.11 ± 0.3 (p = 0.72). In right-sided cases, the rate of repositioning was higher in the EZ-Blocker group compared with DLT: 0.38 ± 0.65 v 0.09 ± 0.21 (p = 0.03). Overall, mean isolation scores for the EZ-Blocker versus the DLT were 2.76 v 2.92 (p = 0.04) in left-sided cases and 2.70 v 2.83 (p = 0.22) in right-sided cases. Median sore throat scores for left sided cases were 0 v 5 (p = 0.13) POD one and 0 v 5 (p = 0.006) POD two for the EZ-Blocker and left-sided DLT, respectively. CONCLUSION: For right-sided procedures, the positional stability of the EZ-Blocker is inferior to a DLT. In left-sided cases, the rate of repositioning for the EZ-Blocker and DLT are not statistically different.