Project description:Protective ventilation is associated with a lower incidence of pulmonary complications. However, there are few published data on routine pulmonary management in adult cardiac surgery. The present study's primary objective was to survey pulmonary management in this high-risk population, as practiced by anesthesiologists in France. All 460 registered France-based cardiac anesthesiologists were invited (by e-mail) to participate in an online survey in January-February 2015. The survey's questionnaire was designed to assess current practice in pre-, per-, and postoperative pulmonary management. In all, 198 anesthesiologists (43% of those invited) participated in the survey. Other than during the cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) per se, 179 anesthesiologists (91% of respondees) [95% confidence interval (CI): 87-95] used a low-tidal-volume approach (6-8 mL/kg), whereas techniques based on positive end-expiratory pressure and recruitment maneuvers vary greatly from 1 anesthesiologist to another. During CPB, 104 (53%) [95% CI: 46-60] anesthesiologists withdrew mechanical ventilation (with disconnection, in some cases) and 97 (49%) [95% CI: 42-56] did not prescribe positive end-expiratory pressure. One hundred sixty-five (83%) [95% CI: 78-88] anesthesiologists stated that a written protocol for peroperative pulmonary management was not available. Twenty (10%) [95% CI: 6-14] and 11 (5%) [95% CI: 2-8] anesthesiologists stated that they did use protocols for ventilator use and recruitment maneuvers, respectively. The preoperative period (pulmonary examinations and prescription of additional assessments) and the postoperative period (extubation, and noninvasive ventilation) periods vary greatly from 1 anesthesiologist to another. The great majority of French cardiac anesthesiologists use a low tidal volume during cardiac surgery (other than during CPB per se). However, pulmonary management procedures varied markedly from 1 anesthesiologist to another. There is a clear need for large clinical studies designed to identify best practice in pulmonary management.

Project description:BackgroundPostpancreatectomy haemorrhage (PPH) and venous thromboembolism (VTE) are serious complications following pancreatic surgery. The aim was to assess the timing, occurrence and predictors of PPH and VTE.MethodsElective pancreatic resections undertaken in a single university hospital between November 2013 and September 2017 were assessed. Three intervals were reviewed, each with a different routine regimen of nadroparin: 2850 units once daily (single dose) administered in hospital only, or 5700 units once daily (double dose) or 2850 units twice daily (split dose) administered in hospital and continued for 6 weeks after surgery. Clinically relevant PPH (CR-PPH) was classified according to International Study Group of Pancreatic Surgery criteria. VTE was defined according to a number of key diagnostic criteria within 6 weeks of surgery. Cox regression analyses were performed to test the hypotheses that the double-dose group would experience more PPH than the other two groups, the single-dose group would experience more VTE than the other two groups, and the split-dose group would experience the fewest adverse events (PPH or VTE).ResultsIn total, 240 patients were included, 80 per group. The double-dose group experienced significantly more CR-PPH (hazard ratio (HR) 2·14, 95 per cent c.i. 1·16 to 3·94; P = 0·015). More relaparotomies due to CR-PPH were performed in the double-dose group (16 versus 3·8 per cent; P = 0·002). The single-dose group did not experience more VTE (HR 1·41, 0·43 to 4·62; P = 0·570). The split dose was not associated with fewer adverse events (HR 0·77, 0·41 to 1·46; P = 0·422). Double-dose low molecular weight heparin (LMWH), high BMI and pancreatic fistula were independent predictors of CR-PPH.ConclusionA double dose of LMWH prophylaxis continued for 6 weeks after pancreatic resection was associated with a twofold higher rate of CR-PPH, resulting in four times more relaparotomies. Patients receiving a single daily dose of LMWH in hospital only did not experience a higher rate of VTE.

Project description:Aim/objective/introductionCytokine storm or cytokine release syndrome (CRS) is inevitable in severe and critically ill patients with novel coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19). This review aimed to discuss current therapeutic options for the management of CRS in COVID-19.BackgroundCytokine storm is caused by the colossal release of proinflammatory cytokines [e.g., IL (interleukin)-2, IL-6, IL-8 TNF (tumor necrosis factor)-α, etc.] causing dysregulated, hyperimmune response. This immunopathogenesis leads to acute lung injury and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). Targeting cytokine storm with the therapies that are already available in India with the support of published guidelines and consensus can assist in achieving a better outcome in COVID-19.Review resultsWe predominantly included published guidelines or consensus recommendations about the management of cytokine storm in COVID-19. From the existing literature evidence, it is observed that among the currently available agents, low-dose corticosteroids and heparin can be beneficial in managing cytokine storm. The use of serine protease inhibitors such as ulinastatin has been advised by some experts. Though therapies such as high-dose vitamin C and interleukin-6 inhibitors (e.g., tocilizumab) have been advised, the evidence regarding their use for cytokine storm in COVID-19 is limited. Therapies such as Janus kinase inhibitors (JAK) inhibitors and Neurokinin-1 receptor (NK-1) antagonists are still in research. Besides, pharmaceutical treatments, use of blood purification strategies, and convalescent plasma may be life-saving options in some of the critically ill COVID-19 patients. For these therapies, there is a need to generate further evidence to substantiate their use in CRS management.ConclusionCurrent management of COVID-19 is preventive and supportive. Different therapies can be used to prevent and treat the cytokine storm. More research is needed for further supporting the use of these treatments in COVID-19.How to cite this articleMehta Y, Dixit SB, Zirpe KG, Ansari AS. Cytokine Storm in Novel Coronavirus Disease (COVID-19): Expert Management Considerations. Indian J Crit Care Med 2020;24(6):429-434.

Project description:ObjectiveMany patients undergoing vascular surgical procedures are not on appropriate medical therapy. This study sought to examine the variation and impact of antiplatelet (AP) and statin therapy on early and late mortality in patients undergoing vascular surgery in our region.MethodsWe studied all patients (n = 14,489) undergoing elective carotid endarterectomy (n = 6978), carotid stenting (n = 524), and suprainguinal (n = 763) and infrainguinal bypass (n = 3053), as well as patients with known coronary risk factors undergoing open (n = 1044) and endovascular (n = 2127) abdominal aortic aneurysm repair from 2005 to 2012 in the Vascular Study Group of New England. Optimal medical management was defined as treatment with both AP and statin agents, preoperatively and at discharge. We analyzed temporal, procedural, and center variation of medication use. Multivariable analyses were used to determine the adjusted impact of AP and statin therapy on 30-day mortality and 5-year survival.ResultsOptimal medical management improved over the study interval (55% in 2005 to 68% in 2012; P trend < .01) with carotid interventions having the highest rates of optimal medications use (carotid artery stenting, 78%; carotid endarterectomy, 74%) and abdominal aortic aneurysm repair in patients with known cardiac risk factors having the lowest (open, 57%; endovascular aneurysm repair, 56%). Optimal medication use varied by center as well (range, 40%-86%). Preoperative AP and statin use was associated with reduced 30-day mortality (odds ratio, 0.76; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.5-1.05; P = .09). AP and statin prescription at discharge was additive in survival benefit with improved 5-year survival (hazard ratio, 0.5; 95% CI, 0.4-0.7; P < .01) that was consistent across procedure types. Patients prescribed AP and statin at discharge had 5-year survival of 79% (95% CI, 77%-81%) compared with only 61% (95% CI, 52%-68%; P < .001) for patients on neither medication.ConclusionsAP and statin therapy preoperatively and at discharge was associated with reduced 30-day mortality and an absolute 18% improved 5-year survival after vascular surgery. However, one-third of patients are suboptimally managed in real world practice. This demonstrates an opportunity for quality improvement that can substantially improve survival after vascular surgery.

Dataset Information

Management of perioperative thromboprophylaxis for surgery following COVID-19: an expert-panel survey.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets