12 Aug 10
Posted in Anesthesia, Pre-operatie evaluation at 0:01 by Laci
By W Flu, J van Kuijk, S Hoeks, R Kuiper, O Schouten, D Goei, A Elhendy et al
Anesthesiology 2010;112:1316-1324
The prognostic value of heart failure symptoms on postoperative outcome is well acknowledged in perioperative guidelines. The prognostic value of asymptomatic left ventricular (LV) dysfunction remains unknown. This study evaluated the prognostic implications of asymptomatic LV dysfunction in vascular surgery patients assessed with routine echocardiography.
Methods
Echocardiography was performed preoperatively in 1,005 consecutive vascular surgery patients. Systolic LV dysfunction was defined as LV ejection fraction less than 50%. Ratio of mitral-peak velocity during early and late filling, pulmonary vein flow, and deceleration time was used to diagnose diastolic LV dysfunction. Troponin-T measurements and electrocardiograms were performed routinely perioperatively. Multivariate regression analyses evaluated the relation between LV function and the study endpoints, 30-day cardiovascular events, and long-term cardiovascular mortality.
Results
Left ventricular dysfunction was diagnosed in 506 (50%) patients of which 80% were asymptomatic. In open vascular surgery (n = 649), both asymptomatic systolic and isolated diastolic LV dysfunctions were associated with 30-day cardiovascular events (odds ratios 2.3, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.4–3.6 and 1.8, 95% CI 1.1–2.9, respectively) and long-term cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratios 4.6, 95% CI 2.4–8.5 and 3.0, 95% CI 1.5–6.0, respectively). In endovascular surgery (n = 356), only symptomatic heart failure was associated with 30-day cardiovascular events (odds ratio 1.8, 95% CI 1.1–2.9) and long-term cardiovascular mortality (hazard ratio 10.3, 95% CI 5.4–19.3).
Conclusions
This study demonstrated that asymptomatic LV dysfunction is predictive for 30-day and long-term cardiovascular outcome in open vascular surgery patients. These data suggest that preoperative risk stratification should include not only solely heart failure symptoms but also routine preoperative echocardiography to risk stratify open vascular surgery patients.
Permalink
26 May 10
Posted in Anesthesia at 11:26 by Laci
By B Tsui, S Rashiq, D Schopflocher, A Murtha, S Broemling, J Pillay and B Finucane
Can J Anesth 2010;57:107-112
To determine the effect of adjunctive epidural local anesthetic and opioid infusion on disease recurrence following radical prostatectomy for adenocarcinoma under general anesthesia.
Methods
This article describes a secondary analysis of subjects undergoing radical prostatectomy who had participated previously in a randomized controlled trial evaluating pain control, blood loss, and the need for perioperative allogeneic blood transfusion. The patients were randomly allocated to receive either general anesthesia alone (control group; n = 50) or combined general/epidural anesthesia (study group; n = 49). A long-term follow-up chart review was undertaken to determine clinically evident or biochemical (Prostate Specific Antigen >0.2 ng · mL−1) recurrence of prostate cancer. Comparison by group was undertaken using survival analysis.
Results
Median disease-free survival for the study as a whole was 1644 days, and the longest recorded survival was 3403 days. Biochemical recurrence of prostate cancer was observed in 11/49 study subjects and 17/50 control subjects. There was one death from prostate cancer in each group and a total of five deaths in the study group and six deaths in the control group. The hazard ratio for recurrence in the study group compared with the control group was 1.33 (95% confidence intervals 0.64–2.77; P = 0.44 by log-rank test).
Conclusion
No difference was observed between the epidural and control groups in disease-free survival at a median follow-up time of 4.5 years. There is a need for large randomized controlled trials to determine the ability of epidural analgesia to alter disease recurrence rates following radical prostatectomy.
Permalink
22 May 10
Posted in Anesthesia, Coronary artery disease, Pre-operatie evaluation at 19:54 by Laci
By N Cruden, S Harding, A Flapan, C Graham, S Wild, R Slack, J Pell, D Newby and on behalf of the Scottish Coronary Revascularisation Register Steering Committee
Circulation: Cardiovascular Interventions. Published Online on May 4, 2010
Noncardiac surgery performed after coronary stent implantation is associated with an increased risk of stent thrombosis, myocardial infarction, and death. The influence of stent type and period of risk still have to be defined.
Methods and results
We linked the Scottish Coronary Revascularisation Register with hospital admission data to undertake a Scotland-wide retrospective cohort study examining cardiac outcomes in all patients who received drug-eluting or bare-metal stents between April 2003 and March 2007 and subsequently underwent noncardiac surgery. Of 1953 patients, 570 (29%) were treated with at least 1 drug-eluting stent and 1383 (71%) with bare-metal stents only. There were no differences between drug-eluting and bare-metal stents in the primary end point of in-hospital mortality or ischemic cardiac events (14.6% versus 13.3%; P=0.3) or the secondary end points of in-hospital mortality (0.7% versus 0.6%; P=0.8) and acute myocardial infarction (1.2% versus 0.7%; P=0.3). Perioperative death and ischemic cardiac events occurred more frequently when surgery was performed within 42 days of stent implantation (42.4% versus 12.8% beyond 42 days; P<0.001), especially in patients revascularized after an acute coronary syndrome (65% versus 32%; P=0.037). There were no temporal differences in outcomes between the drug-eluting and bare-metal stent groups.
Conclusions
Patients undergoing noncardiac surgery after recent coronary stent implantation are at increased risk of perioperative myocardial ischemia, myocardial infarction, and death, particularly after an acute coronary syndrome. For at least 2 years after percutaneous coronary intervention, cardiac outcomes after noncardiac surgery are similar for both drug-eluting and bare-metal stents.
Permalink
21 May 10
Posted in Anesthesia at 19:31 by Laci
By J De Bruin, A Baas, J Buth, M Prinssen, E Verhoeven, P Cuypers, M van Sambeek, R Balm, D Grobbee, J Blankensteijn for the DREAM Study Group
NEJM 2010;362:1881-1889
For patients with large abdominal aortic aneurysms, randomized trials have shown an initial overall survival benefit for elective endovascular repair over conventional open repair. This survival difference, however, was no longer significant in the second year after the procedure. Information regarding the comparative outcome more than 2 years after surgery is important for clinical decision making.
Methods
We conducted a long-term, multicenter, randomized, controlled trial comparing open repair with endovascular repair in 351 patients with an abdominal aortic aneurysm of at least 5 cm in diameter who were considered suitable candidates for both techniques. The primary outcomes were rates of death from any cause and reintervention. Survival was calculated with the use of Kaplan–Meier methods on an intention-to-treat basis.
Results
We randomly assigned 178 patients to undergo open repair and 173 to undergo endovascular repair. Six years after randomization, the cumulative survival rates were 69.9% for open repair and 68.9% for endovascular repair (difference, 1.0 percentage point; 95% confidence interval [CI], –8.8 to 10.8; P=0.97). The cumulative rates of freedom from secondary interventions were 81.9% for open repair and 70.4% for endovascular repair (difference, 11.5 percentage points; 95% CI, 2.0 to 21.0; P=0.03).
Conclusions
Six years after randomization, endovascular and open repair of abdominal aortic aneurysm resulted in similar rates of survival. The rate of secondary interventions was significantly higher for endovascular repair.
Permalink
« Previous entries Next Page » Next Page »