C Park

Transfusion Requirements in Surgical Oncology Patients A Prospective, Randomized Controlled Trial

Background:Several studies have indicated that a restrictive erythrocyte transfusion strategy is as safe as a liberal one in critically ill patients, but there is no clear evidence to support the superiority of any perioperative transfusion strategy in patients with cancer. Methods:In a randomized, controlled, parallel-group, double-blind (patients and outcome assessors) superiority trial in the intensive care unit of a tertiary oncology hospital, the authors evaluated whether a restrictive strategy of erythrocyte transfusion (transfusion when hemoglobin concentration <7 g/dl) was superior to a liberal one (transfusion when hemoglobin concentration <9 g/dl) for reducing mortality and severe clinical complications among patients having major cancer surgery. All adult patients with cancer having major abdominal surgery who required postoperative intensive care were included and randomly allocated to treatment with the liberal or the restrictive erythrocyte transfusion strategy. The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of mortality and morbidity. Results:A total of 198 patients were included as follows: 101 in the restrictive group and 97 in the liberal group. The primary composite endpoint occurred in 19.6% (95% CI, 12.9 to 28.6%) of patients in the liberal-strategy group and in 35.6% (27.0 to 45.4%) of patients in the restrictive-strategy group (P = 0.012). Compared with the restrictive strategy, the liberal transfusion strategy was associated with an absolute risk reduction for the composite outcome of 16% (3.8 to 28.2%) and a number needed to treat of 6.2 (3.5 to 26.5). Conclusion:A liberal erythrocyte transfusion strategy with a hemoglobin trigger of 9 g/dl was associated with fewer major postoperative complications in patients having major cancer surgery compared with a restrictive strategy.

Effect of Perioperative Goal-Directed Hemodynamic Resuscitation Therapy on Outcomes Following Cardiac Surgery: A Randomized Clinical Trial and Systematic Review.

Objectives:To evaluate the effects of goal-directed therapy on outcomes in high-risk patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Design:A prospective randomized controlled trial and an updated metaanalysis of randomized trials published from inception up to May 1, 2015. Setting:Surgical ICU within a tertiary referral university-affiliated teaching hospital. Patients:One hundred twenty-six high-risk patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery or valve repair. Interventions:Patients were randomized to a cardiac output–guided hemodynamic therapy algorithm (goal-directed therapy group, n = 62) or to usual care (n = 64). In the goal-directed therapy arm, a cardiac index of greater than 3 L/min/m2 was targeted with IV fluids, inotropes, and RBC transfusion starting from cardiopulmonary bypass and ending 8 hours after arrival to the ICU. Measurements and Main Results:The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of 30-day mortality and major postoperative complications. Patients from the goal-directed therapy group received a greater median (interquartile range) volume of IV fluids than the usual care group (1,000 [625–1,500] vs 500 [500–1,000] mL; p < 0.001], with no differences in the administration of either inotropes or RBC transfusions. The primary outcome was reduced in the goal-directed therapy group (27.4% vs 45.3%; p = 0.037). The goal-directed therapy group had a lower occurrence rate of infection (12.9% vs 29.7%; p = 0.002) and low cardiac output syndrome (6.5% vs 26.6%; p = 0.002). We also observed lower ICU cumulative dosage of dobutamine (12 vs 19 mg/kg; p = 0.003) and a shorter ICU (3 [3–4] vs 5 [4–7] d; p < 0.001) and hospital length of stay (9 [8–16] vs 12 [9–22] d; p = 0.049) in the goal-directed therapy compared with the usual care group. There were no differences in 30-day mortality rates (4.8% vs 9.4%, respectively; p = 0.492). The metaanalysis identified six trials and showed that, when compared with standard treatment, goal-directed therapy reduced the overall rate of complications (goal-directed therapy, 47/410 [11%] vs usual care, 92/415 [22%]; odds ratio, 0.40 [95% CI, 0.26–0.63]; p < 0.0001) and decreased the hospital length of stay (mean difference, –5.44 d; 95% CI, –9.28 to –1.60; p = 0.006) with no difference in postoperative mortality: 9 of 410 (2.2%) versus 15 of 415 (3.6%), odds ratio, 0.61 (95% CI, 0.26–1.47), and p = 0.27. Conclusions:Goal-directed therapy using fluids, inotropes, and blood transfusion reduced 30-day major complications in high-risk patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Vasopressin versus Norepinephrine in Patients with Vasoplegic Shock After Cardiac Surgery: The VANCS Randomized Controlled Trial.

Background: Vasoplegic syndrome is a common complication after cardiac surgery and impacts negatively on patient outcomes. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether vasopressin is superior to norepinephrine in reducing postoperative complications in patients with vasoplegic syndrome. Methods: This prospective, randomized, double-blind trial was conducted at the Heart Institute, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil, between January 2012 and March 2014. Patients with vasoplegic shock (defined as mean arterial pressure less than 65 mmHg resistant to fluid challenge and cardiac index greater than 2.2 l · min−1 · m−2) after cardiac surgery were randomized to receive vasopressin (0.01 to 0.06 U/min) or norepinephrine (10 to 60 &mgr;g/min) to maintain arterial pressure. The primary endpoint was a composite of mortality or severe complications (stroke, requirement for mechanical ventilation for longer than 48 h, deep sternal wound infection, reoperation, or acute renal failure) within 30 days. Results: A total of 330 patients were randomized, and 300 were infused with one of the study drugs (vasopressin, 149; norepinephrine, 151). The primary outcome occurred in 32% of the vasopressin patients and in 49% of the norepinephrine patients (unadjusted hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.80; P = 0.0014). Regarding adverse events, the authors found a lower occurrence of atrial fibrillation in the vasopressin group (63.8% vs. 82.1%; P = 0.0004) and no difference between groups in the rates of digital ischemia, mesenteric ischemia, hyponatremia, and myocardial infarction. Conclusions: The authors’ results suggest that vasopressin can be used as a first-line vasopressor agent in postcardiac surgery vasoplegic shock and improves clinical outcomes.

Liberal Versus Restrictive Transfusion Strategy in Critically Ill Oncologic Patients: The Transfusion Requirements in Critically Ill Oncologic Patients Randomized Controlled Trial*

Objective: To assess whether a restrictive strategy of RBC transfusion reduces 28-day mortality when compared with a liberal strategy in cancer patients with septic shock. Design: Single center, randomized, double-blind controlled trial. Setting: Teaching hospital. Patients: Adult cancer patients with septic shock in the first 6 hours of ICU admission. Interventions: Patients were randomized to the liberal (hemoglobin threshold, < 9 g/dL) or to the restrictive strategy (hemoglobin threshold, < 7 g/dL) of RBC transfusion during ICU stay. Measurements and Main Results: Patients were randomized to the liberal (n = 149) or to the restrictive transfusion strategy (n = 151) group. Patients in the liberal group received more RBC units than patients in the restrictive group (1 [0–3] vs 0 [0–2] unit; p < 0.001). At 28 days after randomization, mortality rate in the liberal group (primary endpoint of the study) was 45% (67 patients) versus 56% (84 patients) in the restrictive group (hazard ratio, 0.74; 95% CI, 0.53–1.04; p = 0.08) with no differences in ICU and hospital length of stay. At 90 days after randomization, mortality rate in the liberal group was lower (59% vs 70%) than in the restrictive group (hazard ratio, 0.72; 95% CI, 0.53–0.97; p = 0.03). Conclusions: We observed a survival trend favoring a liberal transfusion strategy in patients with septic shock when compared with the restrictive strategy. These results went in the opposite direction of the a priori hypothesis and of other trials in the field and need to be confirmed.

Análise de 10 anos de seguimento de transplantesrenais com doador vivo não aparentado

INTRODUCTION In the current era of scarcity of kidneys available for transplantation, and chronic anti-HLA-mediated rejection as a main cause of graft loss, continuous demonstration of the long-term survival of grafts from living unrelated kidney donors (LURD) is paramount. OBJECTIVE Analyze long-term kidney graft and patient outcomes using LURD, and compare them with living related donors (LRD). METHODS We analyzed the 389 first renal transplantations performed with a living donor (281 LRD and 108 LURD), in a single center, from January 1998 through December 2007. RESULTS There were no significant differences between LRD and LURD as refers to patient survival (89.1% vs. 84.7%, p = 0.40, respectively) and graft survival (81.1% vs. 68.9%, p = 0.77, respectively), 10 years post-transplantation. On Cox proportional regression model of multivariate analysis, panel reactive antibodies (PRA) > 10% and the occurrence of acute rejection in the first year posttransplantation were the only independent predictors of graft loss (HR 2.54, 95% CI 1.35 -4.78; p < 0.05 and HR 4.1, 95% CI 2.04 - 4.78; p < 0.05, respectively). CONCLUSION LURD are an important source of organs for renal transplantation, with results similar to those obtained with LRD, regardless of HLA matching.

Effect of a Perioperative Intra-Aortic Balloon Pump in High-Risk Cardiac Surgery Patients: A Randomized Clinical Trial

Objectives: The aim of this study was to evaluate the efficacy of perioperative intra-aortic balloon pump use in high-risk cardiac surgery patients. Design: A single-center randomized controlled trial and a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials. Setting: Heart Institute of São Paulo University. Patients: High-risk patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass surgery. Intervention: Patients were randomized to receive preskin incision intra-aortic balloon pump insertion after anesthesia induction versus no intra-aortic balloon pump use. Measurements and Main Results: The primary outcome was a composite endpoint of 30-day mortality and major morbidity (cardiogenic shock, stroke, acute renal failure, mediastinitis, prolonged mechanical ventilation, and a need for reoperation). A total of 181 patients (mean [SD] age 65.4 [9.4] yr; 32% female) were randomized. The primary outcome was observed in 43 patients (47.8%) in the intra-aortic balloon pump group and 42 patients (46.2%) in the control group (p = 0.46). The median duration of inotrope use (51 hr [interquartile range, 32–94 hr] vs 39 hr [interquartile range, 25–66 hr]; p = 0.007) and the ICU length of stay (5 d [interquartile range, 3–8 d] vs 4 d [interquartile range, 3–6 d]; p = 0.035) were longer in the intra-aortic balloon pump group than in the control group. A meta-analysis of 11 randomized controlled trials confirmed a lack of survival improvement in high-risk cardiac surgery patients with perioperative intra-aortic balloon pump use. Conclusions: In high-risk patients undergoing cardiac surgery, the perioperative use of an intra-aortic balloon pump did not reduce the occurrence of a composite outcome of 30-day mortality and major complications compared with usual care alone.

Vasopressin versus Norepinephrine in Patients with Vasoplegic Shock after Cardiac Surgery

Background: Vasoplegic syndrome is a common complication after cardiac surgery and impacts negatively on patient outcomes. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether vasopressin is superior to norepinephrine in reducing postoperative complications in patients with vasoplegic syndrome. Methods: This prospective, randomized, double-blind trial was conducted at the Heart Institute, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil, between January 2012 and March 2014. Patients with vasoplegic shock (defined as mean arterial pressure less than 65 mmHg resistant to fluid challenge and cardiac index greater than 2.2 l · min−1 · m−2) after cardiac surgery were randomized to receive vasopressin (0.01 to 0.06 U/min) or norepinephrine (10 to 60 &mgr;g/min) to maintain arterial pressure. The primary endpoint was a composite of mortality or severe complications (stroke, requirement for mechanical ventilation for longer than 48 h, deep sternal wound infection, reoperation, or acute renal failure) within 30 days. Results: A total of 330 patients were randomized, and 300 were infused with one of the study drugs (vasopressin, 149; norepinephrine, 151). The primary outcome occurred in 32% of the vasopressin patients and in 49% of the norepinephrine patients (unadjusted hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.80; P = 0.0014). Regarding adverse events, the authors found a lower occurrence of atrial fibrillation in the vasopressin group (63.8% vs. 82.1%; P = 0.0004) and no difference between groups in the rates of digital ischemia, mesenteric ischemia, hyponatremia, and myocardial infarction. Conclusions: The authors’ results suggest that vasopressin can be used as a first-line vasopressor agent in postcardiac surgery vasoplegic shock and improves clinical outcomes.

Vasopressin Versus Norepinephrine in Patients With Vasoplegic Shock After Cardiac Surgery: The VANCS Randomized Controlled Trial

<zdoi;10.1097/ALN.0000000000001434> Anesthesiology, V 126 • No 1 85 January 2017 V asoplegic syndrome, characterized by low arterial pressure with normal or elevated cardiac output and reduced systemic vascular resistance,1 occurs in 5 to 25% of patients undergoing cardiac surgery. patients who develop vasoplegic shock after cardiac surgery are at higher risk of organ failure and have increased mortality and longer hospital length of stay.2,3 administration of norepinephrine is currently considered the standard treatment for vasoplegic shock, but all catecholamines have adverse effects, including arrhythmias and myocardial ischemia.4 Furthermore, in severe vasoplegic states, What We Already Know about This Topic

Vasopressin : The Vancs Randomized Controlled Trial versus : The Vancs Randomized Controlled Trial Norepinephrine in Patients with Vasoplegic Shock after Cardiac Surgery: The Vancs Randomized Controlled Trial

Background: Vasoplegic syndrome is a common complication after cardiac surgery and impacts negatively on patient outcomes. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether vasopressin is superior to norepinephrine in reducing postoperative complications in patients with vasoplegic syndrome. Methods: This prospective, randomized, double-blind trial was conducted at the Heart Institute, University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil, between January 2012 and March 2014. Patients with vasoplegic shock (defined as mean arterial pressure less than 65 mmHg resistant to fluid challenge and cardiac index greater than 2.2 l · min−1 · m−2) after cardiac surgery were randomized to receive vasopressin (0.01 to 0.06 U/min) or norepinephrine (10 to 60 &mgr;g/min) to maintain arterial pressure. The primary endpoint was a composite of mortality or severe complications (stroke, requirement for mechanical ventilation for longer than 48 h, deep sternal wound infection, reoperation, or acute renal failure) within 30 days. Results: A total of 330 patients were randomized, and 300 were infused with one of the study drugs (vasopressin, 149; norepinephrine, 151). The primary outcome occurred in 32% of the vasopressin patients and in 49% of the norepinephrine patients (unadjusted hazard ratio, 0.55; 95% CI, 0.38 to 0.80; P = 0.0014). Regarding adverse events, the authors found a lower occurrence of atrial fibrillation in the vasopressin group (63.8% vs. 82.1%; P = 0.0004) and no difference between groups in the rates of digital ischemia, mesenteric ischemia, hyponatremia, and myocardial infarction. Conclusions: The authors’ results suggest that vasopressin can be used as a first-line vasopressor agent in postcardiac surgery vasoplegic shock and improves clinical outcomes.