Francisco José Cambra Lasaosa

Procalcitonin: a useful biomarker to discriminate infection after cardiopulmonary bypass in children.

Objective: To determine whether procalcitonin discriminates between postcardiopulmonary bypass inflammatory syndrome and infectious complication in children better than does C-reactive protein. Design: Prospective study of children admitted to the intensive care unit after cardiopulmonary bypass. Patients: Classified according to a diagnosis of systemic inflammatory response syndrome and bacterial infection or systemic inflammatory response syndrome but no bacterial infection. Two hundred thirty-one cases were recruited. Measurement and Main Results: Procalcitonin, C-reactive protein, and leukocyte count were measured daily from surgery until day 3. Twenty-two patients were infected (9.5%). Significant differences were detected in the procalcitonin values of the infected group vs. the noninfected group, especially at day 2 (p = .000). There were no differences in the C-reactive protein values. The optimal cutoff for procalcitonin was >2 ng/mL at day 1 and above 4 ng/mL at the day 2. There was a greater sensitivity and specificity than with C-reactive protein as an infection predictor. Conclusion: Procalcitonin is useful in the diagnosis of bacterial infection after cardiopulmonary bypass. Because procalcitonin kinetics are different in postcardiopulmonary bypass patients, the cutoff to diagnose infection should be different from the normal cutoff.

Más de 3 horas y menos de 3 años: Seguridad de procedimientos anestésicos en menores de 3 años sometidos a cirugía de más de 3 horas

An FDA alert in December 2016 on the safety of general anesthesia and sedations in patients less than 3 years of age and pregnant women has raised doubts in relation to the attitude that professionals implicated in these procedures should adopt in relation to these specific group of patients. Confronted with this situation, the following medical scientific societies: Sociedad Española de Anestesia y Reanimación (SEDAR), Sociedad Española de Cirugía Pediátrica (SECP), Sociedad Española de Cuidados Intensivos Pediátricos (SECIP) y Sociedad Española de Neonatología (SENeo), have established a working group to analyze and clarify the safety of these techniques. In the present article we conclude that at present both general anesthesia and profound sedation are considered safe procedures because there is no evidence of the opposite in studies with human beings. However, this ascertained safety should not obviate the problem which still needs to be followed with attention, especially in patients less than 3 years of age undergoing anesthetic procedures for more than 3 hours or prolonged sedation in the Neonatal or Pediatric Intensive Care Units.