Krishanu Chaudhuri

Survival of trauma patients with coma and bilateral fixed dilated pupils

BACKGROUND Survival of patients with severe trauma presenting with Glasgow Coma Score (GCS) 3 and bilateral fixed dilated pupils is uncertain. Pre-hospital management of these patients affects the true measurement of the GCS and other factors may affect pupillary status. PATIENTS AND METHODS A retrospective review was undertaken of all patients who were classified GCS 3 and had bilateral fixed dilated pupils on admission to a Level 1 Adult Trauma Centre between July 2001 and March 2005. Pre-hospital assessment, hospital interventions and outcomes were determined. RESULTS Ninety-three patients fulfilled the criteria for inclusion into the study. There were 6 survivors who were all less than 28 years of age, had at least one GCS score above 3 in the pre-hospital phase and were more likely to have had an evacuable mass lesion on CT brain scan and undergo craniotomy. Of the 6 surviving patients, none had significant thoracoabdominal injuries. Four of the survivors had Glasgow Outcome Score (GOS) of 4 or 5. Time to hospital, mechanism of injury and pre-hospital haemodynamic parameters had no significant effect on survival. Of the 57 patients who were GCS 3 at the scene of the accident, post-basic resuscitation and on admission, none survived. CONCLUSION Pre-hospital GCS scores, prior to the effects of intubation, sedation and paralysis should be given more attention when assessing prognosis in patients who are GCS 3 on admission. Trauma patients with GCS 3 persisting from the scene with bilaterally fixed dilated pupils have no appreciable chance of survival. Further interventions such as ICU admission and surgery may not be warranted. Physicians may need to consider stopping treatment and discussing organ donation.

Cardiac Surgery in Patients with a History of Malignancy: Increased Complication Rate but Similar Mortality

BACKGROUND Little is known about the outcome of cardiac surgery in patients with a prior history of malignancy. Our aim was to investigate in our unit the population of patients with a known malignancy and compare their outcomes to a matched population without malignancy. METHODS We identified all patients who underwent cardiac surgery at the Alfred Hospital between February 2002 and December 2009 with malignancy. Cases were matched to 216 controls based on age, gender, major medical comorbidities and type of surgery. A univariate analysis was performed with Fishers exact test and χ(2) test. RESULTS 83/4474 patients were identified with malignancy. Sixty-four (77%) were male. Mean age of the patients with malignancy was 66.7 years, and 67.4 in the control group. 68.7% had a solid organ tumour, and 31.3% had a haematological malignancy. There were no significant between-group differences in hospital or 30-day mortality. However, there were significantly higher rates of transfusion (79.5% vs 49%, p<0.0001), reintubation (8.4% vs 0.9%, p=0.0009), pneumonia (14.5% vs 6%, p=0.035), septicaemia (8.4% vs 1.9%, p=0.018), arrhythmias (42.2% vs. 33.8%, p=0.047) and anticoagulant complications (7.2% vs 0%, p=0.008) in patients with malignancies. CONCLUSION Patients who present for cardiac surgery having had prior treatment for cancer are at particular risk for complications. However, these patients can be operated upon with acceptable risk. There is no difference in the short term mortality. Therefore, for selected patients who are undergoing curative treatment for their malignancy, or are in remission, cardiac surgery is not contraindicated.

The effect of carbon dioxide insufflation on cognitive function during cardiac surgery.

Abstract  The use of carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation into the pericardial well has become widespread, and in some units routine. The rationale behind this practice is the fact that CO2 is more soluble than air leading to fewer gaseous microemboli entering the bloodstream and being transferred to the brain or heart. However, the evidence that this reduces postoperative neurocognitive decline is scant. Although CO2 insufflation is generally a safe procedure there are case reports of significant complications. The aim of this systematic review is to analyze the current evidence for this practice. (J Card Surg 2011;26:189‐196)

Prophylaxis Against Atrial Fibrillation after Cardiac Surgery: Beneficial Effect of Perioperative Metoprolol

INTRODUCTION Multiple agents have been investigated to prevent atrial fibrillation (AF) after cardiac surgery. Several studies have investigated the use of β-blockers such as metoprolol or amiodarone with promising results. We aimed to investigate perioperative pharmacologic prophylaxis against AF using metoprolol, and amiodarone in combination with metoprolol. METHODS We conducted a prospective, randomised, single-blind, controlled pilot study in patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery. Subjects were randomised pre-operatively to one of three treatment groups: standard therapy (control) or metoprolol (5 mg IV over 5 min on commencement of bypass then 5 mg IV qid for 24h then 25-50 mg tds orally until discharge) or amiodarone (300 mg over 1h starting shortly after the commencement of bypass, then 900 mg over 24h then 400 mg orally tds until discharge) plus metoprolol as above. Patients had ECG monitoring for the occurrence of AF for six days or until discharge. RESULTS Two hundred and fifteen patients were enrolled. Between-group differences in AF in an intention-to-treat analysis were not significant: control 34% (23-45%), metoprolol 35% (24-46%), combined 22% (12-33%) (p = 0.21). However 87 patients (40%) did not receive the assigned treatment mainly due to side effects, especially bradycardia. The remaining 128 patients were analysed on a per-protocol basis with the overall difference between the three groups bordering on significance: control 34% (23-45%), metoprolol 26% (9-43%), combined 11% (0-23%) (p = 0.06). Logistic regression analysis, correcting for age and gender, was used to separate the individual effects of metoprolol and amiodarone in the presence of metoprolol which showed that compared to control there was a significant effect of metroprolol on AF incidence (O.R. 0.31 (0.10-0.99), p = 0.048) but not of amiodarone (O.R. 0.97 (0.19-5.02), p = 0.97). CONCLUSIONS (1) Perioperative metoprolol but not amiodarone itself in combination with metoprolol is associated with a significant reduction in postoperative AF. (2) Perioperative administration of metoprolol and combination of metoprolol with amiodarone is associated with a high incidence of side effects, especially bradycardia. (3) Further studies are indicated to confirm these preliminary findings but in the meantime it would not be unreasonable to implement the use of perioperative metoprolol for routine prophylaxis of AF.