Stefan De Hert

Guidelines for pre-operative cardiac risk assessment and perioperative cardiac management in non-cardiac surgery

The American College of Cardiology, American Heart Association, and the European Society of Cardiology are all in the process of completing updated versions of our Guidelines for Perioperative Care. Our respective writing committees are undertaking a careful analysis of all relevant validated studies and always incorporate appropriate new trials and meta-analyses into our evidence review. In the interim, our current joint position is that the initiation of beta blockers in patients who will undergo non-cardiac surgery should not be considered routine, but should be considered carefully by each patients treating physician on a case-by-case basis. Please see the expression of concern which is free to view in Eur Heart J (2013) 34 (44): 3460; doi: 10.1093/eurheartj/eht431. AAA : abdominal aortic aneurysm ACC : American College of Cardiology ACE : angiotensin-converting enzyme ACS : acute coronary syndrome AHA : American Heart Association AR : aortic regurgitation ARB : angiotensin receptor blocker AS : aortic stenosis AF : atrial fibrillation BBSA : β-blocker in spinal anaesthesia BNP : brain natriuretic peptide CABG : coronary artery bypass grafting CARP : coronary artery revascularization prophylaxis CASS : coronary artery surgery study CI : confidence interval COX-2 : cyclooxygenase-2 COPD : chronic obstructive pulmonary disease CPET : cardiopulmonary exercise testing CPG : Committee for Practice Guidelines CRP : C-reactive protein CT : computed tomography cTnI : cardiac troponin I cTnT : cardiac troponin T CVD : cardiovascular disease DECREASE : Dutch Echocardiographic Cardiac Risk Evaluating Applying Stress Echo DES : drug-eluting stent DIPOM : Diabetes Postoperative Mortality and Morbidity DSE : dobutamine stress echocardiography ECG : electrocardiography ESC : European Society of Cardiology FEV1 : forced expiratory volume in 1 s FRISC : fast revascularization in instability in coronary disease HR : hazard ratio ICU : intensive care unit IHD : ischaemic heart disease INR : international normalized ratio LMWH : low molecular weight heparin LQTS : long QT syndrome LR : likelihood ratio LV : left ventricular MaVS : metoprolol after surgery MET : metabolic equivalent MI : myocardial infarction MR : mitral regurgitation MRI : magnetic resonance imaging MS : mitral stenosis NICE-SUGAR : normoglycaemia in intensive care evaluation and survival using glucose algorithm regulation NSTEMI : non-ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction NT-proBNP : N-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide NYHA : New York Heart Association OPUS : orbofiban in patients with unstable coronary syndromes OR : odds ratio PaCO2 : mixed expired volume of alveolar and dead space gas PAH : pulmonary arterial hypertension PETCO2 : end-tidal expiratory CO2 pressure PCI : percutaneous coronary intervention PDA : personal digital assistant POISE : PeriOperative ISchaemic Evaluation trial QUO-VADIS : QUinapril On Vascular ACE and Determinants of ISchemia ROC : receiver operating characteristic SD : standard deviation SMVT : sustained monomorphic ventricular tachycardia SPECT : single photon emission computed tomography SPVT : sustained polymorphic ventricular tachycardia STEMI : ST-segment elevation myocardial infarction SVT : supraventricular tachycardia SYNTAX : synergy between percutaneous coronary intervention with taxus and cardiac surgery TACTICS : treat angina with aggrastat and determine cost of therapy with an invasive or conservative strategy TIA : transient ischaemic attack TIMI : thrombolysis in myocardial infarction TOE : transoesophageal echocardiography UFH : unfractionated heparin VCO2 : carbon dioxide production VE : minute ventilation VHD : valvular heart disease VKA : vitamin K antagonist VO2 : oxygen consumption VPB : ventricular premature beat VT : ventricular tachycardia Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents aim to present management and recommendations based on the relevant evidence on a particular subject in order to help physicians to select the best possible management strategies for the individual patient suffering from a specific condition, taking into account not only the impact on outcome, but also the risk–benefit ratio of particular diagnostic or therapeutic means. Guidelines are no substitutes for textbooks. The legal implications of medical guidelines have been discussed previously.1 A great number of Guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents have been issued in recent years by the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and also by other organizations or related societies. Because of the impact on clinical practice, quality criteria for development of guidelines have been established in order to make all decisions transparent to the user. The recommendations for formulating and issuing ESC guidelines and Expert Consensus Documents can be found on the ESC website in the guidelines section (www.escardio.org). In brief, experts in the field are selected and undertake a comprehensive review of the published evidence for management and/or prevention of a given condition. …

2014 ESC/ESA Guidelines on non-cardiac surgery: cardiovascular assessment and management: The Joint Task Force on non-cardiac surgery: cardiovascular assessment and management of the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) and the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA).

Authors/Task Force Members: Steen Dalby Kristensen* (Chairperson) (Denmark), Juhani Knuuti* (Chairperson) (Finland), Antti Saraste (Finland), Stefan Anker (Germany), Hans Erik Bøtker (Denmark), Stefan De Hert (Belgium), Ian Ford (UK), Jose Ramón Gonzalez-Juanatey (Spain), Bulent Gorenek (Turkey), Guy Robert Heyndrickx (Belgium), Andreas Hoeft (Germany), Kurt Huber (Austria), Bernard Iung (France), Keld Per Kjeldsen (Denmark), Dan Longrois (France), Thomas F. Lüscher (Switzerland), Luc Pierard (Belgium), Stuart Pocock (UK), Susanna Price (UK), Marco Roffi (Switzerland), Per Anton Sirnes (Norway), Miguel Sousa-Uva (Portugal), Vasilis Voudris (Greece), Christian Funck-Brentano (France).

2014 ESC/ESA Guidelines on Non-cardiac Surgery: Cardiovascular Assessment and Management.

The American College of Cardiology (ACC), the American Heart Association (AHA), and the European Society of Cardiology (ESC) are pleased to announce the publication of two new versions of Clinical Practice Guidelines (CPGs) on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation from our respective organizations.1–3 These revisions were begun independently, dictated both by emerging, new information regarding the topic and the controversy regarding the legitimacy of data from previously published pivotal trials. Accordingly, the leadership of these international organizations recognized the importance of scientific collaboration and writing committee coordination for the benefit of the worldwide cardiology community. A joint statement was therefore posted in August 20134–6 to indicate that the respective CPGs were under revision and to provide some guidance regarding perioperative beta-blockade therapy in the interim. Since then, the members of both ESC and ACC/AHA guideline writing committees have reviewed the evidence thoroughly and systematically. The writing committees and the two supervisory task force groups decided to analyse separately the evidence about beta-blocker therapy used in the perioperative period and to develop specific treatment recommendations as a first step in the process of revision. After this independent work, the revised recommendations were shared between the two writing committees so that the rationales for any differences in recommendations could be articulated clearly. As a result of this process, we are confident that the evidence base has been objectively reviewed by two independent expert writing committees. The development of the two revised CPGs on perioperative cardiovascular care underscores the benefits of collaboration. Although the writing committees compiled and reviewed the evidence separately, they subsequently came together to validate their analyses, finding that they had both drawn on the same data and reached similar conclusions. Additionally, discussions are ongoing among the ACC, AHA, and ESC about sharing resources related to the systematic review of evidence. The potential advantages of more highly structured joint CPG initiatives are under active consideration. The CPGs on cardiovascular care in the perioperative period represent a fresh and objective review of old and new evidence in this important clinical arena. Features of the CPGs include the latest synthesis of the data on the use of beta-blockers in patients who have taken them chronically, considerations regarding selection of patients who are potential candidates to receive beta-blockers pre-operatively, and guidance regarding how to use this important and powerful class of drugs in the perioperative period. Clinicians will find the recommendations in these revised CPGs useful in their daily work and can be reassured that the recommendations have been vetted thoroughly by the most rigorous scientific process. Furthermore, the recommendations in both documents are fundamentally aligned, so that cardiovascular clinicians worldwide may deliver optimal, standardized care.

Cardioprotective properties of sevoflurane in patients undergoing coronary surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass are related to the modalities of its administration

Background:Experimental studies have related the cardioprotective effects of sevoflurane both to preconditioning properties and to beneficial effects during reperfusion. In clinical studies, the cardioprotective effects of volatile agents seem more important when administered throughout the procedure than when used only in the preconditioning period. The authors hypothesized that the cardioprotective effects of sevoflurane observed in patients undergoing coronary surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass are related to timing and duration of its administration. Methods:Elective coronary surgery patients were randomly assigned to four different anesthetic protocols (n = 50 each). In a first group, patients received a propofol based intravenous regimen (propofol group). In a second group, propofol was replaced by sevoflurane from sternotomy until the start of cardiopulmonary bypass (SEVO pre group). In a third group, propofol was replaced by sevoflurane after completion of the coronary anastomoses (SEVO post group). In a fourth group, propofol was administered until sternotomy and then replaced by sevoflurane for the remaining of the operation (SEVO all group). Postoperative concentrations of cardiac troponin I were followed during 48 h. Cardiac function was assessed perioperatively and during 24 h postoperatively. Results:Postoperative troponin I concentrations in the SEVO all group were lower than in the propofol group. Stroke volume decreased transiently after cardiopulmonary bypass in the propofol group but remained unchanged throughout in the SEVO all group. In the SEVO pre and SEVO post groups, stroke volume also decreased after cardiopulmonary bypass but returned earlier to baseline values than in the propofol group. Duration of stay in the intensive care unit was lower in the SEVO all group than in the propofol group. Conclusion:In patients undergoing coronary artery surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass, the cardioprotective effects of sevoflurane were clinically most apparent when it was administered throughout the operation.

Sevoflurane but not propofol preserves myocardial function in coronary surgery patients

Background Sevoflurane has been shown to protect against myocardial ischemia and reperfusion injury in animals. The present study investigated whether these effects were clinically relevant and would protect left ventricular (LV) function during coronary surgery. Methods Twenty coronary surgery patients were randomly assigned to receive either target-controlled infusion of propofol or inhalational anesthesia with sevoflurane. Except for this, anesthetic and surgical management was the same in all patients. A high-fidelity pressure catheter was positioned in the left ventricle and the left atrium. LV response to increased cardiac load, obtained by leg elevation, was assessed before and after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Effects on contraction were evaluated by analysis of changes in dP/dtmax. Effects on relaxation were assessed by analysis of the load dependence of myocardial relaxation (R = slope of the relation between time constant &tgr; of isovolumic relaxation and end-systolic pressure). Postoperative concentrations of cardiac troponin I were followed during 36 h. Results Before CPB, leg elevation slightly increased dP/dtmax in the sevoflurane group (5 ± 3%), whereas it remained unchanged in the propofol group (1 ± 6%). After CPB, leg elevation resulted in a decrease in dP/dtmax in the propofol group (−5 ± 4%), whereas the response in the sevoflurane group was comparable to the response before CPB (5 ± 4%). Load dependence of LV pressure fall (R) was similar in both groups before CPB. After CPB, R was increased in the propofol group but not in the sevoflurane group. Troponin I concentrations were significantly lower in the sevoflurane than in the propofol group. Conclusions Sevoflurane preserved LV function after CPB with less evidence of myocardial damage in the first 36 h postoperatively. These data suggest a cardioprotective effect of sevoflurane during coronary artery surgery.

Effects of Propofol, Desflurane, and Sevoflurane on Recovery of Myocardial Function after Coronary Surgery in Elderly High-risk Patients

Background The present study investigated the effects of propofol, desflurane, and sevoflurane on recovery of myocardial function in high-risk coronary surgery patients. High-risk patients were defined as those older than 70 yr with three-vessel disease and an ejection fraction less than 50% with impaired length-dependent regulation of myocardial function. Methods Coronary surgery patients (n = 45) were randomly assigned to receive either target-controlled infusion of propofol or inhalational anesthesia with desflurane or sevoflurane. Cardiac function was assessed perioperatively and during 24 h postoperatively using a Swan-Ganz catheter. Perioperatively, a high-fidelity pressure catheter was positioned in the left and right atrium and ventricle. Response to increased cardiac load, obtained by leg elevation, was assessed before and after cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Effects on contraction were evaluated by analysis of changes in dP/dtmax. Effects on relaxation were assessed by analysis of the load-dependence of myocardial relaxation. Postoperative levels of cardiac troponin I were followed for 36 h. Results After CPB, cardiac index and dP/dtmax were significantly lower in patients under propofol anesthesia. Post-CPB, leg elevation resulted in a significantly greater decrease in dP/dtmax in the propofol group, whereas the responses in the desflurane and sevoflurane groups were comparable with the responses before CPB. After CPB, load dependence of left ventricular pressure drop was significantly higher in the propofol group than in the desflurane and sevoflurane group. Troponin I levels were significantly higher in the propofol group. Conclusions Sevoflurane and desflurane but not propofol preserved left ventricular function after CPB in high-risk coronary surgery patients with less evidence of myocardial damage postoperatively.

Choice of Primary Anesthetic Regimen Can Influence Intensive Care Unit Length of Stay after Coronary Surgery with Cardiopulmonary Bypass

Background:Volatile anesthetics protect the myocardium during coronary surgery. This study hypothesized that the use of a volatile agent in the anesthetic regimen would be associated with a shorter intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital length of stay (LOS), compared with a total intravenous anesthetic regimen. Methods:Elective coronary surgery patients were randomly assigned to receive propofol (n = 80), midazolam (n = 80), sevoflurane (n = 80), or desflurane (n = 80) as part of a remifentanil-based anesthetic regimen. Multiple logistic regression analysis was used to identify the independent variables associated with a prolonged ICU LOS. Results:Patient characteristics were similar in all groups. ICU and hospital LOS were lower in the sevoflurane and desflurane groups (P < 0.01). The number of patients who needed a prolonged ICU stay (> 48 h) was also significantly lower (propofol: n = 31; midazolam: n = 34; sevoflurane: n = 10; desflurane: n = 15; P < 0.01). Occurrence of atrial fibrillation, a postoperative troponin I concentration greater than 4 ng/ml, and the need for prolonged inotropic support (> 12 h) were identified as the significant risk factors for prolonged ICU LOS. Postoperative troponin I concentrations and need for prolonged inotropic support were lower in the sevoflurane and desflurane group (P < 0.01). Postoperative cardiac function was also better preserved with the volatile anesthetics. The incidence of other postoperative complications was similar in all groups. Conclusions:The use of sevoflurane and desflurane resulted in a shorter ICU and hospital LOS. This seemed to be related to a better preservation of early postoperative myocardial function.

Cardioprotection with Volatile Anesthetics: Mechanisms and Clinical Implications

Cardiac surgery and some noncardiac procedures are associated with a significant risk of perioperative cardiac morbid events. Experimental data indicate that clinical concentrations of volatile general anesthetics protect the myocardium from ischemia and reperfusion injury, as shown by decreased infarct size and a more rapid recovery of contractile function on reperfusion. These anesthetics may also mediate protective effects in other organs, such as the brain and kidney. Recently, a number of reports have indicated that these experimentally observed protective effects may also have clinical implications in cardiac surgery. However, the impact of the use of volatile anesthetics on outcome measures, such as postoperative mortality and recovery in cardiac and noncardiac surgery, is yet to be determined.

Levosimendan : molecular mechanisms and clinical implications: consensus of experts on the mechanisms of action of levosimendan

The molecular background of the Ca(2+)-sensitizing effect of levosimendan relates to its specific interaction with the Ca(2+)-sensor troponin C molecule in the cardiac myofilaments. Over the years, significant preclinical and clinical evidence has accumulated and revealed a variety of beneficial pleiotropic effects of levosimendan and of its long-lived metabolite, OR-1896. First of all, activation of ATP-sensitive sarcolemmal K(+) channels of smooth muscle cells appears as a powerful vasodilator mechanism. Additionally, activation of ATP-sensitive K(+) channels in the mitochondria potentially extends the range of cellular actions towards the modulation of mitochondrial ATP production and implicates a pharmacological mechanism for cardioprotection. Finally, it has become evident, that levosimendan possesses an isoform-selective phosphodiesterase-inhibitory effect. Interpretation of the complex mechanism of levosimendan action requires that all potential pharmacological interactions are analyzed carefully in the framework of the currently available evidence. These data indicate that the cardiovascular effects of levosimendan are exerted via more than an isolated drug-receptor interaction, and involve favorable energetic and neurohormonal changes that are unique in comparison to other types of inodilators.

Preoperative evaluation of the adult patient undergoing non-cardiac surgery: guidelines from the European Society of Anaesthesiology.

The purpose of these guidelines on the preoperative evaluation of the adult non-cardiac surgery patient is to present recommendations based on available relevant clinical evidence. The ultimate aims of preoperative evaluation are two-fold. First, we aim to identify those patients for whom the perioperative period may constitute an increased risk of morbidity and mortality, aside from the risks associated with the underlying disease. Second, this should help us to design perioperative strategies that aim to reduce additional perioperative risks. Very few well performed randomised studies on the topic are available and many recommendations rely heavily on expert opinion and are adapted specifically to the healthcare systems in individual countries. This report aims to provide an overview of current knowledge on the subject with an assessment of the quality of the evidence in order to allow anaesthetists all over Europe to integrate – wherever possible – this knowledge into daily patient care. The Guidelines Committee of the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) formed a task force with members of subcommittees of scientific subcommittees and individual members of the ESA. Electronic databases were searched from the year 2000 until July 2010 without language restrictions. These searches produced 15 425 abstracts. Relevant systematic reviews with meta-analyses, randomised controlled trials, cohort studies, case–control studies and cross-sectional surveys were selected. The Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network grading system was used to assess the level of evidence and to grade recommendations. The final draft guideline was posted on the ESA website for 4 weeks and the link was sent to all ESA members, individual or national (thus including most European national anaesthesia societies). Comments were collated and the guidelines amended as appropriate. When the final draft was complete, the Guidelines Committee and ESA Board ratified the guidelines.