Background: Cardiac surgery often represents the only treatment option in patients with infective endocarditis (IE). However, IE surgery may lead to a sudden release of inflammatory mediators, which is associated with the severity of postoperative organ dysfunction. We investigated the impact of hemoadsorption during IE surgery on postoperative organ dysfunction. Methods: This multi-center, randomized, non-blinded, controlled trial assigned patients undergoing cardiac surgery for IE to hemoadsorption [integration of CytoSorb® to cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB)] or control. The Primary outcome (ΔSOFA) was defined as the difference between the mean total postoperative sequential organ failure assessment score (SOFA), calculated maximally to the 9th postoperative day, and the basal SOFA score. The analysis was by modified intention-to-treat. A predefined inter-group comparison was done using a linear mixed model for ΔSOFA including surgeon and baseline SOFA as fixed effect covariates and with the surgical center as random effect. The SOFA score assesses dysfunction in six organ systems, each scored from zero to four. Higher scores indicate worsening dysfunction. Secondary outcomes were 30-day mortality, durations of mechanical ventilation, vasopressor and renal replacement therapy. Cytokines were measured in the first 50 patients. Results: Between January 17, 2018 and January 31, 2020, A total of 288 patients were randomly assigned to hemoadsorption (n=142) or control (n=146). Four patients in the hemoadsorption and two in the control group were excluded as they did not undergo surgery. The primary outcome ΔSOFA did not differ between the hemoadsorption and the control group (1.79 ± 3.75 and 1.93 ± 3.53, respectively, 95% CI: −1.30 to 0.83, p=0.6766). Mortality at 30 days (21% hemoadsorption vs 22% control, p=0.782), the durations of mechanical ventilation, vasopressor and renal replacement therapy did not differ between groups. Levels of IL-1β and IL-18 at the end of CPB were significantly lower in the hemoadsorption than in the control group. Conclusions: This randomized trial failed to demonstrate a reduction in postoperative organ dysfunction through intraoperative hemoadsorption in patients undergoing cardiac surgery for IE. Although hemoadsorption reduced plasma cytokines at the end of CPB, there was no difference in any of the clinically relevant outcome points.
Percutaneous groin cannulation using ACDs for establishing cardiopulmonary bypass in minimally invasive valve surgery significantly reduces groin complications, operation time and hospital stay. However, the remaining complications are mainly of vascular nature versus wound infection and lymph fistulae with cutdown.
No abstract
For the year 2016, more than 20,000 published references can be found in Pubmed when entering the search term "cardiac surgery". Publications last year have helped to more clearly delineate the fields where classic surgery and modern interventional techniques overlap. The field of coronary bypass surgery (partially compared to percutaneous coronary intervention) was enriched by five large prospective randomized trials. The value of CABG for complex coronary disease was reconfirmed and for less complex main stem lesions, PCI was found potentially equal. For aortic valve treatment, more evidence was presented for the superiority of transcatheter aortic valve implantation for patients with intermediate risk. However, the 2016 evidence argued against the liberal expansion to the low-risk field, where conventional aortic valve replacement still appears superior. For the mitral valve, many publications emphasized the significant impact of mitral valve reconstruction on survival in structural mitral regurgitation. In addition, there were many relevant and other interesting contributions from the purely operative arena in the fields of coronary revascularization, surgical treatment of valve disease, terminal heart failure (i.e., transplantation and ventricular assist devices), and aortic surgery. While this article attempts to summarize the most pertinent publications it does not have the expectation of being complete and cannot be free of individual interpretation. As in recent years, it provides a condensed summary that is intended to give the reader "solid ground" for up-to-date decision-making in cardiac surgery.
In 2020, nearly 30,000 published references appeared in the PubMed for the search term “cardiac surgery.” While SARS-CoV-2 affected the number of surgical procedures, it did not affect outcomes reporting. Using the PRISMA approach, we selected relevant publications and prepared a results-oriented summary. We reviewed primarily the fields of coronary and conventional valve surgery and their overlap with interventional alternatives. The coronary field started with a discussion on trial data value and their interpretation. Registry comparisons of coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG) and percutaneous coronary intervention confirmed outcomes for severe coronary artery disease and advanced comorbidities with CABG. Multiple arterial grafting was best. In aortic valve surgery, meta-analyses of randomized trials report that transcatheter aortic valve implantation may provide a short-term advantage but long-term survival may be better with classic aortic valve replacement (AVR). Minimally invasive AVR and decellularized homografts emerged as hopeful techniques. In mitral and tricuspid valve surgery, excellent perioperative and long-term outcomes were presented for structural mitral regurgitation. For both, coronary and valve surgery, outcomes are strongly dependent on surgeon expertise. Kidney disease increases perioperative risk, but does not limit the surgical treatment effect. Finally, a cursory look is thrown on aortic, transplant, and assist-device surgery with a glimpse into the current stand of xenotransplantation. As in recent years, this article summarizes publications perceived as important by us. It does not expect to be complete and cannot be free of individual interpretation. We aimed to provide up-to-date information for decision-making and patient information.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
customersupport@researchsolutions.com
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.