SUMMARY
Postpericardiotomy syndrome (PPS) is worsening or new formation of pericardial and/or pleural effusion mostly 1 to 6 weeks after cardiac surgery, as a result of autoimmune inflammatory reaction within pleural and pericardial space. Its incidence varies among different studies and registries (2% to 30%), as well as according to the type of cardiac surgery performed. We conducted this retrospective analysis of PPS incidence and diagnostic and treatment strategies in patients referred for cardiac surgery for revascularization, valvular and/or aortic surgery. We retrospectively analyzed 461 patients referred for an urgent or elective cardiac surgery procedure between 2009 and 2015. PPS diagnosis was established using well defined clinical criteria. Demographic and clinical characteristics were used in regression subanalysis among patients having undergone surgery of aortic valve and/or ascending aorta. Within 6 weeks after cardiac surgery, 47 (10.2%) patients had PPS. The median time from the procedure to PPS diagnosis was 14 days. The incidence of PPS was 26% after aortic valve and/or aorta surgery, and 7.9% and 8.3% after coronary bypass and mitral valve surgery, respectively. Among patients subjected to aortic valve and/or aortic surgery, regression analysis showed significant association of fever, C-reactive protein (CRP) elevation between 5 and 100 mg/L, urgent procedure and postoperative antibiotic use with PPS diagnosis, whereas younger age showed near-significant association. All patients had complete resolution of PPS, mostly after corticosteroid therapy, with only 2 cases of recurrent PPS that successfully resolved after colchicine therapy. Pleural drainage was indicated in 15 (32%) patients, whereas only one patient required pericardial drainage. In conclusion, PPS incidence in our retrospective analysis was similar to previous reports. Patients having undergone aortic valve and/or aortic surgery were most likely to develop PPS. The most relevant clinical criteria for diagnosis in these patients were fever, CRP elevation between 5 and 100 mg/L, and pericardial and/or pleural effusion formation or worsening 2 weeks after cardiac surgery.
Background: Survival after out-of-hospital cardiac arrest (OHCA) is still low. For every minute without resuscitation the likelihood of survival decreases.One critical step is initiation of immediate, high quality cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). The aim of this subgroup analysis of data collected for the European Registry of Cardiac Arrest Study number 2 (EuReCa TWO) was to investigate the association between OHCA survival and two types of bystander CPR namely: chest compression only CPR (CConly) and CPR with chest compressions and ventilations (FullCPR).Method: In this subgroup analysis of EuReCa TWO, all patients who received bystander CPR were included. Outcomes were return of spontaneous circulation and survival to 30-days or hospital discharge. A multilevel binary logistic regression analysis with survival as the dependent variable was performed.Results: A total of 5884 patients were included in the analysis, varying between countries from 21 to 1444. Survival was 320 (8%) in the CConly group and 174 (13%) in the FullCPR group. After adjustment for age, sex, location, rhythm, cause, time to scene, witnessed collapse and country, patients who received FullCPR had a significantly higher survival rate when compared to those who received CConly (adjusted odds ration 1.46, 95% confidence interval 1.17À1.83).
Conclusion:In this analysis, FullCPR was associated with higher survival compared to CConly. Guidelines should continue to emphasise the importance of compressions and ventilations during resuscitation for patients who suffer OHCA and CPR courses should continue to teach both.
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.