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.

In five different statistical analysis methods used, treatment effect of medical therapy was slightly better than recovery under placebo in which spontaneous recovery could be assumed, but no significant effect was detected. Against the background of recovery under placebo of 14.3 dB vs. 15.8 dB hearing gain of active treatment as averages of all measured frequencies, recovery under placebo seems not to have worse outcome than recovery under medical therapy.

No abstract

Purpose of the Review The present review addresses clinicians and gives an overview about the experimental rationale for pharmacological conditioning associated with volatile anesthetics, opioids, and propofol; the current clinical data; and the technical considerations regarding the clinical routine in cardiac anesthesia. Recent Findings Volatile anesthetics have been standard of care for general anesthesia for cardiac surgery, especially while using cardiopulmonary bypass. The 2019 published MYRIAD trial was not able to show a difference in mortality or cardiac biomarkers for volatile anesthetics compared to total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA), raising the question of equivalence with respect to patient outcome. Summary Reviewing the literature, the scientific foundation for the belief of clinically relevant conditioning by uninterrupted administration of a volatile anesthetic is weak. TIVA can also be performed safely in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

No abstract