PCC reverses anticoagulation safely, faster and with less bleeding than FFP.

Administration of DCLHb allowed a significant number (19%) of cardiac surgery patients to avoid exposure to erythrocytes postoperatively.

This multi-centre, parallel group, randomized, double-blind study compared the efficacy and safety of high-dose remifentanil administered by continuous infusion with an intermittent bolus fentanyl regimen, when given in combination with propofol for general anaesthesia in 321 patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass graft surgery. A significantly lower proportion of the patients who received remifentanil had responses to maximal sternal spread (the primary efficacy endpoint) compared with those who received fentanyl (11% vs 52%; P<0.001). More patients who received remifentanil responded to tracheal intubation compared with those who received fentanyl (24% vs 9%; P<0.001). However, fewer patients who received remifentanil responded to sternal skin incision (11% vs 36%; P<0.001) and sternotomy (14% vs 60%; P <0.001). Median time to extubation was longer in the subjects who received remifentanil than for those who received fentanyl (5.1 vs 4.2 h; P=0.006). There were no statistically significant differences between the two groups in the times for transfer from intensive care unit or hospital discharge but time to extubation was significantly longer in the remifentanil group. Overall, the incidence of adverse events was similar but greater in the remifentanil group with respect to shivering (P<0.049) and hypertension (P<0.001). Significantly more drug-related adverse events were reported in the remifentanil group (P=0.016). There were no drug-related adverse cardiac outcomes and no deaths from cardiac causes before hospital discharge in either treatment group.

N-methyl-D-aspartic acid receptors play an important role during ischemic brain injury. We could not demonstrate that S(+)-ketamine resulted in greater neuroprotective effects compared with remifentanil during cardiopulmonary bypass procedures when both were combined with propofol.

Midazolam and propofol were compared in an open randomized study for postoperative sedation during 12 h of mechanical ventilation in 40 patients following coronary artery bypass grafting. After an intravenous loading dose of midazolam (50 micrograms.kg-1) or propofol (500 micrograms.kg-1), a titrated continuous infusion was administered of midazolam (mean dose 38.1 micrograms.kg-1.h-1 (SEM 2.6)) or propofol (mean dose 909 micrograms.kg-1.h-1 (SEM 100)) together with a narcotic analgesic infusion. During mechanical ventilation midazolam and propofol produced a similar quality of sedation, but recovery (midazolam 66 min (SEM 16); propofol 24 min (SEM 7)) and weaning from the ventilator (midazolam 243 min (SEM 44); propofol 154 min (SEM 33)) where faster with propofol. In the 2 groups administration of an intravenous loading dose caused a significant decrease in mean arterial pressure but hemodynamic tolerance during maintenance infusion was good.