Bleeding after cardiac surgery is a common and serious complication leading to transfusion of multiple blood products and resulting in increased morbidity and mortality. Despite the publication of numerous guidelines and consensus statements for patient blood management in cardiac surgery, research has revealed that adherence to these guidelines is poor, and as a result, a significant variability in patient transfusion practices among practitioners still remains. In addition, although utilization of point-of-care (POC) coagulation monitors and the use of novel therapeutic strategies for perioperative hemostasis, such as the use of coagulation factor concentrates, have increased significantly over the last decade, they are still not widely available in every institution. Therefore, despite continuous efforts, blood transfusion in cardiac surgery has only modestly declined over the last decade, remaining at ≥50% in high-risk patients. Given these limitations, and in response to new regulatory and legislature requirements, the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists (SCA) has formed the Blood Conservation in Cardiac Surgery Working Group to organize, summarize, and disseminate the available best-practice knowledge in patient blood management in cardiac surgery. The current publication includes the summary statements and algorithms designed by the working group, after collection and review of the existing guidelines, consensus statements, and recommendations for patient blood management practices in cardiac surgery patients. The overall goal is creating a dynamic resource of easily accessible educational material that will help to increase and improve compliance with the existing evidence-based best practices of patient blood management by cardiac surgery care teams.

Bleeding after cardiac surgery is a common and serious complication leading to transfusion of multiple blood products and resulting in increased morbidity and mortality. Despite the publication of numerous guidelines and consensus statements for patient blood management in cardiac surgery, research has revealed that adherence to these guidelines is poor, and as a result, a significant variability in patient transfusion practices among practitioners still remains. In addition, although utilization of point of care coagulation monitors and the use of novel therapeutic strategies for perioperative hemostasis, such as the use of coagulation factor concentrates, has increased significantly over the last decade, they are still not widely available in every institution. Therefore, despite continuous efforts, blood transfusion in cardiac surgery has declined only modestly over the last decade, remaining at 50% or greater in high-risk patients. Given these limitations and in response to new regulatory and legislature requirements, the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists has formed the Blood Conservation in Cardiac Surgery Working Group in order to organize, summarize, and disseminate the available best-practice knowledge in patient blood management in cardiac surgery. The current publication includes the summary statements and algorithms designed by the working group, after collection and review of the existing guidelines, consensus statements, and recommendations for patient blood management practices in cardiac surgery patients. The overall goal is creating a dynamic resource of easily accessible educational material that will help to increase and improve compliance with the existing evidence-based best practices of patient blood management by cardiac surgery care teams.

Objective: The aim of this study was to report the safety, efficacy, and early results of tracheostomy in patients with COVID-19 and determine whether differences exist between percutaneous and open methods. Summary Background Data: Prolonged respiratory failure is common in symptomatic patients with COVID-19, the disease process caused by infection with the novel severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Tracheostomy, although posing potential risk to the operative team and other healthcare workers, may be beneficial for safe weaning of sedation and ventilator support. However, short- and long-term outcomes remain largely unknown. Methods: A prospectively collected database of patients with COVID-19 undergoing tracheostomy at a major medical center in New York City between April 4 and April 30, 2020 was reviewed. The primary endpoint was need for continued mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes included complication rates, sedation weaning, and need for intensive care unit (ICU) level of care. Patient characteristics, perioperative conditions, and outcomes between percutaneous and open groups were analyzed. Results: During the study period, 67 consecutive patients underwent tracheostomy, including 48 males and 19 females with a median age of 66 years [interquartile range (IQR) 52–72]. Two surgeons alternated techniques, with 35 tracheostomies performed percutaneously and 32 via an open approach. The median time from intubation to tracheostomy was 23 days (IQR 20–26). At a median follow-up of 26 days, 52 patients (78%) no longer required mechanical ventilation and 58 patients (87%) were off continuous sedation. Five patients (7.5%) died of systemic causes. There were 11 total complications (16%) in 10 patients, most of which involved minor bleeding. There were no significant differences in outcomes between percutaneous and open methods. Conclusions: Tracheostomy under apneic conditions by either percutaneous or open technique can be safely performed in patients with respiratory failure due to COVID-19. Tracheostomy facilitated weaning from continuous intravenous sedation and mechanical ventilation. Continued follow-up of these patients to ascertain long-term outcome data is ongoing.

Objective Report long‐term tracheostomy outcomes in patients with COVID‐19. Study Design Review of prospectively collected data. Methods Prospectively collected data were extracted for adults with COVID‐19 undergoing percutaneous or open tracheostomy between April 4, 2020 and June 2, 2020 at a major medical center in New York City. The primary endpoint was weaning from mechanical ventilation. Secondary outcomes included sedation weaning, decannulation, and discharge. Results One hundred one patients underwent tracheostomy, including 48 percutaneous (48%) and 53 open (52%), after a median intubation time of 24 days (IQR 20, 31). The most common complication was minor bleeding (n = 18, 18%). The all‐cause mortality rate was 15% and no deaths were attributable to the tracheostomy. Eighty‐three patients (82%) were weaned off mechanical ventilation, 88 patients (87%) were weaned off sedation, and 72 patients (71%) were decannulated. Censored median times from tracheostomy to sedation and ventilator weaning were 8 (95% CI 6–11) and 18 (95% CI 14–22) days, respectively (uncensored: 7 and 15 days). Median time from tracheostomy to decannulation was 36 (95% CI 32–47) days (uncensored: 32 days). Of those decannulated, 82% were decannulated during their index admission. There were no differences in outcomes or complication rates between percutaneous and open tracheostomy. Likelihood of discharge from the ICU was inversely related to intubation time, though the clinical relevance of this was small (HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.943–0.998; P = .037). Conclusion Tracheostomy by either percutaneous or open technique facilitated sedation and ventilator weaning in patients with COVID‐19 after prolonged intubation. Additional study on the optimal timing of tracheostomy in patients with COVID‐19 is warranted. Level of Evidence 3 Laryngoscope , 2021