Since February 2011, 258 patients with AS and left ventricular hypertrophy underwent AVR with the Trifecta (TR) (St Jude Medical, St Paul, Minn) or Perimount Magna Ease (ME) (Edwards LifeSciences, Irvine, Calif) bioprosthesis. There were longer bypass and crossclamp times and the indexed left ventricular outflow tract was smaller in the TR group. For the TR and ME, respectively, peak (14.4 ± 5.1 mm Hg vs 20.9 ± 7.2 mm Hg; P < .001) and mean (7.3 ± 2.7 mm Hg vs 10.9 ± 4.3 mm Hg; P < .001) gradients were significantly smaller postoperatively in the TR group. There was greater total mass regression (44.3 g/m; 95% confidence interval [CI], 36.3-52.3 vs 29.5; 95% CI, 20.4-38.5 g/m; P = .020) and mass regression over time in the TR group compared with the ME group (P = .016). Freedom from readmission, congestive heart failure, and the composite outcome of all-cause mortality, readmission, and congestive heart failure at 2.5 years was significantly improved in the TR group (composite outcome in TR and ME groups, respectively, 90.2; 95% CI, 81.9-94.9 and 78.2; 95% CI, 67.1-86.0; P = .013) CONCLUSIONS: TR use was associated with significantly increased left ventricular mass regression and improved intermediate-term clinical outcome in patients with left ventricular hypertrophy undergoing AVR for AS, compared with use of the ME.

IntroductionAt the conception of this study (January 2019), a literature search by the authors found no evidence-based or consensus perioperative guidelines for patients consuming cannabis products, or for those patients in whom a cannabinoid medication could be considered for perioperative treatment. Currently, there is a large global population that consumes cannabis. The availability of cannabis has also increased this decade with greater legal access to cannabis products in some countries such as USA, Canada, Uruguay, Israel, Australia and Germany. There are recognised possible therapeutic benefits for the use of cannabis in patients with chronic pain, chronic neuropathic pain and chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting. There are also potential side effects from cannabis use such as psychosis, cannabis hyperemesis syndrome, misuse disorder and cannabis withdrawal syndrome. There is evidence that cannabis may also affect factors in the perioperative period such as monitoring, quality of analgesia, sleep and opioid consumption. Given the large population of persons using cannabis, the heterogeneity of cannabis products and the paucity (and heterogeneity) of perioperative literature surrounding it, perioperative guidelines for cannabis consuming patients are both lacking and necessary. In this paper, we present the design for a modified Delphi technique that has been started with the intent of deriving cannabis perioperative guidelines from the available medical literature and the consensus of multidisciplinary experts.Materials, methods and analysisThis study will use a scoping narrative literature review and modified Delphi process to generate cannabis perioperative guidelines. A scoping narrative review of cannabis in the perioperative period by the authors of this proposal was completed and provided to a panel of 17 experts. These experts were recruited for their knowledge and expertise regarding cannabis and/or perioperative medicine. They were asked to rate a series of indications and clinical scenarios in two rounds. During the first round, the expert panel was blinded to each other’s participation. During the second round of this process, the expert panel met after being provided with an analysis of the first round’s submissions so they could be discussed further and, if possible, reach a further consensus regarding them. Using the results obtained from the Delphi review process, a draft of proposed cannabis perioperative guidelines will be generated. These proposed guidelines will be returned to the expert panel for critiquing prior to their finalisation.Ethics and disseminationStudy and panellist data will be deidentified and stored as per institutional (Toronto General Hospital) guidelines. Institutional research ethics board provided a waiver for this modified Delphi protocol. Findings will be presented and published in peer-reviewed publications and conferences.

BackgroundTemporary pacemaker wires are placed in the majority of patients after cardiac surgery. There is no information on mechanical factors related to wire removal.MethodsClinical information related to temporary wire use and removal was prospectively collected from a large cardiac surgical unit over one year. Measurements of maximal tension that nurses and doctors would apply to remove temporary wires was determined using a hand-held portable scale. In a prospective trial, patients (n = 41) had their wires extracted in series to the portable scale to determine the maximal tension required for safe removal.ResultsVentricular wires were placed in 86.5 % of patients during the observed year. Pacing facilitated weaning from CPB in over 15 % of patients and pacer dependence was seen in 2.1 %. No patients suffered major complications after wire removal. There was no difference in the tension that physicians or nurses would apply to comfortably extract temporary wires. In the prospective trial, there was no difference in the tension required for removal of atrial or ventricular wires (atrial 18.3 ± 17.9 oz versus 14.5 ± 14.2 oz, p = 0.430). There were no patient factors that correlated with the degree of resistance and there was no significant difference between the tension required to remove wires with (21.0 ± 22.5 oz) or without (14.1 ± 5.1 oz) an atrial button.ConclusionsTemporary epicardial wire removal is innocuous and was not associated with any complications. In some patients tension required for safe removal exceeded 20 ounces. Strategies to standardize wire removal may prevent complications and may minimize unnecessary wire retention.

No abstract