Flow measurements: Can several “Wrongs” make a “Right”?

AIMS: Although measurement of maximum flow rate (Qmax) is a standard and straightforward test, it is often difficult to obtain reliable readings. We obtained multiple measurements using a simple home uroflow device which categorizes Qmax into ranges. We hypothesize that the average of a series of relatively coarse measurements of Qmax would be more repeatable and therefore more representative of an individual's voiding function than a single, albeit more precise measurement. METHODS: We studied 22 male volunteers with a wide range of Qmax. They were asked to record flow category (<10 ml/sec; 10-15 ml/sec; 15-20 ml/sec; >20 ml/sec) and voided volume twice daily for 12 days using the home flow device. In addition, a clinic-based flow recording using a spinning-disc uroflowmeter was obtained at both the start and the end of the 12-day period. RESULTS: Good agreement between mean home flow and mean clinic flow was seen with mean (SD) difference of 1.3 (5) ml/sec. The mean for consecutive halves of an individual's home flow data showed excellent agreement (-0.2 (1.3) ml/sec). The two clinic readings showed poorer agreement (2.3 (6.8) ml/sec) than the home readings, and poorer agreement even than between clinic and home flows. CONCLUSIONS: Although simple in design, the home flowmeter actually shows greater accuracy than might be expected when used repeatedly to study the flow rates of men. Simple flow devices such as this could be used in conjunction with voiding diaries to give a more representative picture of patients' day-to-day voiding function.     

Use of SARS‐CoV‐2‐infected deceased organ donors: Should we always “just say no?”

In the context of a rapidly evolving pandemic, multiple organizations have released guidelines stating that all organs from potential deceased donors with severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS‐CoV‐2) infection should be deferred, including from otherwise medically eligible donors found to have mild or asymptomatic SARS‐CoV‐2 discovered on routine donor screening. In this article, we critically examine the available data on the risk of transmission of SARS‐CoV‐2 through organ transplantation. The isolation of SARS‐CoV‐2 from nonlung clinical specimens, the detection of SARS‐CoV‐2 in autopsy specimens, previous experience with the related coronaviruses SARS‐CoV and MERS‐CoV, and the vast experience with other common RNA respiratory viruses are all addressed. Taken together, these data provide little evidence to suggest the presence of intact transmissible SARS‐CoV in organs that can potentially be transplanted, specifically liver and heart. Other considerations including ethical, financial, societal, and logistical concerns are also addressed. We conclude that, for selected patients with high waitlist mortality, transplant programs should consider accepting heart or liver transplants from deceased donors with SARS‐CoV‐2 infection.     

Central venous catheters for chronic hemodialysis: Is “last choice” never the “right choice”?

Since the publication of the first vascular access clinical practice guidelines in 1997, the global nephrology community has dedicated significant time and resources toward increasing the prevalence of arteriovenous fistulas and decreasing the prevalence of central venous catheters for hemodialysis. These efforts have been bolstered by observational studies showing an association between catheter use and increased patient morbidity and mortality. To date, however, no randomized comparisons of the outcomes of different forms of vascular access have been conducted. There is mounting evidence that much of the difference in patient outcomes may be explained by patient factors, rather than choice of vascular access. Some have called into question the appropriateness of fistula creation for certain patient populations, such as those with limited life expectancy and those at high risk of fistula‐related complications. In this review, we explore the extent to which catheters and fistulas exhibit the characteristics of the “ideal” vascular access and highlight the significant knowledge gaps that exist in the current literature. Further studies, ideally randomized comparisons of different forms of vascular access, are required to better inform shared decision making.     

Does On‐Pump/Beating‐Heart Coronary Artery Bypass Grafting Offer Better Outcome in End‐Stage Coronary Artery Disease Patients?

OBJECTIVES: The purpose of our study was to evaluate in a cohort of end-stage coronary artery disease (ESCAD) patients the effects of on-pump/beating-heart versus conventional coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) requiring cardioplegic arrest. We report early and midterm survival, morbidity, and improvement of left ventricular (LV) function. METHODS: Between January 1992 and October 1999, 107 (Group I) ESCAD patients underwent on-pump/beating-heart surgery and 191 (Group II) ESCAD patients underwent conventional CABG requiring cardioplegic arrest. Mean age in Group I was 65.8 +/- 6.5 years (58-79 years); New York Heart Association (NYHA) and Canadian Cardiovascular Society (CCS) classifications were 3.2 +/- 0.4 and 3.3 +/- 0.5, respectively. LV ejection fraction (LVEF) was 24.8% +/- 4%, LV end diastolic pressure (LVEDP) was 28.2 +/- 3.8 mmHg, and LV end diastolic diameter (LVEDD) was 69.6 +/- 4.6 mm. Mean age in Group II was 64.1 +/- 5 years (57-76 years), NYHA class was 3 +/- 0.6, CCS class was 3.4 +/- 0.4, LVEF was 26.2% +/- 4.3%, LVEDP was 27.2 +/- 3.4 mmHg, and LVED was 68 +/- 4.2 mm. RESULTS: Preoperatively, Group I patients versus Group II patients had a markedly depressed LV function (LVEF, p = 0.006; LVEDP, p = 0.02; LVEDD, p = 0.003; and NYHA class, p = 0.002), older age (p = 0.012), and higher incidences of multiple acute myocardial infarction (AMI; p = 0.004), cardiovascular disease (CVD; p = 0.008), and chronic renal failure (CRH, p = 0.002). Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) time was longer in Group II patients (p = 0.028). The mean distal anastomosis per patient was similar between groups (p = NS). Operative mortality between Groups I and II was 7 (6.5%) and 19 (10%), respectively (p = NS). Perioperative AMI (p = 0.034), low cardiac output syndrome (LCOS; p = 0.011), necessity for ultrafiltration (p = 0.017), and bleeding (p = 0.012) were higher in Group II. Improvement of LV function within 3 months after the surgical procedure was markedly higher in Group I, demonstrated by increased LVEF (p = 0.035), lower LVEDP (p = 0.027), and LVEDD (p = 0.001) versus the preoperative data in Group II. The actuarial survivals at 1, 3, and 5 years were 95%, 86%, and 73% in Group I and 95%, 84%, and 72% in Group II (p = NS). CONCLUSIONS: ESCAD patients with bypassable vessels to two or more regions of reversible ischemia can undergo safe CABG with acceptable hospital survival and mortality and morbidity. In higher risk ESCAD patients, who may poorly tolerate cardioplegic arrest, on-pump/beating-heart CABG may be an acceptable alternative associated with lower postoperative mortality and morbidity. Such a technique offers better myocardial and renal protection associated with lower postoperative complications.     

Are Coronary Angiograms of Value in the Risk Stratification of Patients Undergoing Coronary Artery Bypass Surgery?

INTRODUCTION

There are currently more than 20 risk-scoring systems that attempt to predict peri-operative mortality following coronary artery bypass surgery (CABG). All these scoring systems use objective criteria to assess operative risk. Angiographic data are currently not included in any of these systems. This pilot study assessed the value of coronary angiography in predicting peri-operative mortality following CABG.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Fourteen patients who died following first-time isolated CABG surgery were identified. These were matched with 14 patients of similar age, sex, left ventricle function and European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE). A panel of 25 clinicians were given details of the patients'' age, sex, diabetic status, family history, smoking history, hypertensive status, lipid status, pre-operative symptoms, left ventricle ejection fraction and weight and shown the coronary angiograms of the patient. They were asked to predict the outcome following CABG for each patient.

RESULTS

Receiver operator characteristic curves were constructed and the area under the curves calculated and analysed using a commercially available statistical package (PRISM). The area under the curve for the group was 0.6820 for the group. Consultant clinicians achieved an area of 0.6789 versus their trainees 0.6844 (P = NS). The cardiologists achieved an area of 0.7063 versus the cardiothoracic surgeons 0.6491 (P = NS).

CONCLUSIONS

Despite the EuroSCORE predicting equal risk for the two groups of patients, it would appear that clinicians are able to identify individual higher risk patients by assessing pre-operatively the quality of the patient'' coronary vasculature. Although the clinicians were able to predict individual patient mortality better than the EuroSCORE, the area under the curve indicates that it is not a robust method and clinicians, with all the clinical information to hand, are only moderately good at predicting the outcome following coronary artery bypass surgery.