Carotid endarterectomy – Is intensive care unit care necessary?

Purpose: The purpose of this study was to determine whether postoperative intensive care unit care is necessary for all patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy and whether a subgroup of patients at low-risk not requiring treatment in the intensive care unit could be identified. Methods: Case control analysis of random numbers sample over the last decade of 50% of patients undergoing isolated carotid endarterectomy at a tertiary care hospital. One hundred twenty-nine patients undergoing carotid endarterectomy were identified. Preoperative risk factors, intraoperative course, intensive case unit interventions including vasoactive agents, myocardial ischemia/infarction, arrhythmias, bronchospasm, reintubation, neurologic events, and need for reoperation, were recorded. Timing of interventions, length of stay in intensive care unit, and postoperative course were all recorded. Financial impact was assessed. Results: Among 129 patients only 31 patients did not require intensive care unit interventions. A multivariate linear regression analysis demonstrated a model in which a preoperative history of hypertension, myocardial infarction, arrhythmia, and chronic renal failure were 83% predictive of the need for an intensive care unit bed. Specifically, patients could be stratified into a low-risk group before the operation by less than four risk factors. Additionally, all patients requiring interventions or with adverse outcomes were identified by the eighth postoperative hour. Conclusions: In preoperative scheduling of intensive care unit beds, patients with less than four risk factors can be stratified to monitoring beds and those with greater than or equal to four can be stratified to intervention beds. After 8 hours, if no interventions are necessary or adverse outcomes occur, then floor recovery is safe. Patients who satisfy this algorithm would save 50% of current intensive care unit charges. (J VASC SURG 1994;20:403-10.)     

Do patients after off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting need the intensive care unit? A prospective audit of 85 patients

With limited resources, cardiac surgery is frequently cancelled due to lack of ICU beds. Immediate postoperative extubation (UFT) is performed in our hospital setting. The aim of the present study is to report patients undergoing off-pump aortocoronary bypass grafting (OPCABG) with immediate extubation and no ICU stay. Eighty-five patients undergoing OPCABG were included. UFT analgesia consisted of high thoracic epidural analgesia (n=65), or PCA morphine (n=20). Discharge criteria from PACU to cardiac ward were: alert, cooperative patient, respiratory rate <25/min, PaO(2)>80 mmHg and PaCO(2)<45 mmHg, temperature >36 degrees C, hemodynamic stability, no bleeding, no ischemia, and sufficient analgesia. More males (71/14) were included. Mean age was 63.4 years, NYHA class III, ejection fraction 59.4. Three grafts were performed in 119 min. Patients were extubated 12+/-2 min after closure. After 428 min in PACU, four patients did not meet ward criteria; three bradycardia requiring pacing, one elevated CK-MB. Two patients returned to the ICU, one for hypertension, and one for hypovolemia. Cardiac complications were: atrial fibrillation (29%), MI=2, bradycardia=3. During the same period, 304 OR-extubated patients spent 21+/-6 h in the ICU. The cost from leaving the OR until the patient reached the cardiac ward was 1265$ for ICU bypass patients vs. 6405$ for ICU patients, the difference representing 5140$ per patient. ICU bypass after OPCABG is safe. By avoiding ICU, this protocol reduces costs, improves resource utilization and may reduce OR cancellation due to ICU bed shortages.     

Only some septicaemic patients develop hypernatremia in the burn intensive care unit: why?

From April 1993 to January 2000, 105 patients in the burn intensive care unit (BICU) that developed septicaemia in the course of their treatment were studied retrospectively to investigate as to why only 36 septicaemic patients (34%) developed hypernatremia (serum sodium >150mmol/l). Septicaemic burn patients who developed hypernatremia were found to have a higher incidence of inhalation injury and a larger burn area (TBSA) signifying greater free water losses in the face of increasing fluid requirements. Patients who developed hypernatremia showed a characteristic pattern of septicaemia: early onset, multiple episodes, polymicrobial, need for multiple antibiotics, longer duration and a higher mortality, indicating a more severe degree of sepsis. The level of incapacitation either from the burn itself, mechanical ventilation or from impaired mental status leading to an inadequate free water intake was more in septicaemic patients who developed hypernatremia. Increased urinary free water losses and solute diuresis from hyperglycemia were significant factors in the development of hypernatremia. Patients who were treated with early wound excisions were less prone to develop hypernatremia when compared to those who did not undergo early wound excision. The close association between the onset of hypernatremia and the onset of septicaemia noted in this study suggests the use of hypernatremia as a marker for septicaemia in burn patients. Hypernatremia in a septicaemic burn patient is multi-factorial and a thorough understanding of the underlying factors will help prevent the onset and progress of hypernatremia.     

Blood usage in an Australian intensive care unit: have we met best practice goals?

The transfusion of blood products, especially red cell concentrates, in critically ill patients is controversial and benefits of red cell concentrate transfusion in these patients have not been clearly demonstrated. We performed a prospective observational study to compare best evidence to actual practice of red cell concentrate and other blood product administration in an intensive care unit (ICU) in a university-associated tertiary hospital. All primary admissions during a 28-day period were included in the study and data collected included transfusion of red cells and blood products, patient demographics and ICU and hospital outcome. One hundred and seventy-five admissions were studied; 44% followed cardiac surgery. Forty-one patients (23%) received red cell concentrates in ICU, with 120 units transfused in 61 separate episodes. Other blood product usage was minimal. One third (20/61) of red cell concentrate transfusion episodes were of a single unit. The mean (+/- SD) pre-transfusion haemoglobin was 7.9 +/- 1.1 g/dl. Despite transfusion, such patients left ICU with a lower haemoglobin concentration compared with untransfused ICU patients (9.5 +/- 1.0 versus 10.5 +/- 2.1 g/dl; P < 0.001). Cardiac surgical patients received similar red cell transfusion to general ICU patients. Univariate analysis showed no significant difference in mortality between patients who did or did not receive red cell concentrate transfusion (P = 0.17). However, red cell concentrate transfusion was associated with a reduced adjusted mortality both in ICU (OR 0.13, 95% CI 0.02-0.73) and in hospital at 28 days (OR 0.10, 95% CI 0.02-0.58). The low red cell concentrate and blood product usage in our ICU were consistent with restrictive transfusion practice and selective red cell concentrate transfusion was associated with reduced mortality.     

Should patients with recent-onset polyarthritis receive aggressive treatment?

The diagnostic and therapeutic management of rheumatoid arthritis has benefited considerably in recent years not only from the introduction of new treatments (including new disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs, new combinations of these drugs, and TNF inhibitors), but also from the development of new concepts. Important new concepts include the use of novel diagnostic approaches, very early management within the first 3-6 months of symptom onset, periodic assessments of clinical disease activity based on objective clinical criteria and radiographic progression, and earlier use of aggressive treatments. The goal is to induce a clinical remission, thereby preventing radiographic deterioration. These concepts are firmly supported by sound scientific data. At present, patients at risk for progression to severe rheumatoid arthritis must be identified early on, and disease activity and progression must be monitored closely. This should enable patients with highly progressive disease to receive aggressive treatment (e.g., a combination of disease-modifying antirheumatic drugs or biological therapy) very early on with the goal of minimizing joint destruction and subsequent functional impairments.     

Do patients with acute liver failure have a better chance to receive liver grafting?

OBJECTIVE: Patients with acute hepatic failure (AHF) were always given first priority on the transplant waiting list. We investigated whether AHF patients will deprive other patients on the waiting list of the chance of liver transplantation (LTx). METHODS AND RESULTS: From January 1999 to March 2003, a total of 423 patients were on the transplant waiting list at the National Taiwan University Hospital. Sixty-five of the patients had AHF caused by hepatitis-B-related disease (HBV, n = 52, 80%), Wilson disease (n = 3, 4.6%), drug-induced AHF (n = 3, 4.6%), and other causes (n = 7, 10.8%).Thirty-three patients died and 16 survived by medical treatment. Two received LTx abroad and 14 underwent LTx at our hospital (7 living-related; 7 cadaver). A total of 140 patients died while waiting for a transplant during the period studied. Of them, 107 were among 358 non-AHF patients (30%), and time-to-death interval was 133 +/- 175 days (median: 62); 33 were among 65 AHF patients (51%); time to death was 19 +/- 28 days (median: 8). There were 35 cadaver donor livers available during the period; 28 of 358 non-AHF patients (7.8%), and 7 of 65 AHF patients (10.7%) received cadaveric LTx. Their waiting time totaled 342 +/- 316 and 12 +/- 9 days, respectively (P < .0001). CONCLUSION: Most AHF patients died unless they received liver grafts. Even with a higher priority assigned to them, AHF patients still have little chance to get a cadaver donor liver in Taiwan, and non-AHF patients have an even slimmer chance. Therefore, we need to encourage liver donation from living-related donors.     

Do we know the optimal dose for renal replacement therapy in the intensive care unit?

Increasing the dose of renal replacement therapy might increase survival in critically ill patients with acute renal failure. For continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT), a single-center study suggests that increasing urea clearance from 20 ml/kg/h to 35-45 ml/kg/h might increase short-term survival. A further single-center study has now confirmed that the dose of CRRT might be a determinant of outcome. This issue is now being addressed by two large multicenter randomized controlled trials in the United States (the ATN study) and Australia and New Zealand (the RENAL study). The results of these two studies should be available in 2008. Before making any major changes to practice, it seems prudent to wait for the publication of the findings of these two pivotal trials.     

Use and care of an endotracheal/tracheostomy tube cuff--are intensive care unit staff adequately informed?

BACKGROUND: There is an apparent high incidence of tracheal stenosis in the Bloemfontein area. The aim of this study was to determine intensive care unit (ICU) staff knowledge of the use and care of endotracheal and tracheostomy tube cuffs. METHODS: One hundred and twelve qualified nurses, working in 11 different ICUs, were asked to complete an anonymous questionnaire regarding endotracheal/tracheostomy tube cuffs. RESULTS: The results highlight the following three areas of concern: (i) there was an overall misconception in 38% of the respondents that the function of the cuff was to secure the tube in position in the trachea to prevent self-extubation; (ii) accurate regulation of cuff pressure was not routine practice in any of the ICUs; and (iii) only half of the respondents felt their training regarding cuff care management was sufficient. CONCLUSIONS: ICU staff had misconceptions regarding the function and care of endotracheal/tracheostomy tube cuffs. The concept of a higher cuff pressure for better stabilisation of the tube is probably an important factor that could have caused the increase in tracheal stenosis in the Bloemfontein area. Critical care nursing needs to emphasise the use of current techniques, discourage routine cuff deflation, and encourage collaboration with ICU physicians on standards of care. A protocol that could be used in the ICUs regarding the use and care of an endotracheal/tracheostomy tube cuff is proposed.     

Do elderly patients deserve a kidney graft?

PURPOSE: Compare renal transplant long-term outcomes among recipients aged 60 years or older with those in younger patients. PATIENTS AND METHODS: We analyzed 103 transplants in recipients above 60 years of age for the influence of key factors related to the graft and patient. The results were compared with 1060 transplant recipients aged 18 to 59 years. RESULTS: The mean ages were 62.93 and 40.35 years for the older and younger group. The older group showed a higher prevalence of obesity and unknown etiologies for the end-stage renal disease. Important comorbidity was significantly more frequent among recipients aged more than 60 years, mainly of a cardiovascular nature (56% vs 18.5%). Donor age (39.75 vs 31.59 years), cold ischemia time (22.43 vs 20.49 hours) and human leukocyte antigen compatibilities (2.59 vs 2.36) were significantly greater in the older subset. After a mean follow-up of 4.72 and 6.07 years for the older versus younger group, we found no differences in initial graft function, acute rejection rate, and serum creatinine/clearance. Patient and graft survivals at 1, 5, and 10 years were lower among the 60+ group. There were no differences in graft survival censored for death with a functioning graft, namely, 95.1%, 89.4%, and 81.2% for the 60+ cohort. The main cause of graft loss in the older group was death with a functioning graft. CONCLUSION: Renal transplantation should be considered for selected patients older than 60 years. Despite a shorter life expectancy, they benefit from it similar to younger recipients.     

Do standardized hip fracture care programs decrease mortality in geriatric hip fracture patients?

There is mounting support for the implementation of a standardized hip fracture program (SHFP) for geriatric patients. However, the current evidence to assess geriatric hip fracture outcomes following treatment in a SHFP is limited to small, single-center, observational studies. Using a large, multinational dataset, this study aims to assess whether enrollment in a SHFP was associated with improved 30-day patient-important outcomes in geriatric hip fracture patients. The secondary aim was to evaluate if the SHFP treatment effect varies by baseline mortality risk.An observational cohort study was conducted using data from the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) for the years of 2016 and 2017. The study included 17,395 geriatric hip fracture patients over the age of 65. Over half (54%) of patients were enrolled in a SHFP on admission to hospital. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes included 30-day reoperation and readmission. Multivariable logistic regression was used to estimate treatment effects, adjusting for race, anesthesia technique, and baseline mortality risk. The heterogeneity of treatment effect was determined by stratifying patients into quartiles based on their baseline mortality risk.The overall 30-day mortality risk was 6.6%. Enrollment in a SHFP did not reduce the 30-day risk of mortality (risk difference (RD): -0.2; 95% CI: -0.7, 0.3; p = 0.48), reoperation (RD: -0.2%; 95% CI: -0.6, 0.3; p = 0.36) or readmission (RD: -0.4%; 95% CI: -0.1, 0.4%; p = 0.20) when analyzed as a single sample. However, there were greater differences in the SHFP treatment effects when stratified by their preoperative mortality risk. Specifically, a 2.0% (95% CI: 4.2, 0.0%; p = 0.06) reduction in mortality was observed in the patients in the highest risk quartile for mortality and a 1.7% (95% CI: -3.2, -0.2%; p = 0.02) reduction in the medium-high risk quartile.The NSQIP data suggest that SHFPs do not significantly improve the short-term outcomes for the average geriatric hip fracture patient. However, a SHFP may significantly reduce the risk of 30-day mortality in higher risk patients. Therefore, the efficiency of SHFPs could potentially be improved with targeted deployment to high risk geriatric hip fracture patients.