Current evidence suggests that the use of a cell saver reduces exposure to allogeneic blood products or red blood cell transfusion for patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Subanalyses suggest that a cell saver may be beneficial only when it is used for shed blood and/or residual blood or during the entire operative period. Processing cardiotomy suction blood with a cell saver only during cardiopulmonary bypass has no significant effect on blood conservation and increases fresh frozen plasma transfusion.

Background The efficacy of tranexamic acid (TXA) to reduce perioperative blood loss and allogeneic blood transfusion in cardiac surgeries has been proved in previous studies, but its adverse effects especially seizure has always been a problem of concern. This meta-analysis aims to provide information on the optimal dosage and delivery method which is effective with the least adverse outcomes. Methods We searched Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, MEDLINE and EMBASE for all relevant articles published before 2018/12/31. Inclusion criteria were adult patients undergoing elective heart surgeries, and only randomized control trials comparing TXA with placebo were considered. Two authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted relevant data. Results We included 49 studies with 10,591 patients into analysis. TXA significantly reduced transfusion rate (RR 0.71, 95% CI 0.65 to 0.78, P<0.00001). The overall transfusion rate was 35%(1573/4477) for patients using TXA and 49%(2190/4408) for patients in the control group. Peri-operative blood loss (MD − 246.98 ml, 95% CI − 287.89 to − 206.06 ml, P<0.00001) and re-operation rate (RR 0.62, 95% CI 0.49 to 0.79, P<0.0001) were also reduced significantly. TXA usage did not increase risk of mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, pulmonary embolism and renal dysfunction, but was associated with a significantly increase in seizure attack (RR 3.21, 95% CI 1.04 to 9.90, P = 0.04).The overall rate of seizure attack was 0.62%(21/3378) for patients using TXA and 0.15%(5/3406) for patients in the control group. In subgroup analysis, TXA was effective for both on-pump and off-pump surgeries. Topical application didn’t reduce the need for transfusion requirement, while intravenous delivery no matter as bolus injection alone or bolus plus continuous infusion were effective. Intravenous high-dose TXA didn’t further decrease transfusion rate compared with low-dose regimen, and increased the risk of seizure by 4.83 times. No patients in the low-dose group had seizure attack. Conclusions TXA was effective in reducing transfusion requirement in all kinds of cardiac surgeries. Low-dose intravenous infusion was the most preferable delivery method which was as effective as high-dose regimen in reducing transfusion rate without increasing the risk of seizure. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s12871-019-0772-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract

BACKGROUND: Acute kidney injury is a common complication after open total aortic arch replacement but lacks effective preventive strategies. Remote ischemic preconditioning has controversial results of its benefit to the kidney and may perform better in high-risk patients of acute kidney injury. We investigated whether remote ischemic preconditioning would prevent postoperative acute kidney injury after open total aortic arch replacement. METHODS: We enrolled 130 patients scheduled for open total aortic arch replacement and randomized them to receive either remote ischemic preconditioning (4 cycles of 5-minute right upper limb ischemia and 5-minute reperfusion) or sham preconditioning (4 cycles of 5-minute right upper limb pseudo ischemia and 5-minute reperfusion), both via blood pressure cuff inflation and deflation. The primary end point was the incidence of acute kidney injury within 7 days after the surgery defined by the Kidney Disease: Improving Global Outcomes criteria. Secondary end point included short-term clinical outcomes. RESULTS: Significantly fewer patients developed postoperative acute kidney injury with remote ischemic preconditioning compared with sham (55.4% vs 73.8%; absolute risk reduction, 18.5%; 95% CI, 2.3%–34.6%; P = .028). Remote ischemic preconditioning significantly reduced acute kidney injury stage II–III (10.8% vs 35.4%; P = .001). Remote ischemic preconditioning shortened the mechanical ventilation duration (18 hours [interquartile range, 14–33] versus 25 hours [interquartile range, 17–48]; P = .01), whereas no significant differences were observed between groups in other secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Remote ischemic preconditioning prevented acute kidney injury after open total aortic arch replacement, especially severe acute kidney injury and shortened mechanical ventilation duration. The observed renoprotective effects of remote ischemic preconditioning require further investigation in both clinical research and the underlying mechanism.

No abstract

Normothermic CPB is as safe as hypothermic CPB in children requiring correction of simple congenital cardiac defects.