Objective Vasoactive medications improve hemodynamics after cardiac surgery but are associated with high metabolic and arrhythmic burdens. The vasoactive-inotropic score was developed to quantify vasoactive and inotropic support after cardiac surgery in pediatric patients but might similarly be useful in adults. Accordingly, we examined the time course of this score in a substudy of the Biventricular Pacing After Cardiac Surgery trial. We hypothesized that the score would be lower in patients randomized to biventricular pacing. Methods Fifty patients selected for increased risk of left ventricular dysfunction after cardiac surgery and randomized to temporary biventricular pacing or standard of care (no pacing) after cardiopulmonary bypass were studied in a clinical trial between April 2007 and June 2011. Vasoactive agents were assessed after cardiopulmonary bypass, after sternal closure, and 0–7 hours after admission to the intensive care unit. Results Over the initial three collection points after cardiopulmonary bypass (mean duration 131 minutes), mean vasoactive-inotropic score decreased in the biventricular pacing group from 12.0±1.5 to 10.5±2.0 and increased in the standard of care group from 12.5±1.9 to 15.5±2.9. Using a linear mixed effects model, this slopes of the time courses were statistically significant (p=0.02) and remained so for the first hour in the intensive care unit. However, the difference was no longer significant beyond this point (p=0.26). Conclusions Vasoactive-inotropic score decreases in patients undergoing temporary biventricular pacing in the early postoperative period. Future studies are needed to assess the impact of this effect on arrhythmogenesis, morbidity, mortality, and hospital costs.
Background In the United States, post-cardiac arrest debriefing has increased, but historically it has occurred rarely in our pediatric intensive care unit (PICU). A fellow-led debriefing tool was developed as a tool for fellow development, as well as to enhance communication amongst a multidisciplinary team. Methods A curriculum and debriefing tool for fellow facilitators was developed and introduced in a 41-bed cardiac and medical PICU. Pre- and post-intervention surveys were sent to multidisciplinary PICU providers to assess effectiveness of debriefings using newly-trained leaders, as well as changes in team communication. Results Debriefing occurred after 84% (63/75) of cardiac arrests post-intervention. Providers in various team roles participated in pre-intervention (129 respondents/236 invitations) and post-intervention (96 respondents /232 invitations) surveys. Providers reported that frequently occurring debriefings increased from 9 to 58%, pre- and post-intervention respectively ( p < .0001). Providers reported frequent identification and discussion of learning points increased from 32% pre- to 63% post-intervention. In the 12 months post-intervention, 62% of providers agreed that the overall quality of communication during arrests had improved, and 61% would be more likely to request a debriefing after cardiac arrest. Conclusion The introduction of a fellow-led debriefing tool resulted in regularly performed debriefings after arrests. Despite post-intervention debriefings being led by newly-trained facilitators, the majority of PICU staff expressed satisfaction with the quality of debriefing and improvement in communication during arrests, suggesting that fellow facilitators can be effective debrief leaders.
In a small sample of children aged 4 to 18 years undergoing abscess I&D, IN fentanyl was noninferior, and potentially superior, to IV morphine for reducing procedural pain and distress.
Objectives We have previously demonstrated that biventricular pacing increased cardiac output within 1 hour of weaning from cardiopulmonary bypass in selected patients. To assess the possible sustained benefit, we reviewed in the present study the effects of biventricular pacing on the mean arterial pressure after chest closure. Methods A total of 30 patients (mean ejection fraction 35%± 15%, mean QRS 119 ± 24 ms) underwent coronary bypass and/or valve surgery. The mean arterial pressure was maximized during biventricular pacing using atrioventricular delays of 90 to 270 ms and interventricular delays of+80 to−80 ms during 20-second intervals in random sequence. Optimized biventricular pacing was finally compared with atrial pacing at a matched heart rate and to a sinus rhythm during 30-second intervals. Vasoactive medication and fluid infusion rates were held constant. The arterial pressure was digitized, recorded, and integrated. Statistical significance was assessed using linear mixed effects models and Bonferroni’s correction. Results Optimized atrioventricular delay, ranging from 90 to 270 ms, increased the mean arterial pressure 4% versus nominal and 7% versus the worst (P<.001). Optimized interventricular delay increased pressure 3% versus nominal and 7% versus the worst. Optimized biventricular pacing increased the mean arterial pressure 4% versus sinus rhythm (78.5 ± 2.4 vs 75.1 ± 2.4 mm Hg; P = .002) and 3% versus atrial pacing (76.4 ± 2.7 mm Hg; P = .017). Conclusions Temporary biventricular pacing improves the hemodynamics after chest closure, with effects similar to those within 1 hour of bypass. Individualized optimization of atrioventricular delay is warranted, because the optimal delay was longer in 80% of our patients than the current recommendations for temporary postoperative pacing.
Objectives: To determine the prevalence of the utilization of primary intensivists and primary nurses for long-stay patients in large, academic PICU and ascertain how these practices are operationalized and perceived. Design: A cross-sectional survey. Setting: U.S. PICUs with accredited Pediatric Critical Care Medicine fellowships. Subjects: One senior physician and one senior nurse at each institution. Intervention: None. Measurements and Main Results: Separate but largely analogous questionnaires for intensivists and nurses were created using an iterative process to enhance content/face validity and readability. Sixty-seven intensivists (representing 93% of the 72 institutions with fellowship programs and their PICUs) and 59 nurses (representing 82%) responded. Twenty-four institutions utilize primary intensivists; 30 utilize primary nurses; and 13 utilize both. Most institutions use length of stay and/or other criteria (e.g., medical complexity) for eligibility. Commonly, not all patients that meet eligibility criteria receive primaries. Primary providers are overwhelmingly volunteers, and often only a fraction of providers participate. Primary intensivists at a large majority (>75%) of institutions facilitate information sharing and decision-making, attend family/team meetings, visit patients/families regularly, and are otherwise available upon request. Primary nurses at a similar majority of institutions provide consistent bedside care, facilitate information sharing, and attend family/team meetings. A large majority of respondents thought that primary intensivists increase patient/family satisfaction, reduce their stress, improve provider communication, and reduce conflict, whereas primary nurses similarly increase patient/family satisfaction. More than half of respondents shared that these practices can sometimes require effort (e.g., time and emotion), complicate decision-making, and/or reduce staffing flexibility. Conclusions: Primary practices are potential strategies to augment rotating PICU care models and better serve the needs of long-stay and other patients. These practices are being utilized to varying extents and with some operationalization uniformity at large, academic PICUs.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.
hi@scite.ai
10624 S. Eastern Ave., Ste. A-614
Henderson, NV 89052, USA
Copyright © 2024 scite LLC. All rights reserved.
Made with 💙 for researchers
Part of the Research Solutions Family.