BackgroundIn patients undergoing cardiac surgery, a reduced preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) is common and is associated with a worse outcome. Available outcome data for these patients address specific surgical procedures, mainly coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). Aim of our study was to investigate perioperative outcome of surgery on patients with low pre-operative LVEF undergoing a broad range of cardiac surgical procedures.MethodsData from patients with pre-operative LVEF ≤40 % undergoing cardiac surgery at a university hospital were reviewed and analyzed. A subgroup analysis on patients with pre-operative LVEF ≤30 % was also performed.ResultsA total of 7313 patients underwent cardiac surgery during the study period. Out of these, 781 patients (11 %) had a pre-operative LVEF ≤40 % and were included in the analysis. Mean pre-operative LVEF was 33.9 ± 6.1 % and in 290 patients (37 %) LVEF was ≤30 %. The most frequently performed operation was CABG (31 % of procedures), followed by mitral valve surgery (22 %) and aortic valve surgery (19 %). Overall perioperative mortality was 5.6 %. Mitral valve surgery was more frequent among patients who did not survive, while survivors underwent more frequently CABG. Post-operative myocardial infarction occurred in 19 (2.4 %) of patients, low cardiac output syndrome in 271 (35 %). Acute kidney injury occurred in 195 (25 %) of patients. Duration of mechanical ventilation was 18 (12–48) hours. Incidence of complications was higher in patients with LVEF ≤30 %. Stepwise multivariate analysis identified chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, pre-operative insertion of intra-aortic balloon pump, and pre-operative need for inotropes as independent predictors of mortality among patients with LVEF ≤40 %.ConclusionsWe confirmed that patients with low pre-operative LVEF undergoing cardiac surgery are at higher risk of post-operative complications. Cardiac surgery can be performed with acceptable mortality rates; however, mitral valve surgery, was found to be associated with higher mortality rates in this population. Accurate selection of patients, risk/benefit evaluation, and planning of surgical and anesthesiological management are mandatory to improve outcome.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12871-016-0271-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

AimPain represents the most frequent cause for patient admission to emergency departments (EDs). Oligoanalgesia is a common problem in this field. The aims of this study were to assess prevalence and intensity of pain in patients who visited a second-level urban ED and to evaluate the efficacy of pharmacological treatment administered subsequent to variations in pain intensity.MethodsA 4-week prospective observational study was carried out on 2,838 patients who visited a second-level urban ED. Pain intensity was evaluated using the Numeric Rating Scale at the moment of triage. The efficacy of prescribed analgesic therapy was evaluated at 30 and 60 minutes, and at discharge. Data concerning pain intensity were classified as absent, slight, mild, or severe. Pain was evaluated in relation to the prescribed therapy.ResultsPain prevalence was 70.7%. Traumatic events were the primary cause in most cases (40.44%), followed by pain linked to urologic problems (13.52%), abdominal pain (13.39%), and nontraumatic musculoskeletal pain (7.10%). Only 32.46% of patients were given pharmacological therapy. Of these, 76% reported severe pain, 19% moderate, and 5% slight, and 66% received nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs or paracetamol, 4% opioids, and 30% other therapies. A difference of at least 2 points on the Numerical Rating Scale was observed in 84% of patients on reevaluation following initial analgesic therapy.ConclusionPain represents one of the primary reasons for visits to EDs. Although a notable reduction in pain intensity has been highlighted in patients who received painkillers, results show that inadequate treatment of pain in ED continues to be a problem.

IntroductionCardioprotective properties of volatile agents and of remote ischemic preconditioning have survival effects in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. We performed a Bayesian network meta-analysis to confirm the beneficial effects of these strategies on survival in cardiac surgery, to evaluate which is the best strategy and if these strategies have additive or competitive effects.MethodsPertinent studies were independently searched in BioMedCentral, MEDLINE/PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register (updated November 2013). A Bayesian network meta-analysis was performed. Four groups of patients were compared: total intravenous anesthesia (with or without remote ischemic preconditioning) and an anesthesia plan including volatile agents (with or without remote ischemic preconditioning). Mortality was the main investigated outcome.ResultsWe identified 55 randomized trials published between 1991 and 2013 and including 6,921 patients undergoing cardiac surgery. The use of volatile agents (posterior mean of odds ratio = 0.50, 95% CrI 0.28–0.91) and the combination of volatile agents with remote preconditioning (posterior mean of odds ratio = 0.15, 95% CrI 0.04–0.55) were associated with a reduction in mortality when compared to total intravenous anesthesia. Posterior distribution of the probability of each treatment to be the best one, showed that the association of volatile anesthetic and remote ischemic preconditioning is the best treatment to improve short- and long-term survival after cardiac surgery, suggesting an additive effect of these two strategies.ConclusionsIn patients undergoing cardiac surgery, the use of volatile anesthetics and the combination of volatile agents with remote preconditioning reduce mortality when compared to TIVA and have additive effects. It is necessary to confirm these results with large, multicenter, randomized, double-blinded trials comparing these different strategies in cardiac and non-cardiac surgery, to establish which volatile agent is more protective than the others and how to best apply remote ischemic preconditioning.

No abstract

Of the 230 million patients undergoing major surgical procedures every year, more than 1 million will die within 30 days. Thus, any nonsurgical interventions that help reduce perioperative mortality might save thousands of lives. The authors have updated a previous consensus process to identify all the nonsurgical interventions, supported by randomized evidence, that may help reduce perioperative mortality