No abstract

Incidence of postoperative stroke after CPB was not significantly higher in our octogenarian population. Although in younger patients peripheral vascular disease and cardiac rhythm disturbances were significant risk factors, it seems that factors related to intraoperative brain oxygenation (secondary to preoperative anaemia) are the most critical determinant of stroke in the elderly.

BackgroundTo evaluate the efficacy of perioperative atorvastatin administration for prophylaxis of postoperative atrial fibrillation (POAF) after heart valve surgery.MethodsOur study included 90 patients with heart valve disease who were scheduled to undergo elective cardiac surgery. Cases with previous AF or preoperative beta-blocker therapy were excluded. Patients were randomized into the atorvastatin group, which included 47 patients who received 40 mg/day of atorvastatin 7 days before and after the surgery and the control group, which included 43 patients. Primary endpoint was the occurrence of POAF. Secondary endpoints included modifications in the preoperative and postoperative levels of the markers of inflammation (C-reactive protein [CRP]), myocardial injury (ultrasensitive troponin T and creatinine phosphokinase MB [CPK-MB]), and cardiac dysfunction (pro-brain natriuretic peptide [proBNP]) related to POAF and changes in the echocardiographic parameters, such as atrial electromechanical interval, A wave, E/A ratio, and Doppler imaging systolic velocity wave amplitude, related to POAF.ResultsNo relationship between atorvastatin administration and reduction in the incidence of POAF was observed (42.6% in the atorvastatin vs. 30.2% in the control group) (p=0.226). No difference in the levels of CPK-MB, ultrasensitive troponin T, CRP, or proBNP and in the analyzed echocardiographic parameter was detected between both groups.ConclusionsAtorvastatin in the described dose, was not adequate for the prophylaxis of POAF after heart valve surgery. It was ineffective in controlling the inflammatory phenomena, myocardial injury, and echocardiographic predictors of POAF.

OBJECTIVES Some researchers have observed an increased number of deaths during the follow-up of young patients who undergo aortic valve replacement due to severe aortic stenosis, suggesting that this procedure does not restore their life expectancy. Our goal was to confirm these findings and explore sex-based differences. METHODS All patients between 50 and 65 years of age who underwent isolated aortic valve replacement in 27 Spanish centres during an 18-year period were included. We compared observed and expected survival at 15 years of follow-up and estimated the cumulative incidence of death from a competing risks point of view. We stratified by sex and analysed if being a woman was an independent risk factor for death. RESULTS For men, the observed survival at 10 and 15 years of follow-up was 85% [95% confidence interval (CI) 83.6%–86.4%] and 72.3% (95% CI 69.7%–74.7%), respectively whereas the expected survival was 88.1% and 78.8%. For women, the observed survival at 10 and 15 years was 85% (95% CI 82.8%–86.9%) and 73% (95% CI 69.1%–76.4%), whereas the expected survival was 94.6% and 89.4%. At 15 years of follow-up, the cumulative incidence of death due to the disease in men and women was 8.2% and 16.7%, respectively. In addition, being a woman was an independent risk factor for death (hazard ratio = 1.23 (95% CI 1.02–1.48; P = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS After the aortic valve replacement, men and women do not have their life expectancy restored, but this loss is much higher in women than in men. In addition, being a woman is a risk factor for long-term death. Reasons for these findings are unknown and must be investigated.

The degeneration of the axial and peripheral joints are linked to the aging of the human being. It is responsible for local pain, and its pathophysiology is complex and not fully understood. The common denominator in osteoarthritis is the degeneration of articular cartilage, along with other secondary changes. His approach and pain management is a challenge for pain units. Historically the interventional treatment was carried out by blind injections of different substances that relieve pain. Currently, fluoroscopy, and more recently ultrasound, are the methods of choice for the guidance of our procedures. Regarding the drugs most commonly used in our joint invasive techniques we highlight hyaluronic acid (HA) and platelet rich plasma (PRP). Steroids remain in almost all studies the gold standard or reference drug, and on the other families of drugs are compared. A thorough examination of the patient, and an algorithm of decisions regarding the decision to carry out these techniques seems necessary, adapting to each workplace.

No abstract

No abstract

No abstract