Publications

BACKGROUND: A growing body of evidence suggests that hyperglycemia is an independent predictor of increased cardiovascular risk. Aggressive glycemic control in the intensive care decreases mortality. The benefit of glycemic control in noncardiac surgery is unknown.

METHODS: In a single-center, prospective, unblinded, active-control study, 236 patients were randomly assigned to continuous insulin infusion (target glucose 100-150 mg/dl) or to a standard intermittent insulin bolus (treat glucose > 150 mg/dl) in patients undergoing peripheral vascular bypass, abdominal aortic aneurysm repair, or below- or above-knee amputation. The treatments began at the start of surgery and continued for 48 h. The primary endpoint was a composite of all-cause death, myocardial infarction, and acute congestive heart failure. The secondary endpoints were blood glucose concentrations, rates of hypoglycemia (< 60 mg/dl) and hyperglycemia (> 150 mg/dl), graft failure or reintervention, wound infection, acute renal insufficiency, and duration of stay.

RESULTS: The groups were well balanced for baseline characteristics, except for older age in the intervention group. There was a significant reduction in primary endpoint (3.5%) in the intervention group compared with the control group (12.3%) (relative risk, 0.29; 95% confidence interval, 0.10-0.83; P = 0.013). The secondary endpoints were similar. Hypoglycemia occurred in 8.8% of the intervention group compared with 4.1% of the control group (P = 0.14). Multivariate analysis demonstrated that continuous insulin infusion was a negative independent predictor (odds ratio, 0.28; 95% confidence interval, 0.09-0.87; P = 0.027), whereas previous coronary artery disease was a positive predictor of adverse events.

CONCLUSION: Continuous insulin infusion reduces perioperative myocardial infarction after vascular surgery.

The assumption that males and females are physiologically similar has led to females being clinically evaluated and treated as males. However, there is growing evidence in the literature that, other than the reproductive system, there are other fundamental physiological differences between the two genders. The manifestation of these differences starts soon after puberty and becomes more pronounced with age. The differences in body mass and volume and renal and liver metabolism account for the difference in therapeutic efficacy and side effects of commonly used cardiovascular drugs. Women have smaller coronary arteries, more frequent diastolic dysfunction, present with vague symptoms of coronary artery disease and do worse than men after revascularization procedures. Women also have a shorter cardiac cycle and are more prone to develop arrhythmias and react differently to antiarrhythmic drugs. Most epidemiological trials that have assessed the utility of pharmacological myocardial protection or outcomes after noncardiac surgery have either been performed on men only or women were not identified as a separate group. Recent evidence is suggestive that coronary vasospasm may be the dominant etiology of acute myocardial ischemia in women. This may explain the poor sensitivity and specificity of the routine myocardial perfusion tests. Having considered all this evidence, it has become very essential to view the operative risk stratification as being gender-based. This approach may involve a shift in our present day paradigm of patient management.

The use of transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) for monitoring during cardiac and noncardiac surgery has increased exponentially over the past few decades. TEE has evolved from a diagnostic tool to a monitoring device and a procedural adjunct. The close proximity of the TEE transducer to the heart generates high-quality images of the intracardiac structures and their spatial orientation. The use of TEE in noncardiac and critical care settings is not well studied, and the evidence of the benefits of its use in these settings is lacking. Despite the widespread availability of TEE equipment in US hospitals, less than 30% of anesthesiologists are formally trained in the use of perioperative TEE. In this review, the safety and indications of TEE are reviewed and detailed analysis of the best available evidence in this regard is presented. Landmark trials evaluating the use of TEE and its therapeutic impact in noncardiac surgical setting are critically reviewed. This article details recommendations to familiarize anesthesiologists with TEE technology to exploit it to its fullest potential to achieve better patient monitoring standards and eventually improve outcome. Training of greater numbers of anesthesiologists in TEE is needed to increase awareness of the indications and contraindications. Until relatively inexpensive TEE equipment is available, the initial cost of equipment acquisition remains a significant prohibitive factor limiting its widespread use.

We report a case in which flow-directed placement of the pulmonary artery catheter led to its inadvertent placement in the coronary sinus, in the absence of congenital anomalies. Incorrect placement was diagnosed by use of the transesophageal echocardiography. If unrecognized, the catheter might have provided misleading information and led to mismanagement of the patient.

We report a case in which flow-directed placement of the pulmonary artery catheter led to its inadvertent placement in the coronary sinus, in the absence of congenital anomalies. Incorrect placement was diagnosed by use of the transesophageal echocardiography. If unrecognized, the catheter might have provided misleading information and led to mismanagement of the patient.