Prophylactic nitroglycerin did not reduce myocardial ischemia during accelerated recovery management of coronary artery bypass graft surgery patients

Perioperative diltiazem therapy was not associated with improved perioperative and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing on-pump coronary artery bypass grafting

Background

Diltiazem has been used during the perioperative period in patients undergoing coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) to prevent arterial graft spasm. However, its long-term outcome effects remain unclear.

Methods

Patient records obtained from the Society of Thoracic Surgeons and the Geisinger Clinic electronic health records between October 2008 and October 2018 were screened. Adult patients who had isolated CABG with cardiopulmonary bypass were included. Cohorts of patients who received diltiazem (DILT) and those who did not (non-DILT) were matched by propensity scores based on age, gender, surgical year, Society of Thoracic Surgeons mortality and morbidity scores, and number of arterial grafts. Incidence rate ratios (IRRs) were estimated for DILT vs non-DILT on short-term adverse outcomes. Long-term survival over time was compared between DILT vs non-DILT using Kaplan-Meier curves.

Results

Among the 1004 patients included in the analyses, IRRs for the DILT group relative to the non-DILT group were: 30-day all-cause mortality, IRR: 2.33, 95% confidence interval (CI): 0.91-5.96, P=0.07; postoperative myocardial ischaemia, IRR: 1.10, 95% CI: 0.60-2.02, P=0.75; new onset atrial fibrillation, IRR: 1.06, 95% CI: 0.78-1.43, P=0.73; stroke/transient ischaemic attack, IRR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.17-3.38, P=0.71. For long-term survival, Kaplan-Meier curves stratified by diltiazem revealed no differences in survival rates between DILT and non-DILT groups.

Conclusion

For patients undergoing on-pump CABG, perioperative diltiazem therapy did not show significant short- or long-term outcome advantages over those who did not receive diltiazem.

Perioperative diltiazem or nitroglycerin in on-pump coronary artery bypass: A systematic review and network meta-analysis

Background

Arterial graft spasm is a severe complication after coronary artery bypass graft (CABG). Among numerous potential antispasmodic agents, systemic application of diltiazem and nitroglycerin had been investigated most frequently over the past three decades. However, it remains inconclusive if either or both agents could improve patient outcomes by preventing graft spasm when applied perioperatively, and, if so, which one would be a better choice. The current systematic review and network meta-analysis aims to summarize the data from all available randomized clinical trials of perioperative continuous intravenous infusion of diltiazem and/or nitroglycerin in patients undergoing on-pump CABG in order to define and compare their roles in graft spasm prevention and their impacts on perioperative outcomes.

Methods

We searched Ovid Medline, PubMed, CINAHL, Google Scholar and Cochrane Center for randomized controlled trials that reported outcome effects of perioperative continuous intravenous infusion of diltiazem and/or nitroglycerin in patients undergoing elective on-pump CABG. Conventional meta-analyses were conducted to evaluate the pairwise comparisons (diltiazem vs. placebo; nitroglycerin vs. placebo; diltiazem vs. nitroglycerin) on perioperative outcomes. Network meta-analyses were implemented to compare the three regimens through direct and indirect comparison.

Results

Twenty-seven studies involving 1,660 patients were included. Pairwise and network meta-analyses found no significant difference in mortality among the groups. There are four studies that reported blood flow measurements of internal mammary artery grafts intraoperatively after dissecting or immediately after distal anastomosis while patients were on continuous intravenous infusion of diltiazem and nitroglycerin. Although insufficient for data synthesis, the measured results from all four studies suggest that both diltiazem and nitroglycerin significantly increased blood flow of arterial grafts compared to placebo. For other perioperative outcomes, compared to diltiazem, patients that received nitroglycerin had higher odds of postoperative atrial fibrillation (OR = 2.67, 95% CI: 1.15 to 6.24) and higher peak serum cardiac enzymes. Patients that received placebo had higher odds of atrial fibrillation (OR = 3.00, 95% CI: 1.18 to 7.63) and lower odds of requiring inotrope support (OR = 0.19, 95% CI: 0.04 to 0.73) compared to diltiazem. Data from the network meta-analysis indicated that diltiazem had significantly lower odds of postoperative atrial fibrillation compared to nitroglycerin (OR = 0.39, 95% CI: 0.18 to 0.85). In fact, the rank from highest to lowest rates of postoperative atrial fibrillation was placebo>nitroglycerin>diltiazem. The rank from highest to lowest odds of requiring inotropic support is nitroglycerin> diltiazem>placebo. However, placebo had significantly higher odds of postoperative myocardial infarction than diltiazem (OR = 4.51, 95% CI: 1.34 to 15.25). The rank from highest to lowest odds of postoperative myocardial infarction, transient cardiac ischemic event and atrial fibrillation is placebo>nitroglycerin>diltiazem.

Conclusion

Compared to nitroglycerin and placebo, perioperative continuous intravenous infusion of diltiazem had stronger protective effects against postoperative ischemic cardiac injuries and atrial fibrillation although patients may need more inotropic support. The increased blood flow from diltiazem use in arterial grafts may potentially contribute to the drug’s outcome benefits.

Efficacy of prophylactic doses of intravenous nitroglycerin in preventing myocardial ischemia under general anesthesia: A systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis

STUDY OBJECTIVE

To evaluate the efficacy of intravenous nitroglycerin (TNG) in preventing intraoperative myocardial ischemia (MI) under general anesthesia. Moreover, we analyzed the hemodynamic changes in heart rate (HR), mean blood pressure (MBP), and pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP) associated with TNG administration both before and after the induction of anesthesia.

DESIGN

Meta-analysis.

SETTING

Operating room, cardiac surgery or non-cardiac surgery, all surgeries were elective measurements. We performed a computerized search of articles on PubMed, Scopus, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Meta-analysis was performed using Review Manager. The data from the individual trials were combined using a random-effects model to calculate either the pooled relative risk (RR) or the weighted mean difference (WMD) with 95% confidence interval (CI). We conducted trial sequential analysis (TSA). The primary outcome was the incidence of MI and the secondary outcomes were hemodynamic changes (HR, MBP, and PCWP).

MAIN RESULTS

Using electronic databases, we selected 10 trials with a total of 353 patients for our review. Prophylactic intravenous TNG did not significantly decrease the incidence of MI (RR=0.61; CI, 0.33 to 1.13; P=0.12; I²=55). TSA corrected the CI to 0.05 to 7.39 and showed that 9.5% of the required information size was achieved. In terms of hemodynamic changes, intravenous TNG significantly reduced MBP in comparison with the placebo (MBP pre-induction: WMD=-7.27; 95% CI -14.2 to -0.33; P=0.04; I²=97%; MBP post-induction: WMD=-5.13; 95% CI -9.17 to -1.09; P=0.01; I²=73%).

CONCLUSIONS

Our analyses showed that prophylactic intravenous TNG does not reduce the incidence of intraoperative MI. Moreover, TSA suggests that further studies are necessary to confirm the results (GRADE: very low). Prophylactic doses of intravenous TNG significantly reduced the MBP both pre and post anesthesia induction (GRADE: very low).

Cardiac Evaluation and Monitoring of Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery

Surgical management of disease has a tremendous impact on our health system. Millions of people worldwide undergo surgeries every year. Cardiovascular complications in the perioperative period are one of the most common events leading to increased morbidity and mortality. Although such events are very small in number, they are associated with a high mortality rate making it essential for physicians to understand the importance of perioperative cardiovascular risk assessment and evaluation. Its involves a detailed process of history taking, patient's medical profile, medications being used, functional status of the patient, and knowledge about the surgical procedure and its inherent risks. Different risk assessment tools and calculators have also been developed to aid in this process, each with their own advantages and limitations. After such a comprehensive evaluation, a physician will be able to provide a risk assessment or it may all lead to further testing if it is believed that a change in management after such testing will help to reduce perioperative morbidity and mortality. There is extensive literature on the significance of multiple perioperative testing modalities and how they can change management. The purpose of our review is to provide a concise but comprehensive analysis on all such aspects of perioperative cardiovascular risk assessment for noncardiac surgeries and provide a basic methodology toward such assessment and decision making.

Nitrates for the prevention of cardiac morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

Cardiac complications are not uncommon in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery, especially in patients with coronary artery disease (CAD) or at high risk of CAD. Perioperative cardiac complications can lead to mortality and morbidity, as well as higher costs for patient care. Nitrates, which are among the most commonly used cardiovascular drugs, perform the function of decreasing cardiac preload while improving cardiac blood perfusion. Sometimes, nitrates are administered to patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery to reduce the incidence of cardiac complications, especially for patients with CAD. However, their effects on patients' relevant outcomes remain controversial.

OBJECTIVES

• To assess effects of nitrates as compared with other interventions or placebo in reducing cardiac risk (such as death caused by cardiac factors, angina pectoris, acute myocardial infarction, acute heart failure and cardiac arrhythmia) in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.• To identify the influence of different routes and dosages of nitrates on patient outcomes.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), MEDLINE, EMBASE and the Chinese BioMedical Database until June 2014. We also searched relevant conference abstracts of important anaesthesiology or cardiology scientific meetings, the database of ongoing trials and Google Scholar.We reran the search in January 2016. We added three potential new studies of interest to the list of 'Studies awaiting classification' and will incorporate them into our formal review findings for the review update.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing nitrates versus no treatment, placebo or other pharmacological interventions in participants (15 years of age and older) undergoing non-cardiac surgery under any type of anaesthesia.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

We used standard methodological procedures as expected by Cochrane. Two review authors selected trials, extracted data from included studies and assessed risk of bias. We resolved differences by discussion and, when necessary, sought help and suggestions from a third review author. We used a random-effects model for data analysis.

MAIN RESULTS

We included 27 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) (8244 participants analysed). Investigators reported 12 different comparisons of three different nitrates (nitroglycerin, isosorbide dinitrate and nicorandil) versus no treatment, placebo or other pharmacological interventions. All participants were older than 15 years of age. More than half of the trials used general anaesthesia. Surgical procedures in most trials were at low to moderate risk for perioperative cardiac complications. Only two comparisons including three studies reported the primary outcome - all-cause mortality up to 30 days post operation. Researchers reported other morbidity outcomes and adverse events in a variable and heterogeneous way, resulting in limited available data for inclusion in the meta-analysis. We determined that the overall methodological quality of included studies was fair to low, in accordance with risk of bias in most domains.In summary, we found no difference in the primary outcome - all-cause mortality up to 30 days post operation - when nitroglycerin was compared with no treatment (one study, 60 participants, 0/30 vs 1/30; (risk ratio (RR) 0.33, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 7.87, very low-quality evidence based on GRADE criteria) or with placebo (two studies, 89 participants, 1/45 vs 0/44; RR 2.81, 95% CI 0.12 to 63.83, very low-quality evidence). Regarding our secondary outcomes, we noted no statistically significant differences in angina pectoris, acute myocardial infarction, acute heart failure, cardiac arrhythmia or cardiac arrest in any comparisons. In comparisons versus nitroglycerin, although more events of cardiac ischaemia were observed in participants receiving no treatment or placebo, we found no statistically significant differences in any comparisons, except the comparison of nicorandil versus placebo. One study revealed a potential dose-dependent protective effect of nicorandil for cardiac ischaemia.Adverse events were reported in a heterogeneous way among the comparisons. In general, more participants treated with nitrates had hypotension, tachycardia and headache, but investigators reported no statistically significant differences between groups in any comparisons.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

This systematic review suggests that nitroglycerin or isosorbide dinitrate is not associated with improvement in mortality and cardiac complications among patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Limited evidence suggests that nicorandil may reduce the risk of cardiac ischaemia in participants undergoing non-cardiac surgery. Additional studies are needed to consolidate the evidence.However, the data included in many of the analyses in this review are sparse - that is, adequate data are few - resulting in very low power to detect differences between nitrates and comparators. Thus, a more objective conclusion would state that available evidence is insufficient to show whether nitrates are associated with improvement in mortality and cardiac complications among patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.Over the past decade, no high-quality studies have focused on association of cardiac mortality and morbidity with use of nitrates during non-cardiac surgery. This review underlines the need for well-designed trials in this field.

Risk factors for perioperative myocardial ischemia in carotid artery endarterectomy

OBJECTIVE

To identify variables associated with perioperative myocardial ischemia in patients undergoing carotid artery endarterectomy (CEA).

DESIGN

Prospective, observational study.

SETTING

University-affiliated hospital operating room and intensive care unit.

PARTICIPANTS

One hundred twenty-eight consecutive patients who underwent CEA during a 7-year period.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients had general anesthesia with sevoflurane or isoflurane. CEA was performed by standard methods with shunting if clinically indicated. Holter electrocardiogram (ECG) monitoring was performed during surgery and 24 hours after surgery.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

The incidence of perioperative myocardial ischemia was examined, and perioperative risk factors were analyzed. Nineteen patients (15%) showed significant perioperative ECG abnormalities indicative of myocardial ischemia (10 patients during surgery, 12 patients after surgery, and 3 patients both during and after surgery). Multivariate analysis showed perioperative myocardial ischemia to be significantly associated with a history of angina (odds ratio, 11.68; 95% confidence interval, 2.64-51.70) and a history of hypertension (odds ratio, 14.08; 95% confidence interval, 1.51-131.04).

CONCLUSION

The data indicate that perioperative myocardial ischemia defined as an ECG abnormality does not often occur in patients undergoing CEA. However, angina and hypertension may be important risk factors warranting further investigation.

Treatment of Perioperative Myocardial Ischemia

Prevention and treatment of myocardial ischemia re mains a central focus of perioperative care. Myocardial ischemia is best understood in terms of myocardial oxygen supply and demand ratios. Conventional ther apy includes nitrates, β-blockers, and calcium channel blockers. In all 3 drug classes, ischemia is reduced by either improving supply, decreasing demand, or both. More recent investigation evaluates these medications either as prophylactic therapy or as a component of long-term risk reduction for cardiac morbid events. Newer therapies, including anticoagulation, pain ther apy, normothermia, central neuroaxial techniques, and other therapies, are reviewed.