Central venous oxygen levels (ScvO2) for fluid optimisation in high risk surgical patients

2013 ◽  
Author(s):  
Jost Mullenheim
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Surgical Patients ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
Oxygen Levels ◽  
Fluid Optimisation

scholarly journals A case series of anaphylaxis to chlorhexidine-impregnated central venous catheters in cardiac surgical patients

2019 ◽  
Vol 47 (1) ◽  
pp. 85-89 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter A Baird ◽  
Chris J Cokis
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
Cardiac Surgery ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Care Setting ◽  
Case Series ◽  
Central Venous Catheters ◽  
Surgical Patients ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
Additional Risk ◽  
Catheter Related Bloodstream Infection

We report a case series of anaphylaxis to chlorhexidine-coated central venous catheters (CVCs) when used in cardiac surgical patients in our institution. Our experience, together with increasing reports of anaphylaxis to chlorhexidine-coated CVCs from other sources indicates that chlorhexidine-coated CVCs are not without additional risk. Attempts to lower rates of catheter-related bloodstream infection has led to the widespread adoption of chlorhexidine-coated CVCs in the perioperative and critical care setting, including for routine cardiac surgery. However, closer scrutiny indicates that there is lack of strong evidence demonstrating a meaningful reduction in rates of sepsis or serious morbidity, especially with CVC dwell times of less than seven days. Given the lack of clear benefit, we recommend non-coated CVCs for routine cardiac surgery, with even consideration for chlorhexidine-coated CVCs when specifically indicated for patients at high risk of CVC infection.

scholarly journals Central venous-to-arterial carbon dioxide difference as a prognostic tool in high-risk surgical patients

Critical Care ◽  
2015 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Emmanuel Robin ◽  
Emmanuel Futier ◽  
Oscar Pires ◽  
Maher Fleyfel ◽  
Benoit Tavernier ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Carbon Dioxide ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Surgical Patients ◽  
Central Venous ◽  
Prognostic Tool ◽  
Arterial Carbon Dioxide

Quality management in the prophylaxis of venous thrombembolism - Results of a survey including 464 medical and surgical patients

VASA ◽  
2011 ◽  
Vol 40 (2) ◽  
pp. 123-130
Author(s):  
Klein-Weigel ◽  
Richter ◽  
Arendt ◽  
Gerdsen ◽  
Härtwig ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Renal Function ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Quality Management ◽  
High Risk Group ◽  
Surgical Patients ◽  
Medical Patients ◽  
Risk Status ◽  
Vte Prophylaxis ◽  
Safety Concerns

Background: We surveyed the quality of risk stratification politics and monitored the rate of entries to our company-wide protocol for venous thrombembolism (VTE) prophylaxis in order to identify safety concerns. Patients and methods: Audit in 464 medical and surgical patients to evaluate quality of VTE prophylaxis. Results: Patients were classified as low 146 (31 %), medium 101 (22 %), and high risk cases 217 (47 %). Of these 262 (56.5 %) were treated according to their risk status and in accordance with our protocol, while 9 more patients were treated according to their risk status but off-protocol. Overtreatment was identified in 73 (15.7 %), undertreatment in 120 (25,9 %) of all patients. The rate of incorrect prophylaxis was significantly different between the risk categories, with more patients of the high-risk group receiving inadequate medical prophylaxis (data not shown; p = 0.038). Renal function was analyzed in 392 (84.5 %) patients. In those patients with known renal function 26 (6.6 %) received improper medical prophylaxis. If cases were added in whom prophylaxis was started without previous creatinine control, renal function was not correctly taken into account in 49 (10.6 %) of all patients. Moreover, deterioration of renal function was not excluded within one week in 78 patients (16.8 %) and blood count was not re-checked in 45 (9.7 %) of all patients after one week. There were more overtreatments in surgical (n = 53/278) and more undertreatments in medical patients (n = 54/186) (p = 0.04). Surgeons neglected renal function and blood controls significantly more often than medical doctors (p-values for both < 0.05). Conclusions: We found a low adherence with our protocol and substantial over- and undertreatment in VTE prophylaxis. Besides, we identified disregarding of renal function and safety laboratory examinations as additional safety concerns. To identify safety problems associated with medical VTE prophylaxis and “hot spots” quality management-audits proved to be valuable instruments.

Closure of median sternotomy by the Sternal Talon®-system in high-risk cardiac surgical patients

2010 ◽  
Vol 58 (S 01) ◽  
Author(s):  
M Müller ◽  
C Heilmann ◽  
S Sorg ◽  
S Kueri ◽  
M Thoma ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
High Risk ◽  
Median Sternotomy ◽  
Surgical Patients

scholarly journals Validation of the Berlin Questionnaire and American Society of Anesthesiologists Checklist as Screening Tools for Obstructive Sleep Apnea in Surgical Patients

2008 ◽  
Vol 108 (5) ◽  
pp. 822-830 ◽  
Author(s):  
Frances Chung ◽  
Balaji Yegneswaran ◽  
Pu Liao ◽  
Sharon A. Chung ◽  
Santhira Vairavanathan ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Obstructive Sleep Apnea ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Screening Tools ◽  
Surgical Patients ◽  
Apnea Hypopnea Index ◽  
Berlin Questionnaire ◽  
Obstructive Sleep ◽  
American Society ◽  
American Society Of Anesthesiologists ◽  
Stop Questionnaire

Background Because of the high prevalence of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA) and its adverse impact on perioperative outcome, a practical screening tool for surgical patients is required. This study was conducted to validate the Berlin questionnaire and the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) checklist in surgical patients and to compare them with the STOP questionnaire. Methods After hospital ethics approval, preoperative patients aged 18 yr or older and without previously diagnosed OSA were recruited. The scores from the Berlin questionnaire, ASA checklist, and STOP questionnaire were evaluated versus the apnea-hypopnea index from in-laboratory polysomnography. The perioperative data were collected through chart review. Results Of 2,467 screened patients, 33, 27, and 28% were respectively classified as being at high risk of OSA by the Berlin questionnaire, ASA checklist, and STOP questionnaire. The performance of the screening tools was evaluated in 177 patients who underwent polysomnography. The sensitivities of the Berlin questionnaire, ASA checklist, and STOP questionnaire were 68.9-87.2, 72.1-87.2, and 65.6-79.5% at different apnea-hypopnea index cutoffs. There was no significant difference between the three screening tools in the predictive parameters. The patients with an apnea-hypopnea index greater than 5 and the patients identified as being at high risk of OSA by the STOP questionnaire or ASA checklist had a significantly increased incidence of postoperative complications. Conclusions Similar to the STOP questionnaire, the Berlin questionnaire and ASA checklist demonstrated a moderately high level of sensitivity for OSA screening. The STOP questionnaire and the ASA checklist were able to identify the patients who were likely to develop postoperative complications.

scholarly journals Impact of Critical Care Consultation Requests for Avoidable Central Venous Catheters on Medical-Surgical Units

2020 ◽  
Vol 41 (S1) ◽  
pp. s258-s258
Author(s):  
Madhuri Tirumandas ◽  
Theresa Madaline ◽  
Gregory David Weston ◽  
Ruchika Jain ◽  
Jamie Figueredo
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
High Risk ◽  
Medical Center ◽  
Academic Medical Center ◽  
Retrospective Chart Review ◽  
Bloodstream Infections ◽  
Central Line ◽  
Central Venous Catheters ◽  
High Risk Population ◽  
Central Venous

Background: Although central-line–associated bloodstream infections (CLABSI) in US hospitals have improved in the last decade, ~30,100 CLABSIs occur annually.1,2 Central venous catheters (CVC) carry a high risk of infections and should be limited to appropriate clinical indications.6,7 Montefiore Medical Center, a large, urban, academic medical center in the Bronx, serves a high-risk population with multiple comobidities.8–11 Despite this, the critical care medicine (CCM) team is often consulted to place a CVC when a peripheral intravenous line (PIV) cannot be obtained by nurses or primary providers. We evaluated the volume of CCM consultation requests for avoidable CVCs and related CLABSIs. Methods: Retrospective chart review was performed for patients with CCM consultation requests for CVC placement between July and October 2019. The indication for CVC, type of catheter inserted or recommended, and NHSN data were used to identify CLABSIs. CVCs were considered avoidable if a PIV was used for the stated indication and duration of therapy, with no anatomical contraindications to PIV in nonemergencies, according to the Michigan Appropriateness Guide for Intravenous Catheters (MAGIC).6Results: Of 229 total CCM consults, 4 (18%) requests were for CVC placement; 21 consultations (9%) were requested for avoidable CVCs. Of 40 CVC requests, 18 (45%) resulted in CVC placement by the CCM team, 4 (10%) were deferred for nonurgent PICC by interventional radiology, and 18 (45%) were deferred in favor of PIV or no IV. Indications for CVC insertion included emergent chemotherapy (n = 8, 44%) and dialysis (n = 3, 16%), vasopressors (n = 3, 16%), antibiotics (n = 2, 11%) and blood transfusion (n = 2, 11%). Of 18 CVCs, 9 (50%) were potentially avoidable: 2 short-term antibiotics and rest for nonemergent indications; 2 blood transfusions, 1 dialysis, 2 chemotherapy and 2 vasopressors. Between July and October 2019, 6 CLABSIs occurred in CVCs placed by the CCM team; in 3 of 6 CLABSI events (50%), the CVC was avoidable. Conclusions: More than half of consultation requests to the CCM team for CVCs are avoidable, and they disproportionately contribute to CLABSI events. Alternatives for intravenous access could potentially avoid 9% of CCM consultations and 50% of CLABSIs in CCM-inserted CVCs on medical-surgical wards.Funding: NoneDisclosures: None

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document