Search

Introduction: Right ventricular failure (RVF) after cardiac surgery is an important risk factor for morbidity and mortality. Its diagnosis is challenging, and thus, its incidence and predictors are not well-established. We investigated the incidence, complications, and variables associated with clinically relevant post-operative RVF. Methods: We included all patients who underwent cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass between 2016 and 2019 in a cardiac surgery center with standardized diagnostic and therapeutic management of RVF. RVF was considered only if clinically relevant: associated with hemodynamic instability requiring catecholamine support and inhaled nitric oxide relayed by sildenafil. Results: Overall, 3,826 patients were included, of whom, 110 (2.9%) developed post-operative RVF. Mortality was not different among patients who developed post-operative RVF, compared with the rest of the cohort (1.8 vs. 0.7%, p = 0.17). Using a composite outcome that combined death, reintubation, stroke, and prolonged intensive care unit stay (more than 14 days) yielded an incidence of 6.6%, and RVF was associated with this composite outcome with an odds ratio of 3.6 (2.2-5.8), p < 0.001. In a multivariable model, pre-operative variables independently associated with post-operative RVF were pre-operative atrial fibrillation (AF) {adjusted odds ratio (adjOR) 3.22 [95% confidence interval (95%CI) = 1.94-5.36], p < 0.001}, left ventricle ejection fraction below 50% [adjOR = 2.55 (95%CI = 1.52-4.33), p < 0.001], systolic pulmonary artery pressure above 55 mmHg [adjOR = 8.64 (95%CI = 5.27-14.1); p < 0.001], mitral valve surgery [adjOR = 2.17 CI (95%CI = 1.28-3.66), p = 0.004], and tricuspid valve surgery [adjOR = 10.33 (95%CI = 6.14-17.4), p < 0.001]. In patients who developed post-operative RVF requiring treatment, 32 (29.1%) showed RV dysfunction before surgery. Conclusion: In this cohort study, 2.9% of patients developed clinically significant post-operative RVF. Moreover, RVF was associated with severe adverse outcomes, including death, strokes, reintubation, and prolonged intensive care unit stay., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Levy, Laghlam, Estagnasie, Brusset, Squara and Nguyen.)

Diabetes mellitus is associated with serious complications, with foot ulcers and amputation of limbs among the most debilitating consequences of late diagnosis and treatment of foot ulcers. Thus, prediction and on-time treatment of diabetic foot ulcers (DFU) are of great importance for improving and maintaining patients' quality of life and avoiding the consequent socio-economical burden of amputation. In this study, we use Danish national registry data to understand the risk factors of developing diabetic foot ulcers and amputation among patients with diabetes. We analyze the data of 246,705 patients with diabetes to assess some of the main risk factors for developing DFU/amputation. We study the socioeconomic information and past medical history of the patients. Factors, such as low family disposable income, cardiovascular disorders, peripheral artery, neuropathy, and chronic renal complications are among the important risk factors. Mental disorders and depression, albeit not as pronounced, still pose higher risks in comparison to the group of people without these complications. We further use machine learning techniques to assess the practical usefulness of such risk factors for predicting foot ulcers and amputation. Finally, we outline the limitations of working with registry data sources and explain potentials for combining additional public and private data sources in future applications of artificial intelligence (AI) to improve the prediction of diabetic foot ulcers and amputation., Competing Interests: The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest., (Copyright © 2021 Schäfer, Mathisen, Svendsen, Engberg, Rolighed Thomsen and Kirketerp-Møller.)