Search

Many believe that blood pressure management during cardiac surgery is associated with postoperative outcomes. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to determine the impact of high compared with low intraoperative blood pressure targets on postoperative morbidity and mortality in adults undergoing cardiac surgery on cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). Our primary objective was to inform the design of a future large RCT.We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL, and CENTRAL for RCTs comparing high with low intraoperative blood pressure targets in adult patients undergoing any cardiac surgical procedure on CPB. We screened reference lists, grey literature, and conference proceedings.We included eight RCTs (N =1,116 participants); all examined the effect of blood pressure management only during the CPB. Trial definitions of high compared with low blood pressure varied and, in some, there was a discrepancy between the target and achieved mean arterial pressure. We observed no difference in delirium, cognitive decline, stroke, acute kidney injury, or mortality between high and low blood pressure targets (very-low to low quality evidence). Higher blood pressure targets may have increased the risk of requiring a blood transfusion (three trials; n = 456 participants; relative risk, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 1.1 to 1.9; P = 0.01; moderate quality evidence) but this finding was based on a small number of trials.Individual trial definitions of high and low blood pressure targets varied, limiting inferences. The effect of high (compared with low) blood pressure targets on other morbidity and mortality after cardiac surgery remains unclear because of limitations with the body of existing evidence. Research to determine the optimal management of blood pressure during cardiac surgery is required.PROSPERO (CRD42020177376); registered: 5 July 2020.RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Pour beaucoup, la prise en charge de la pression artérielle pendant la chirurgie cardiaque serait associée aux issues postopératoires. Nous avons réalisé une revue systématique et une méta-analyse d’études randomisées contrôlées (ERC) afin de déterminer l’impact de cibles peropératoires de pression artérielle élevées par rapport à des cibles basses sur la morbidité et la mortalité postopératoires d’adultes bénéficiant d’une chirurgie cardiaque sous circulation extracorporelle (CEC). Notre objectif principal était d’orienter la conception d’une future ERC d’envergure.Nous avons analysé les bases de données MEDLINE, EMBASE, Web of Science, CINAHL et CENTRAL afin d’en tirer les ERC comparant des cibles de pression artérielle peropératoire élevées à des cibles basses chez des patients adultes bénéficiant d’une intervention chirurgicale cardiaque sous CEC. Nous avons passé au crible les listes de références, la littérature grise et les travaux de congrès.Nous avons inclus huit ERC (N = 1116 participants); toutes les études ont examiné l’effet de la prise en charge de la pression artérielle uniquement pendant la CEC. Les définitions d’une pression artérielle élevée ou basse variaient d’une étude à l’autre et, dans certains cas, un écart a été noté entre la pression artérielle cible et la pression artérielle moyenne atteinte. Nous n’avons observé aucune différence dans les taux de delirium, de déclin cognitif, d’accident vasculaire cérébral, d’insuffisance rénale aiguë ou de mortalité entre les cibles de pression artérielle élevée et basse (données probantes de qualité très faible à faible). Des cibles de pression artérielle plus élevées pourraient avoir augmenté le risque de transfusion sanguine (trois études; n = 456 participants; risque relatif, 1,4; intervalle de confiance à 95 %, 1,1 à 1,9; P = 0,01; données probantes de qualité modérée), mais ce résultat se fondait sur un petit nombre d’études.Les définitions individuelles des cibles d’hypertension et d’hypotension artérielle variaient, ce qui a limité les inférences. L’effet de cibles de pression artérielle élevée (par rapport à une pression artérielle basse) sur d’autres mesures de la morbidité et de la mortalité après une chirurgie cardiaque demeure incertain en raison des limites de l’ensemble des données probantes existantes. Des recherches visant à déterminer la prise en charge optimale de la pression artérielle pendant la chirurgie cardiaque sont nécessaires. ENREGISTREMENT DE L’éTUDE: PROSPERO (CRD42020177376); enregistrée le 5 juillet 2020.

Objective To characterize the institutional oxygen management practices during cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, including any potential changes during an 8-year study period. Design A retrospective cohort study. Setting A tertiary care cardiac surgical program. Participants Patients who underwent cardiac surgery involving CPB, with or without hypothermic circulatory arrest (HCA), between January 1, 2010, and December 31, 2017. Measurements and Main Results In addition to baseline patient characteristics, the authors recorded the partial pressures of arterial oxygen (Pa o 2), fraction of inspired oxygen, and mixed venous oxygen saturation during CPB of 696 randomly selected patients during an 8-year study period. The overall mean Pa o 2 was 255 ± 48 mmHg, without any significant change during the 8-year study period (p = 0.30). The mean Pa o 2 of HCA patients was significantly higher than in patients without HCA (327 ± 93 mmHg v 252 ± 45 mmHg, respectively; p Conclusions The current approach to oxygen management during CPB at the authors’ institution is within the range of hyperoxemic levels, and these practices have not changed over time. The impact of these practices on patients’ outcomes is not fully understood, and additional studies are needed to establish firm evidence to guide optimal oxygen management practice during CPB.

Blood transfusions are frequently administered in cardiac surgery. Despite a large number of published studies comparing a “restrictive” strategy with a “liberal” strategy, no clear consensus has emerged to guide blood transfusion practice in cardiac surgery patients. The purpose of this study was to identify, critically appraise, and summarize the evidence on the overall effect of restrictive transfusion strategies compared with liberal transfusion strategies on mortality, other clinical outcomes, and transfusion-related outcomes in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery. We searched MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP) and Cochrane CENTRAL (Wiley) from inception to 1 December 2017 and queried clinical trial registries and conference proceedings for randomized-controlled trials of liberal vs restrictive transfusion strategies in cardiac surgery. From 7,908 citations, we included ten trials (9,101 patients) and eight companion publications. Overall, we found no significant difference in mortality between restrictive and liberal transfusion strategies (risk ratio [RR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.54; I2 = 33%; seven trials; 8,661 patients). The use of a restrictive transfusion strategy did not appear to adversely impact any of the secondary clinical outcomes. As expected, the proportion of patients who received red blood cells (RBCs) in the restrictive group was significantly lower than in the liberal group (RR, 0.68; 95% CI, 0.64 to 0.73; I2 = 56%; 5 trials; 8,534 patients). Among transfused patients, a restrictive transfusion strategy was associated with fewer transfused RBC units per patient than a liberal transfusion strategy. In adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery, a restrictive transfusion strategy reduces RBC transfusion without impacting mortality rate or the incidence of other perioperative complications. Nevertheless, further large trials in subgroups of patients, potentially of differing age, are needed to establish firm evidence to guide transfusion in cardiac surgery. PROSPERO (CRD42017071440); registered 20 April, 2018.

Patients following cardiac surgery commonly experience post-operative delirium (POD) during their postoperative hospital stay. A multifaceted, specialty wide, quality improvement (QI) project was undertaken for patients experiencing POD. The goal was to develop a reduction in POD care bundle (rPOD-a structured patient care program) that encompasses efficient preoperative risk factor identification and a postoperative patient-care process to ensure early POD identification and treatment. The following steps were taken to implement the rPOD care bundle including: (a) Developing a quality driven, evidence-based guideline for the perioperative cardiac surgery health care team, (b) identifying and addressing local barriers to implementation, (c) selecting performance measures to assess intervention adherence and patient outcomes, and (d) ensuring that all patients receive the interventions through staff engagement and education, and regular project evaluation. Trends of process measures and quality improvement measures were examined. An increasing trend in the rate of postoperative delirium screening during implementation of rPOD intervention was demonstrated. This quality improvement study provides a bases for future postoperative delirium reduction interventions.

Background Outcome selection underpins clinical trial interpretation. Inconsistency in outcome selection and reporting hinders comparison of different trials' results, reducing the utility of research findings. Methods We conducted an iterative consensus process to develop a set of Core Outcome Measures for Perioperative and Anaesthetic Care (COMPAC), following the established Core Outcome Measures for Effectiveness Trials (COMET) methodology. First, we undertook a systematic review of RCTs in high-impact journals to describe current outcome reporting trends. We then surveyed patients, carers, researchers, and perioperative clinicians about important outcomes after surgery. Finally, a purposive stakeholder sample participated in a modified Delphi process to develop a core outcome set for perioperative and anaesthesia trials. Results Our systematic review revealed widespread inconsistency in outcome reporting, with variable or absent definitions, levels of detail, and temporal criteria. In the survey, almost all patients, carers, and clinicians rated clinical outcome measures critically important, but clinicians rated patient-centred outcomes less highly than patients and carers. The final core outcome set was: (i) mortality/survival (postoperative mortality, long-term survival); (ii) perioperative complications (major postoperative complications/adverse events; complications/adverse events causing permanent harm); (iii) resource use (length of hospital stay, unplanned readmission within 30 days); (iv) short-term recovery (discharge destination, level of dependence, or both); and (v) longer-term recovery (overall health-related quality of life). Conclusions This core set, incorporating important outcomes for both clinicians and patients, should guide outcome selection in future perioperative medicine or anaesthesia trials. Mapping these alongside standardised endpoint definitions will yield a comprehensive perioperative outcome framework.

Healthcare providers are facing a coronavirus disease pandemic. This pandemic may last for many months, stressing the Canadian healthcare system in a way that has not previously been seen. Keeping healthcare providers safe, healthy, and available to work throughout this pandemic is critical. The consistent use of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) will help assure its availability and healthcare provider safety. The purpose of this communique is to give both anesthesiologists and other front-line healthcare providers a framework from which to understand the principles and practices surrounding PPE decision-making. We propose three types of PPE including: 1) PPE for droplet and contact precautions, 2) PPE for general airborne, droplet, and contact precautions, and 3) PPE for those performing or assisting with high-risk aerosol-generating medical procedures.

Healthcare providers are facing a coronavirus disease pandemic. This pandemic may last for many months, stressing the Canadian healthcare system in a way that has not previously been seen. Keeping healthcare providers safe, healthy, and available to work throughout this pandemic is critical. The consistent use of appropriate personal protective equipment (PPE) will help assure its availability and healthcare provider safety. The purpose of this communique is to give both anesthesiologists and other front-line healthcare providers a framework from which to understand the principles and practices surrounding PPE decision-making. We propose three types of PPE including: 1) PPE for droplet and contact precautions, 2) PPE for general airborne, droplet, and contact precautions, and 3) PPE for those performing or assisting with high-risk aerosol-generating medical procedures.RéSUMé: Les professionnels de la santé sont confrontés à une pandémie de coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19). Cette pandémie pourrait durer plusieurs mois, soumettant le système de santé canadien à des pressions jusqu’alors méconnues. Il est essentiel de garder les professionnels de la santé en sécurité, en santé et disponibles tout au long de cette pandémie. Une utilisation cohérente des équipements de protection individuelle (EPI) adaptés nous aidera à garantir leur disponibilité et la sécurité des professionnels de la santé. L’objectif de ce communiqué est de fournir aux anesthésiologistes et aux autres professionnels de la santé de première ligne un cadre leur permettant de comprendre les principes et les pratiques entourant la prise de décision par rapport aux EPI. Nous proposons trois types d’EPI, soit 1) les EPI pour prendre des précautions contre les gouttelettes et le contact; 2) les EPI pour prendre des précautions générales contre les suspensions aériennes, les gouttelettes et le contact; et 3) les EPI pour les professionnels réalisant ou assistant des interventions médicales à haut risque de génération d’aérosols.

To the Editor We read, with keen interest, the pilot study by Fujii et al examining the transversus thoracis muscle plane block in cardiac surgery.[1][1] In the era of ‘fast track’ and other enhanced recovery after cardiac surgery efforts, novel regional anesthesia techniques are increasingly

Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New Background Research into major bleeding during cardiac surgery is challenging due to variability in how it is scored. Two consensus-based clinical scores for major bleeding: the Universal definition of perioperative bleeding and the European Coronary Artery Bypass Graft (E-CABG) bleeding severity grade, were compared in this substudy of the Transfusion Avoidance in Cardiac Surgery (TACS) trial. Methods As part of TACS, 7,402 patients underwent cardiac surgery at 12 hospitals from 2014 to 2015. We examined content validity by comparing scored items, construct validity by examining associations with redo and complex procedures, and criterion validity by examining 28-day in-hospital mortality risk across bleeding severity categories. Hierarchical logistic regression models were constructed that incorporated important predictors and categories of bleeding. Results E-CABG and Universal scores were correlated (Spearman ρ = 0.78, P < 0.0001), but E-CABG classified 910 (12.4%) patients as having more severe bleeding, whereas the Universal score classified 1,729 (23.8%) as more severe. Higher E-CABG and Universal scores were observed in redo and complex procedures. Increasing E-CABG and Universal scores were associated with increased mortality in unadjusted and adjusted analyses. Regression model discrimination based on predictors of perioperative mortality increased with additional inclusion of the Universal score (c-statistic increase from 0.83 to 0.91) or E-CABG (c-statistic increase from 0.83 to 0.92). When other major postoperative complications were added to these models, the association between Universal or E-CABG bleeding with mortality remained. Conclusions Although each offers different advantages, both the Universal score and E-CABG performed well in the validity assessments, supporting their use as outcome measures in clinical trials.

Thromboelastography and rotational thromboelastometry are point-of-care (POC) viscoelastic tests used to help guide blood product administration. It is unclear whether these tests improve clinical or transfusion-related outcomes. The objective of this study was to appraise data from randomized trials evaluating the benefit of POC testing in cardiac surgery patients. Primary outcomes were the proportion of patients transfused with blood products and all-cause mortality. Medline (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), CENTRAL (the Cochrane Library-Wiley), Web of Science, Biosis, Scopus, and CINAHL databases, as well as clinical trial registries and conference proceedings were queried from inception to February 2018. We identified 1,917 records, 11 of which were included in our analysis (8,294 patients). Point-of-care testing was not associated with a difference in the proportion of patients transfused with any blood product (risk ratio [RR], 0.90; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.79 to 1.02; I2 = 51%; four trials, 7,623 patients), or all-cause mortality (RR, 0.73; 95% CI, 0.47 to 1.13; I2 = 5%; six trials, 7,931 patients). Nevertheless, POC testing was weakly associated with a decrease in the proportion of patients receiving red blood cells (RBC) (RR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.85 to 0.96; I2 = 0%; seven trials, 8,029 patients), and heterogeneous reductions in frozen plasma (FP) (RR, 0.58; 95% CI, 0.34 to 0.99; I2 = 87%; six trials, 7,989 patients) and platelets (RR, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.49 to 0.90; I2 = 65%; seven trials, 8,029 patients). Meta-analysis of the number of units of RBCs and FP was not possible due to heterogeneity in reporting, however POC testing significantly reduced the units of platelets transfused (standard mean difference, -0.09; 95% CI, -0.18 to 0.00; four trials, 7,643 patients). Our review indicates that in cardiac surgery patients, POC viscoelastic hemostatic testing is not associated with a reduction in the proportion of patients receiving any blood product or all-cause mortality. However, viscoelastic testing is weakly associated with a reduction in proportion of patients transfused with specific blood products. Presently, the benefits associated with viscoelastic testing in cardiac surgery patients are insufficiently robust to recommend routine implementation of this technology. PROSPERO (CRD4201706577). Registered 11 May 2017.

Historically, cardiac surgery patients have often been managed with supraphysiologic intraoperative oxygen levels to protect against the risks of cellular hypoxia inherent in the un-physiologic nature of surgery and cardiopulmonary bypass. This may result in excessive reactive oxygen species generation and exacerbation of ischemia-reperfusion injury. In this review, we synthesize all available data from randomized controlled trials (RCTs) to investigate the impact that hyperoxia has on postoperative organ dysfunction, length of stay, and mortality during adult cardiac surgery. We searched Medline, Embase, Scopus, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials databases using a high-sensitivity strategy for RCTs that compared oxygenation strategies for adult cardiac surgery. Our primary outcome was postoperative organ dysfunction defined by postoperative increases in myocardial enzymes, acute kidney injury, and neurologic dysfunction. Secondary outcomes were mortality, ventilator days, and length of stay in the hospital and intensive care unit. We identified 12 RCTs that met our inclusion criteria. Risk of bias was unclear to high in all but one trial. Significant heterogeneity in timing of the treatment period and the oxygenation levels targeted was evident and precluded meta-analysis. The large majority of trials found no difference between hyperoxia and normoxia for any outcome. Two trials reported reduced postoperative myocardial enzymes and one trial reported reduced mechanical ventilation time in the normoxia group. Hyperoxia had minimal impact on organ dysfunction, length of stay, and mortality in adult cardiac surgery. The current evidence base is small, heterogeneous, and at risk of bias. International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO) (CRD42017074712). Registered 17 August 2017.

Objectives To determine if a restrictive transfusion threshold is noninferior to a higher threshold as measured by a composite outcome of mortality and serious morbidity. Design Transfusion Requirements in Cardiac Surgery (TRICS) III was a multicenter, international, open-label randomized controlled trial of two commonly used transfusion strategies in patients having cardiac surgery using a noninferiority trial design (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT02042898). Setting Eligible patients were randomized prior to surgery in a 1:1 ratio. Participants Potential participants were 18 years or older undergoing planned cardiac surgery using cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) with a preoperative European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation (EuroSCORE I) of 6 or more. Interventions Five thousand patients; those allocated to a restrictive transfusion group received a red blood cell (RBC) transfusion if the hemoglobin concentration (Hb) was less than 7.5 g/dL intraoperatively and/or postoperatively. Patients allocated to a liberal transfusion strategy received RBC transfusion if the Hb was less than 9.5 g/dL intraoperatively or postoperatively in the intensive care unit or less than 8.5 g/dL on the ward. Measurements and Main Results The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality, myocardial infarction, stroke, or new onset renal dysfunction requiring dialysis at hospital discharge or day 28, whichever comes first. The primary outcome was analyzed as a per-protocol analysis. The trial monitored adherence closely as adherence to the transfusion triggers is important in ensuring that measured outcomes reflect the transfusion strategy. Conclusion By randomizing prior to surgery, the TRICS III trial captured the most acute reduction in hemoglobin during cardiopulmonary bypass.

Objectives Although clinical practice guidelines recommend standard cefazolin antimicrobial prophylaxis (AP) dosing for cardiac surgery, limited data exist as to whether adequate concentrations are achieved in this patient population. The goal of our study was to characterize intraoperative cefazolin concentrations particularly at wound closure with regards to maintaining target cefazolin closure concentrations ≥40 mg/L. Methods Adults undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and receiving cefazolin AP according to protocol were studied. Blood samples were collected after the preoperative cefazolin dose, prior to intraoperative cefazolin doses and at wound closure. Intraoperative trough and closure concentrations were characterized and evaluated against a target threshold of ≥ 40 mg/L (≥8 mg/L unbound, assuming 80% protein binding). Results Fifty-five subjects (64.9 ± 10.4 years, 89.7 ± 16.5 kg, CLCR >50 mL/min/72 kg) completed the study. Total cefazolin concentrations were

Background Delirium and pain are common and serious postoperative complications. Subanaesthetic ketamine is often administered intraoperatively for postoperative analgesia and to spare postoperative opioids. Some evidence also suggests that ketamine prevents delirium. The primary purpose of this trial was to evaluate the effectiveness of ketamine in preventing postoperative delirium in older adults after major surgery. Secondary outcomes, viewed as strongly related to delirium, were postoperative pain and opioid consumption. Methods This was a multicentre, international, randomised trial that enrolled adults older than 60 undergoing major cardiac and noncardiac surgery under general anaesthesia. Participants were enrolled prior to surgery and gave written informed consent. We used a computer-generated randomisation sequence. Patients at study sites were randomised to one of three study groups in blocks of 15 to receive intraoperative administration of (i) placebo (intravenous normal saline), (ii) low dose ketamine (0.5 mg/kg) or (iii) high dose ketamine (1 mg/kg). Study drug was administered following induction of anaesthesia, prior to surgical incision. Participants, clinicians, and investigators were all masked to group assignment. Delirium and pain were assessed twice daily in the first three postoperative days using the Confusion Assessment Method and Visual Analog Scale, respectively. Postoperative opioid use was recorded, and hallucinations and nightmares were assessed. Analyses were performed by intention-to-treat and adverse events were evaluated. The Prevention of Delirium and Complications Associated with Surgical Treatments [PODCAST] trial is registered in clinicaltrials.gov; NCT01690988 Findings Between February 6, 2014 and June 26, 2016, 1360 patients assessed and 672 were randomised, with 222 in the placebo group, 227 in the low dose ketamine group, and 223 in the high dose ketamine group. There was no difference in postoperative delirium incidence between those in the combined ketamine groups and those who received placebo (19.45% vs. 19.82%, respectively; absolute difference, 0.36%; 95% CI, −6.07% to 7.38%; p=0.92). There were no significant differences among the three groups in maximum pain scores (p=0.88) or median opioid consumption (p=0.47) over time. There were more postoperative hallucinations (p=0.01) and nightmares (p=0.03) with escalating doses of ketamine. Adverse events (cardiovascular, renal, infectious, gastrointestinal, bleeding), whether viewed individually (P value for each >0.40) or collectively (82/222 [36.9%] in placebo group, 90/227 [39.6%] in low dose ketamine group, 91/223 in high dose ketamine group [40.8%]; P=0.69), did not differ significantly across the three groups. Interpretation The administration of a single subanaesthetic dose of ketamine to older adults during major surgery did not show evidence of reducing postoperative delirium, pain, or opioid consumption, and might cause harm by inducing negative experiences. Given current evidence and guidelines related to ketamine and postoperative analgesia, the unexpected secondary findings regarding pain and opioid consumption warrant replication or refutation in subsequent research. Funding The funders of the study had no role in study design, data collection, data analysis, data interpretation, or writing of the report. The principal investigators (MSA and GAM) had full access to all the data in the study and had final responsibility for the decision to submit for publication.

Objective To identify interventions for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke after cardiac surgery and to report the efficacy of these treatments. Design Systematic review and narrative synthesis Participants Patients with ischemic stroke after cardiac surgery. Interventions Treatment efficacy of intra-arterial thrombolysis (IAT) and/or endovascular mechanical thrombectomy (EMT). Methods and Main Results The MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Scopus (Elsevier), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Wiley) databases were searched from January 1, 1990, until September 20, 2018. After reviewing 5,231 records, 8 case reports/series and 2 retrospective studies were included (n = 33). Three of these reports (n = 19) published between 2001 and 2003 described IAT, and 6 studies (n = 14) published between 2015 and 2019 reported the use of EMT. In the 19 patients who received IAT, 3 (16%) had good, 8 (42%) had moderate, and 8 (42%) had poor neurologic outcomes. In the 14 patients who received EMT, 7 (50%) had good, 5 (36%) had moderate, and 2 (14%) had poor neurologic outcomes. Conclusions Endovascular thrombectomy, with or without IAT, is being used increasingly with success in patients presenting with postcardiac surgery stroke. However, the number of patients reported is too small to confidently understand its overall effect on neurologic outcomes in this setting.

Blood transfusions are frequently administered in cardiac surgery. Despite a large number of published studies comparing a "restrictive" strategy with a "liberal" strategy, no clear consensus has emerged to guide blood transfusion practice in cardiac surgery patients. The purpose of this study was to identify, critically appraise, and summarize the evidence on the overall effect of restrictive transfusion strategies compared with liberal transfusion strategies on mortality, other clinical outcomes, and transfusion-related outcomes in adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery.We searched MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP) and Cochrane CENTRAL (Wiley) from inception to 1 December 2017 and queried clinical trial registries and conference proceedings for randomized-controlled trials of liberal vs restrictive transfusion strategies in cardiac surgery.From 7,908 citations, we included ten trials (9,101 patients) and eight companion publications. Overall, we found no significant difference in mortality between restrictive and liberal transfusion strategies (risk ratio [RR], 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.76 to 1.54; IIn adult patients undergoing cardiac surgery, a restrictive transfusion strategy reduces RBC transfusion without impacting mortality rate or the incidence of other perioperative complications. Nevertheless, further large trials in subgroups of patients, potentially of differing age, are needed to establish firm evidence to guide transfusion in cardiac surgery.PROSPERO (CRD42017071440); registered 20 April, 2018.RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Les transfusions sanguines sont fréquentes après une chirurgie cardiaque. Malgré le nombre important d’études publiées comparant une stratégie « restrictive » à une stratégie « libérale », aucun consensus clair n’est apparu pour guider la pratique de la transfusion sanguine chez les patients de chirurgie cardiaque. L’objectif de cette étude était d’identifier, d’évaluer de façon critique et de résumer les données probantes sur l’effet global des stratégies de transfusion restrictives comparativement aux stratégies libérales sur la mortalité, les autres devenirs cliniques, et les devenirs liés à la transfusion chez des patients adultes subissant une chirurgie cardiaque.Nous avons réalisé des recherches dans les bases de données MEDLINE (OvidSP), EMBASE (OvidSP) et Cochrane CENTRAL (Wiley) de leur création jusqu’au 1Sur 7908 citations, nous avons inclus dix études (9101 patients) et huit publications connexes. Globalement, nous n’avons observé aucune différence significative en matière de mortalité entre les stratégies transfusionnelles restrictives et libérales (risque relatif [RR], 1,08; intervalle de confiance [IC] 95 %, 0,76 à 1,54; IDans une population de patients adultes subissant une chirurgie cardiaque, une stratégie transfusionnelle restrictive réduit la transfusion d’érythrocytes sans avoir d’impact sur le taux de mortalité ou sur l’incidence d’autres complications périopératoires. D’autres grandes études sur différents sous-groupes de patients, peut-être d’âges différents, sont toutefois nécessaires afin d’établir des données probantes concluantes pour guider les transfusions en chirurgie cardiaque. ENREGISTREMENT DE L’éTUDE: PROSPERO (CRD42017071440); enregistrée le 20 avril 2018.

Background: Cardiac surgery is frequently complicated by coagulopathic bleeding that is difficult to optimally manage using standard hemostatic testing. We hypothesized that point-of-care hemostatic testing within the context of an integrated transfusion algorithm would improve the management of coagulopathy in cardiac surgery and thereby reduce blood transfusions. Methods: We conducted a pragmatic multicenter stepped-wedge cluster randomized controlled trial of a point-of-care–based transfusion algorithm in consecutive patients undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass at 12 hospitals from October 6, 2014, to May 1, 2015. Following a 1-month data collection at all participating hospitals, a transfusion algorithm incorporating point-of-care hemostatic testing was sequentially implemented at 2 hospitals at a time in 1-month intervals, with the implementation order randomly assigned. No other aspects of care were modified. The primary outcome was red blood cell transfusion from surgery to postoperative day 7. Other outcomes included transfusion of other blood products, major bleeding, and major complications. The analysis adjusted for secular time trends, within-hospital clustering, and patient-level risk factors. All outcomes and analyses were prespecified before study initiation. Results: Among the 7402 patients studied, 3555 underwent surgery during the control phase and 3847 during the intervention phase. Overall, 3329 (45.0%) received red blood cells, 1863 (25.2%) received platelets, 1645 (22.2%) received plasma, and 394 (5.3%) received cryoprecipitate. Major bleeding occurred in 1773 (24.1%) patients, and major complications occurred in 740 (10.2%) patients. The trial intervention reduced rates of red blood cell transfusion (adjusted relative risk, 0.91; 95% confidence interval, 0.85–0.98; P =0.02; number needed to treat, 24.7), platelet transfusion (relative risk, 0.77; 95% confidence interval, 0.68–0.87; P P =0.004; number needed to treat, 22.6), but had no effect on other blood product transfusions or major complications. Conclusions: Implementation of point-of-care hemostatic testing within the context of an integrated transfusion algorithm reduces red blood cell transfusions, platelet transfusions, and major bleeding following cardiac surgery. Our findings support the broader adoption of point-of-care hemostatic testing into clinical practice. Clinical Trial Registration: URL: http://www.clinicaltrials.gov . Unique identifier: NCT02200419.