Editorial: Peri-operative care in cardiac surgery
Marco Pocar,Cristina Barbero,Andrea Costamagna,Mauro Rinaldi,Luca Brazzi
DOI: https://doi.org/10.3389/fcvm.2024.1524314
IF: 3.6
2024-11-29
Frontiers in Cardiovascular Medicine
Abstract:ather than truly novel techniques, progress in cardiac surgery during the last two decades has greatly relied on patient-specific risk-to-benefit stratification and improved perioperative care [1]. Conversely, less invasive surgical approaches and hybrid settings have progressively shifted the traditional definition of "(in)operability", thereby expanding therapeutic options to higher-risk candidates, most typically elderly individuals with multiple comorbidities [2]. The growing interest in this field has promoted the development and implementation of protocols being proposed and aimed at the enhancement of perioperative outcomes. For instance, Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) recommends indications for improved pre-, intra-, and postoperative outcomes, across various surgical specialties. More in particular, ERAS also includes pivotal advancements specifically referred to perioperative care in cardiac surgery. Patients undergoing minimally invasive cardiac surgery should represent an ideal cohort. Summarized in the Research Topic devoted to Perioperative Care in Cardiac Surgery are several, albeit rather heterogeneous, efforts and their respective inferences to improve current outcomes in cardiac surgery.An increasingly relevant topic relates to frail patients. Pozzi et al reviewed the implications of offering intrinsically higher-risk cardiac operations to this population [3]. They suggested a multidisciplinary approach with the objective of identifying the most vulnerable individuals in order to optimize preoperative conditions, stratify indications according to surgical invasiveness, and promote recovery. Importantly, their report confirms the well-known limitations of 30-day predicted mortality (and morbidity). The latter does not readily translate into a satisfactory medium-to-longer term outcome, and likely underscores overall risk at 3-to-6-months follow-up. Similarly, Gao et al attempt to implement a home-and hospital-based prehabilitation program, ideally tailored on every single patient, and aimed at optimizing physical performance and alleviating psychological distress before and after cardiac surgery [4]. This potentially promising field requires the contribution and strict collaboration between multiple professional figures, namely, physiotherapists, psychologists, nutritionists, nurses and physicians. The utmost importance of enhanced pain control, including minimally invasive operations, cannot be overemphasized [5].Renal dysfunction is among the best known and strongest determinants of operative outcome. Zhu et al. better defined the risk of perioperative acute kidney injury (AKI) in relation to longitudinal hemoglobin trajectories and red blood cell transfusion in 4,478 patients from the MIMIC-IV database [6], outlining the "highest, declining" and "medium, declining" trajectories at reduced risk compared to the "the lowest, rising, and then declining" subgroup. Noteworthily, hemoglobin levels >10 g/dL appear to correlate with a higher risk of AKI irrespective of hemoglobin trajectory, an apparently counterintuitive finding and "hot topic" with respect to liberal versus restrictive transfusion policies included in more recent guidelines [7]. In another retrospective study, Wang et al. also outlined mean platelet volume and cryoprecipitate administration as a risk factor for AKI in adults. Coupled with a significant overall incidence of AKI in recent years [8], this finding further stresses the importance of a proactive identification of high-risk individuals.Infection remains a significant complication of the postoperative course following major surgery.The impact on early mortality, prolonged intensive care and hospital stay, and, ultimately, utilization of resources and costs, is particularly relevant in higher-risk patients. Wen et al. analyzed 1,460 patients, regarding the surgical subgroup randomized to coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) alone (versus medical therapy or associated ventricular restoration) in the STICH trial, i.e., with ischemic cardiomyopathy and ejection fraction ≤35%. They reported a non-negligible 10.2% incidence, indicating an increased susceptibility to postoperative infection in this scenario [9]. Among other multivariable predictors, they also outlined body mass index, a finding inconsistent with the so-called obesity paradox concept, when extended to morbidity [10]. They also identified associated mitral valve procedures as risk factor for postoperative infection. Unlike the well-defined benefits of open surgical repair versus interventional procedures in degenerative disease with mitral prolapse etiology of regurgitation, the issues regarding when and how to treat ischemic and functional insufficiency remains largely undefined [11][12][13].CABG is nowadays less prevalent to address coronary heart disease, primarily in relation to the tremendous achievements of percutaneous technologies and newer- -Abstract Truncated-
cardiac & cardiovascular systems