Cardiovascular Management

A minority of patients having cardiac procedures (15% to 20%) consume more than 80% of the blood products transfused at operation. Blood must be viewed as a scarce resource that carries risks and benefits. A careful review of available evidence can provide guidelines to allocate this valuable resource and improve patient outcomes. We reviewed all available published evidence related to blood conservation during cardiac operations, including randomized controlled trials, published observational information, and case reports. Conventional methods identified the level of evidence available for each of the blood conservation interventions. After considering the level of evidence, recommendations were made regarding each intervention using the American Heart Association/American College of Cardiology classification scheme. Review of published reports identified a high-risk profile associated with increased postoperative blood transfusion. Six variables stand out as important indicators of risk: (1) advanced age, (2) low preoperative red blood cell volume (preoperative anemia or small body size), (3) preoperative antiplatelet or antithrombotic drugs, (4) reoperative or complex procedures, (5) emergency operations, and (6) noncardiac patient comorbidities. Careful review revealed preoperative and perioperative interventions that are likely to reduce bleeding and postoperative blood transfusion. Preoperative interventions that are likely to reduce blood transfusion include identification of high-risk patients who should receive all available preoperative and perioperative blood conservation interventions and limitation of antithrombotic drugs. Perioperative blood conservation interventions include use of antifibrinolytic drugs, selective use of off-pump coronary artery bypass graft surgery, routine use of a cell-saving device, and implementation of appropriate transfusion indications. An important intervention is application of a multimodality blood conservation program that is institution based, accepted by all health care providers, and that involves well thought out transfusion algorithms to guide transfusion decisions. Based on available evidence, institution-specific protocols should screen for high-risk patients, as blood conservation interventions are likely to be most productive for this high-risk subset. Available evidence-based blood conservation techniques include (1) drugs that increase preoperative blood volume (eg, erythropoietin) or decrease postoperative bleeding (eg, antifibrinolytics), (2) devices that conserve blood (eg, intraoperative blood salvage and blood sparing interventions), (3) interventions that protect the patient's own blood from the stress of operation (eg, autologous predonation and normovolemic hemodilution), (4) consensus, institution-specific blood transfusion algorithms supplemented with point-of-care testing, and most importantly, (5) a multimodality approach to blood conservation combining all of the above.

The conventional treatment strategy for patients with atrial fibrillation who are to undergo electrical cardioversion is to prescribe warfarin for anticoagulation for three weeks before cardioversion. It has been proposed that if transesophageal echocardiography reveals no atrial thrombus, cardioversion may be performed safely after only a short period of anticoagulant therapy. In a multicenter, randomized, prospective clinical trial, we enrolled 1222 patients with atrial fibrillation of more than two days' duration and assigned them to either treatment guided by the findings on transesophageal echocardiography or conventional treatment. The composite primary end point was cerebrovascular accident, transient ischemic attack, and peripheral embolism within eight weeks. Secondary end points were functional status, successful restoration and maintenance of sinus rhythm, hemorrhage, and death. There was no significant difference between the two treatment groups in the rate of embolic events (five embolic events among 619 patients in the transesophageal-echocardiography group [0.8 percent]) vs. three among 603 patients in the conventional-treatment group [0.5 percent], P=0.50). However, the rate of hemorrhagic events was significantly lower in the transesophageal-echocardiography group (18 events [2.9 percent] vs. 33 events [5.5 percent], P=0.03). Patients in the transesophageal-echocardiography group also had a shorter time to cardioversion (mean [+/-SD], 3.0+/-5.6 vs. 30.6+/-10.6 days, P<0.001) and a greater rate of successful restoration of sinus rhythm (440 patients [71.1 percent] vs. 393 patients [65.2 percent], P=0.03). At eight weeks, there were no significant differences between the two groups in the rates of death or maintenance of sinus rhythm or in functional status. The use of transesophageal echocardiography to guide the management of atrial fibrillation may be considered a clinically effective alternative strategy to conventional therapy for patients in whom elective cardioversion is planned.