↓ Skip to main content

Clinical review: Practical recommendations on the management of perioperative heart failure in cardiac surgery

Overview of attention for article published in Critical Care, April 2010
Altmetric Badge

Mentioned by

twitter
1 X user
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
164 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
257 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Clinical review: Practical recommendations on the management of perioperative heart failure in cardiac surgery
Published in
Critical Care, April 2010
DOI 10.1186/cc8153
Pubmed ID
Authors

Alexandre Mebazaa, Antonis A Pitsis, Alain Rudiger, Wolfgang Toller, Dan Longrois, Sven-Erik Ricksten, Ilona Bobek, Stefan De Hert, Georg Wieselthaler, Uwe Schirmer, Ludwig K von Segesser, Michael Sander, Don Poldermans, Marco Ranucci, Peter CJ Karpati, Patrick Wouters, Manfred Seeberger, Edith R Schmid, Walter Weder, Ferenc Follath

Abstract

Acute cardiovascular dysfunction occurs perioperatively in more than 20% of cardiosurgical patients, yet current acute heart failure (HF) classification is not applicable to this period. Indicators of major perioperative risk include unstable coronary syndromes, decompensated HF, significant arrhythmias and valvular disease. Clinical risk factors include history of heart disease, compensated HF, cerebrovascular disease, presence of diabetes mellitus, renal insufficiency and high-risk surgery. EuroSCORE reliably predicts perioperative cardiovascular alteration in patients aged less than 80 years. Preoperative B-type natriuretic peptide level is an additional risk stratification factor. Aggressively preserving heart function during cardiosurgery is a major goal. Volatile anaesthetics and levosimendan seem to be promising cardioprotective agents, but large trials are still needed to assess the best cardioprotective agent(s) and optimal protocol(s). The aim of monitoring is early detection and assessment of mechanisms of perioperative cardiovascular dysfunction. Ideally, volume status should be assessed by 'dynamic' measurement of haemodynamic parameters. Assess heart function first by echocardiography, then using a pulmonary artery catheter (especially in right heart dysfunction). If volaemia and heart function are in the normal range, cardiovascular dysfunction is very likely related to vascular dysfunction. In treating myocardial dysfunction, consider the following options, either alone or in combination: low-to-moderate doses of dobutamine and epinephrine, milrinone or levosimendan. In vasoplegia-induced hypotension, use norepinephrine to maintain adequate perfusion pressure. Exclude hypovolaemia in patients under vasopressors, through repeated volume assessments. Optimal perioperative use of inotropes/vasopressors in cardiosurgery remains controversial, and further large multinational studies are needed. Cardiosurgical perioperative classification of cardiac impairment should be based on time of occurrence (precardiotomy, failure to wean, postcardiotomy) and haemodynamic severity of the patient's condition (crash and burn, deteriorating fast, stable but inotrope dependent). In heart dysfunction with suspected coronary hypoperfusion, an intra-aortic balloon pump is highly recommended. A ventricular assist device should be considered before end organ dysfunction becomes evident. Extra-corporeal membrane oxygenation is an elegant solution as a bridge to recovery and/or decision making. This paper offers practical recommendations for management of perioperative HF in cardiosurgery based on European experts' opinion. It also emphasizes the need for large surveys and studies to assess the optimal way to manage perioperative HF in cardiac surgery.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profile of 1 X user who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 257 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Spain 4 2%
Germany 2 <1%
France 2 <1%
Hungary 1 <1%
Chile 1 <1%
Norway 1 <1%
Netherlands 1 <1%
Egypt 1 <1%
Brazil 1 <1%
Other 2 <1%
Unknown 241 94%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Researcher 49 19%
Other 34 13%
Student > Postgraduate 29 11%
Student > Ph. D. Student 20 8%
Professor 17 7%
Other 67 26%
Unknown 41 16%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 185 72%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 4 2%
Nursing and Health Professions 4 2%
Engineering 3 1%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 3 1%
Other 9 4%
Unknown 49 19%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 1. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 22 July 2012.
All research outputs
#19,944,994
of 25,374,647 outputs
Outputs from Critical Care
#5,876
of 6,554 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#94,496
of 104,890 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Critical Care
#46
of 50 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,374,647 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 6,554 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 20.8. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 104,890 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one is in the 9th percentile – i.e., 9% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.
We're also able to compare this research output to 50 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 8th percentile – i.e., 8% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.