BACKGROUND/AIM: Limited clinical data exist to guide practice patterns and evidence-based use of inotropes and vasopressors following coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODS: Contemporary Analysis of Perioperative Cardiovascular Surgical Care (CAPS-Care) collected detailed perioperative data from 2390 CABG patients between 2004 and 2005 at 55 U.S. hospitals. High-risk elective or urgent CABG patients were eligible for inclusion. We stratified participating hospitals into high, medium, and low tertiles of inotrope use. Hospital-level outcomes were compared before and after risk adjustment for baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Hospital-level risk-adjusted rates of any inotrope/vasopressor use varied from 100% to 35%. Hospitals in the highest tertile of use had more patients with mitral regurgitation compared to medium- or low-use hospitals (p < 0.001), more previous cardiovascular interventions (p = 0.002), longer cardiopulmonary bypass (p < 0.001), longer cross-clamp times (p < 0.001), and required more transfusions (p = 0.001). Despite these differences, unadjusted outcomes were similar between high-, medium-, and low-use hospitals for operative mortality (4.5% vs. 5.3% vs. 5.2%; p = 0.702), 30-day mortality (4.1% vs. 4.6% vs. 5.0%; p = 0.690), postoperative renal failure (7.2% vs. 9.2% vs. 6.6%; p = 0.142), atrial fibrillation (23.0% vs. 27.2% vs. 25.6%; p = 0.106), and acute limb ischemia (0.6% vs. 0.5% vs. 0.5%; p = 0.945). These similar outcomes persisted after risk adjustment: adjusted OR = 0.97 (95% CI [0.94, 1.00], p = 0.086) for operative mortality and adjusted OR = 1.00 (95% CI [0.96, 1.04], p = 0.974) for postoperative renal failure. CONCLUSION: While considerable variability is present among hospitals in inotrope use following CABG, observational comparison of outcomes did not distinguish a superior pattern; thus, randomized prospective data are needed to better guide clinical practice.
BACKGROUND/AIM: Limited clinical data exist to guide practice patterns and evidence-based use of inotropes and vasopressors following coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG). METHODS: Contemporary Analysis of Perioperative Cardiovascular Surgical Care (CAPS-Care) collected detailed perioperative data from 2390 CABG patients between 2004 and 2005 at 55 U.S. hospitals. High-risk elective or urgent CABG patients were eligible for inclusion. We stratified participating hospitals into high, medium, and low tertiles of inotrope use. Hospital-level outcomes were compared before and after risk adjustment for baseline characteristics. RESULTS: Hospital-level risk-adjusted rates of any inotrope/vasopressor use varied from 100% to 35%. Hospitals in the highest tertile of use had more patients with mitral regurgitation compared to medium- or low-use hospitals (p < 0.001), more previous cardiovascular interventions (p = 0.002), longer cardiopulmonary bypass (p < 0.001), longer cross-clamp times (p < 0.001), and required more transfusions (p = 0.001). Despite these differences, unadjusted outcomes were similar between high-, medium-, and low-use hospitals for operative mortality (4.5% vs. 5.3% vs. 5.2%; p = 0.702), 30-day mortality (4.1% vs. 4.6% vs. 5.0%; p = 0.690), postoperative renal failure (7.2% vs. 9.2% vs. 6.6%; p = 0.142), atrial fibrillation (23.0% vs. 27.2% vs. 25.6%; p = 0.106), and acute limb ischemia (0.6% vs. 0.5% vs. 0.5%; p = 0.945). These similar outcomes persisted after risk adjustment: adjusted OR = 0.97 (95% CI [0.94, 1.00], p = 0.086) for operative mortality and adjusted OR = 1.00 (95% CI [0.96, 1.04], p = 0.974) for postoperative renal failure. CONCLUSION: While considerable variability is present among hospitals in inotrope use following CABG, observational comparison of outcomes did not distinguish a superior pattern; thus, randomized prospective data are needed to better guide clinical practice.
Authors: William L Holman; Monique Sansom; Catarina I Kiefe; Eric D Peterson; Steve G Hubbard; James F Delong; Richard M Allman Journal: Ann Surg Date: 2004-01 Impact factor: 12.969
Authors: Karl F Welke; T Bruce Ferguson; Laura P Coombs; Rachel S Dokholyan; Cindy J Murray; Mary A Schrader; Eric D Peterson Journal: Ann Thorac Surg Date: 2004-04 Impact factor: 4.330
Authors: Michael S Cuffe; Robert M Califf; Kirkwood F Adams; Raymond Benza; Robert Bourge; Wilson S Colucci; Barry M Massie; Christopher M O'Connor; Ileana Pina; Rebecca Quigg; Marc A Silver; Mihai Gheorghiade Journal: JAMA Date: 2002-03-27 Impact factor: 56.272
Authors: Judson B Williams; Elizabeth R Delong; Eric D Peterson; Rachel S Dokholyan; Fang-Shu Ou; T Bruce Ferguson Journal: Circulation Date: 2010-12-20 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: Timothy M Hoffman; Gil Wernovsky; Andrew M Atz; Thomas J Kulik; David P Nelson; Anthony C Chang; James M Bailey; Akbar Akbary; John F Kocsis; Raymond Kaczmarek; Thomas L Spray; David L Wessel Journal: Circulation Date: 2003-02-25 Impact factor: 29.690
Authors: R L Royster; J F Butterworth; D S Prough; W E Johnston; J L Thomas; P E Hogan; L D Case; G P Gravlee Journal: Anesth Analg Date: 1991-06 Impact factor: 5.108
Authors: Benjamin A Steinberg; Yue Zhao; Xia He; Adrian F Hernandez; David A Fullerton; Kevin L Thomas; Roger Mills; Winslow Klaskala; Eric D Peterson; Jonathan P Piccini Journal: Clin Cardiol Date: 2013-12-18 Impact factor: 2.882
Authors: T G Coulson; L F Miles; A Serpa Neto; D Pilcher; L Weinberg; G Landoni; A Zarbock; R Bellomo Journal: Anaesthesia Date: 2022-09 Impact factor: 12.893
Authors: Emily A Vail; Meng-Shiou Shieh; Penelope S Pekow; Hayley B Gershengorn; Allan J Walkey; Peter K Lindenauer; Hannah Wunsch Journal: Ann Am Thorac Soc Date: 2021-01
Authors: Volkhard Göber; Andreas Hohl; Brigitta Gahl; Florian Dick; Verena Eigenmann; Thierry P Carrel; Hendrik T Tevaearai Journal: PLoS One Date: 2013-09-06 Impact factor: 3.240
Authors: Christoph Sponholz; Christoph Schelenz; Konrad Reinhart; Uwe Schirmer; Sebastian N Stehr Journal: PLoS One Date: 2014-08-01 Impact factor: 3.240