[Abdominal complications after heart surgery interventions].
ABSTRACT Risk factors of abdominal complications after cardiac surgery are largely unknown. We undertook this study to determine different types of abdominal complications after cardiac surgery and to identify patients at risk.
3312 adult patients were operated between Jan. 91 and Oct. 95 (2352 males, 960 females, 62.6 +/- 0.18y). We included all patients who suffered from abdominal complications within 30 days postoperatively.
Abdominal complications are rare after cardiac surgery using cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) (1.4%), but they are associated with high mortality (14.5%) in our department. Abdominal complications like paralytic ileus (43.8%), erosive gastritis (22.9%) and gastrointestinal bleeding (18.8%) are more often, compared with acute cholecystitis (14.5%), acute pancreatitis (8.3%) and intestinal ischemia (19.5%). Patients with intestinal ischemia are at high risk and do have a high mortality (83%). Abdominal complications can be found more often in connection with prolonged myocardial ischemia and valve replacement or combined operations. Prediction of complications on the basis of anamnestic data alone was not possible.
Abdominal complications after cardiac surgery, especially intestinal ischaemia, are life-threatening. Prediction of abdominal complications is impossible. We have to concentrate on an early diagnosis and therapeutic intervention to lower mortality. A close cooperation between cardiac and general surgeons is mandatory for a successful treatment of life-threatening abdominal complications such as intestinal ischemia.
- SourceAvailable from: Sonja Maria Fruhwald[Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Catecholamines are frequently used in critically ill patients to restore stable hemodynamics and to improve organ perfusion. One effect of short-term or long-term administration of catecholamines may be inhibition of propulsive motility in the intestine. We therefore analyzed the effect of dopexamine, dobutamine, and dopamine on ileal peristalsis and compared their action with that of epinephrine and norepinephrine, which have long been known to suppress intestinal peristalsis. In vitro study on excised guinea pig ileum segments. Laboratory for experimental studies at the University. Isolated guinea pig ileum. Segments of ileum excised from guinea pigs were mounted in a tissue bath in Krebs-Henseleit solution and bubbled with 95% oxygen/5% CO2. Luminal perfusion with the same solution was performed at a rate of 0.35 mL/min. The bath temperature was kept at 36.5 degrees C. Peristalsis was recorded via changes in the intraluminal pressure. The drugs under investigation (dopamine, epinephrine, norepinephrine, dobutamine, and dopexamine) were added to the tissue bath. Low concentrations of each catecholamine, except epinephrine, caused a decrease in the pressure threshold, which reflects a stimulatory effect on peristalsis. Higher catecholamine concentrations caused a concentration-related increase in the threshold, cumulating in a complete block of peristalsis. The rank order of inhibitory potency was epinephrine > norepinephrine > dopamine > dobutamine approximately dopexamine. Dobutamine and dopexamine were about 500-fold less active than epinephrine in suppressing peristalsis. This study shows that dobutamine and dopexamine have the least potential to block propulsive motility in the intestine, whereas epinephrine demonstrates the most adverse inhibitory effect. Because at low concentrations dobutamine and dopexamine even stimulate peristalsis, these drugs appear to be superior compared with other catecholamines with regard to their direct effects on intestinal motility.Critical Care Medicine 08/2000; 28(8):2893-7. DOI:10.1097/00003246-200008000-00034 · 6.15 Impact Factor
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Delayed diagnosis of intraabdominal pathology in the intensive care unit (ICU) increases rates of morbidity and mortality. Intraabdominal pathologies are usually identified through presenting symptoms, clinical signs, and laboratory and radiological results; however, these could also delay diagnosis because of inconclusive laboratory tests or imaging results, or the inability to safely transfer a patient to the radiology room. In the current study we evaluated the safety and accuracy of bedside diagnostic laparoscopy to confirm the presence of intraabdominal pathology in an ICU setting. This retrospective study, carried out between January 2006 and June 2008, evaluated the diagnostic accuracy of bedside diagnostic laparoscopy performed on patients with a suspicion of ongoing intraabdominal pathology. Clinical indications for bedside diagnostic laparoscopy were: ultrasonography (US) images of gallbladder distension or wall thickening of more than 3 to 4 mm, with or without pericholecystic fluid; elevation of laboratory tests (bilirubin, transaminases, myoglobin, lactate dehydrogenase, creatine phosphokinase, gamma-glutamyltransferase); high level of lactate/metabolic acidosis; CT images inconclusive for intraabdominal pathology; or inability to perform a CT scan. Patients did not undergo bedside diagnostic laparoscopy if they presented clear indications for open surgery, coagulopathy, abdominal wall infection or high intraabdominal pressure. Thirty-two patients underwent bedside diagnostic laparoscopy (Visiport Plus, Autosuture, US), 14 of whom had been admitted to the ICU for major trauma, 12 for sepsis of unknown origin and 6 for complications after cardiac surgery. The procedure was performed on an average of eight days after ICU admission (95% confidence interval = 5 to 15 days) and mean procedure duration was 40 minutes. None of the procedures resulted in complications. Bedside diagnostic laparoscopy was diagnostic for intraabdominal pathology in 15 patients, who subsequently underwent surgery, except in two cases of diffuse gut hypoperfusion. Diagnosis of cholecystitis was obtained in seven cases: two were treated with laparotomic cholecystectomy and five with percutaneous gallbladder drainage positioning. Bedside diagnostic laparoscopy represents a safe and accurate technique for diagnosing intraabdominal pathology in an ICU setting and should be taken into consideration when patient transfer to radiology or the operating room is considered unsafe, or when routine radiological examinations are not conclusive enough to reach a definite diagnosis.Critical care (London, England) 02/2009; 13(1):R25. DOI:10.1186/cc7730
- [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
ABSTRACT: Acute pancreatitis can develop in patients with shock due to the underlying diseases, surgical interventions or because of severe hypoperfusion. The aim of our work was to study the histological alterations of the pancreas in patients dying after cardiogenic, hypovolemic or septic shock, to demonstrate the presence and severity of pancreatic injury. We performed a retrospective study which included patients who died and who were autopsied after different types of shock, hospitalized between 2007-2009 in general and cardiac intensive care units. We excluded the patients with known pancreatic diseases. From 223 patients included in our study 39 presented necrotising hemorrhagic alteration of the pancreatic tissue. There were no differences in histological and immunohistochemical findings between the different etiopathogenetic types of shock. None of the patients had characteristic clinical signs for acute pancreatitis. The digestive symptoms, they presented, could be related to the underlying disease or to postoperative state. The common findings in these patients were prolonged and severe hypotension, associated renal dysfunction, leucocytosis, hyperglycemia and hypocalcemia. Pancreatitis can occur in patients with shock, due to prolonged hypoperfusion of the pancreas. It is difficult to diagnose it because clinical signs are altered due to severity of underlying disease or analgo-sedation commonly used in intensive care. We therefore recommend in patients with shock to consider the possible development of ischemic pancreatitis for prompt and efficient treatment.Pathology & Oncology Research 04/2012; 18(4):977-81. DOI:10.1007/s12253-012-9528-6 · 1.81 Impact Factor