Article

Cardiac Arrest during Hospitalization for Delivery in the United States, 1998-2011

Anesthesiology (Impact Factor: 6.17). 04/2014; 120(4):810-8. DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000000159
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT The objective of this analysis was to evaluate the frequency, distribution of potential etiologies, and survival rates of maternal cardiopulmonary arrest during the hospitalization for delivery in the United States.
By using data from the Nationwide Inpatient Sample during the years 1998 through 2011, the authors obtained weighted estimates of the number of U.S. hospitalizations for delivery complicated by maternal cardiac arrest. Clinical and demographic risk factors, potential etiologies, and outcomes were identified and compared in women with and without cardiac arrest. The authors tested for temporal trends in the occurrence and survival associated with maternal arrest.
Cardiac arrest complicated 1 in 12,000 or 8.5 per 100,000 hospitalizations for delivery (99% CI, 7.7 to 9.3 per 100,000). The most common potential etiologies of arrest included hemorrhage, heart failure, amniotic fluid embolism, and sepsis. Among patients with cardiac arrest, 58.9% of patients (99% CI, 54.8 to 63.0%) survived to hospital discharge.
Approximately 1 in 12,000 hospitalizations for delivery is complicated by cardiac arrest, most frequently due to hemorrhage, heart failure, amniotic fluid embolism, or sepsis. Survival depends on the underlying etiology of arrest.

5 Followers
 · 
93 Views
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: The obstetric population has an increasing incidence of comorbid conditions. These, coupled with the possibility of acute embolic events involving air, amniotic fluid, and thrombus, increase the likelihood of hemodynamic instability. Although the utility of transesophageal echocardiography to guide management in cardiac and high-risk, non-cardiac surgical populations has been well established, the emergent use in critically-ill parturients has not been comprehensively evaluated. Using our departmental transesophageal echocardiography database of 28 293 examinations, parturients were identified who underwent emergent transesophageal echocardiography for evaluation of hemodynamic instability, including cardiac arrest, between January 1999 and March 2014. Transesophageal echocardiography findings and their impact on patient management were analyzed. Ten peripartum patients were evaluated. Six patients became unstable during dilation and evacuation procedures; one after a forceps delivery; one during and one after cesarean delivery; and one during a postpartum laparotomy. Six patients proceeded to cardiac arrest; however, all women survived their initial operation and resuscitation. Transesophageal echocardiography was instrumental in determining the etiology and guiding resuscitation in all 10 patients including emergent cardiac surgical intervention with cardiopulmonary bypass (n=2). Seven patients survived to hospital discharge, but three died after experiencing neurologic complications. Severe hemodynamic instability and cardiac arrest can occur in previously healthy parturients in pregnancy. Our data suggest that emergent transesophageal echocardiography is a valuable tool in determining the etiology and directing therapy of refractory hypotension or cardiac arrest in obstetric patients. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.
    International Journal of Obstetric Anesthesia 01/2015; DOI:10.1016/j.ijoa.2014.12.007 · 1.83 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Sudden death accounts for 300,000-400,000 deaths annually in the United States. Most sudden deaths are cardiac, and most sudden cardiac deaths are related to arrhythmias secondary to structural heart disease or primary electrical abnormalities of the heart. The most common structural disease leading to sudden death is ischemic heart disease. Nonischemic cardiomyopathy and other structural abnormalities such as arrhythmogenic ventricular dysplasia and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy may also be causative. Patients without structural disease have a primary electrical abnormality, such as long-QT syndrome or Brugada syndrome. Severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction is the main marker for sudden death in patients with ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy. In other conditions, other markers for structural heart disease and electrical abnormalities need to be considered. It is seen that-blocker therapy is associated with a reduction in sudden cardiac death across a broad range of disorders. Nevertheless, the implantable cardioverter defibrillator remains the most effective treatment strategy in selected patients. (Curr Probl Cardiol 2015;40:133–200.)
    Current Problems in Cardiology 04/2015; 40:133-200. · 2.17 Impact Factor
  • Source
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Sudden death accounts for 300,000-400,000 deaths annually in the United States. Most sudden deaths are cardiac, and most sudden cardiac deaths are related to arrhythmias secondary to structural heart disease or primary electrical abnormalities of the heart. The most common structural disease leading to sudden death is ischemic heart disease. Nonischemic cardiomyopathy and other structural abnormalities such as arrhythmogenic ventricular dysplasia and hypertrophic cardiomyopathy may also be causative. Patients without structural disease have a primary electrical abnormality, such as long-QT syndrome or Brugada syndrome. Severe left ventricular systolic dysfunction is the main marker for sudden death in patients with ischemic or nonischemic cardiomyopathy. In other conditions, other markers for structural heart disease and electrical abnormalities need to be considered. It is seen that β-blocker therapy is associated with a reduction in sudden cardiac death across a broad range of disorders. Nevertheless, the implantable cardioverter defibrillator remains the most effective treatment strategy in selected patients. Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
    Current Problems in Cardiology 02/2015; 40(4). DOI:10.1016/j.cpcardiol.2015.01.002 · 2.17 Impact Factor