Anesthesiology
-
Observational Study
Correlation of Thromboelastography with Apparent Rivaroxaban Concentration: Has Point-of-Care Testing Improved?
Concern remains over reliable point-of-care testing to guide reversal of rivaroxaban, a commonly used factor Xa inhibitor, in high-acuity settings. Thromboelastography (TEG), a point-of-care viscoelastic assay, may have the ability to detect the anticoagulant effect of rivaroxaban. The authors ascertained the association of apparent rivaroxaban concentration with thromboelastography reaction time, i.e., time elapsed from blood sample placement in analyzer until beginning of clot formation, as measured using TEG and TEG6S instruments (Haemonetics Corporation, USA), hypothesizing that reaction time would correlate to degree of functional factor Xa impairment. ⋯ Although TEG6S demonstrates significant strong correlation with rivaroxaban concentration, values within normal range limit clinical utility rendering rivaroxaban concentration the gold standard in measuring anticoagulant effect.
-
Comparative Study
Heart Rate Control during Experimental Sepsis in Mice: Comparison of Ivabradine and β-Blockers.
Tachycardia is a hallmark of sepsis. An elevated heart rate could impair ventricular filling and increase myocardial oxygen demand. β-Blockers and ivabradine (a selective inhibitor of If channels in the sinoatrial node) are both able to control sinus tachycardia, with the latter drug being devoid of negative inotropic effect. This work aimed at assessing the hemodynamic effects of ivabradine as compared with a β-blocker (atenolol) during murine peritonitis. ⋯ Heart rate control could be similarly achieved by ivabradine or atenolol, with preservation of blood pressure, cardiac output, and left ventricular systolic function with the former drug.
-
Pressure-support ventilation may worsen lung damage due to increased dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure. The authors hypothesized that, at the same tidal volume (VT) and dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure, pressure-support and pressure-controlled ventilation would yield comparable lung damage in mild lung injury. ⋯ In the mild lung injury model use herein, at the same VT, pressure-support compared to pressure-controlled ventilation did not affect biologic markers. However, pressure-support ventilation was associated with a major difference between static and dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure; when the same dynamic transpulmonary driving pressure and inspiratory time were used for pressure-controlled ventilation, greater lung and diaphragm injury occurred compared to pressure-support ventilation.