Advances in treatment, common cardiovascular (CV) risk factors and the ageing of the population have led to an increasing number of cancer patients presenting with acute CV diseases. These events may be related to the cancer itself or the cancer treatment. Acute cardiac care specialists must be aware of these acute CV complications and be able to manage them. This may require an individualized and multidisciplinary approach. We summarize the most common acute CV complications of cytotoxic, targeted, and immune-based therapies. This is followed by a proposal for a multidisciplinary approach where acute cardiologists work close together with the treating oncologists, haematologists, and radiation specialists, especially in situations where immediate therapeutic decisions are needed. In this first part, we further focus on the management of acute coronary syndromes and acute pericardial diseases in patients with cancer.

This review examined the relevance of chest pain, pericardial friction rub, pericardial effusion and ECG changes in regard to the diagnosis of acute pericarditis. It also assessed the evidence for the management and therapeutic guidelines, specifically nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs), colchicine and corticosteroids. Overall, there appears to be a lack of research into pericarditis. The bulk of high-quality research seems to have been carried out prior to the publication of the European Society of Cardiology guidelines of 2015. Diagnostically, the current combination of symptoms, clinical signs and investigations offer reasonable criteria for diagnosis, but they are not a gold standard. Research into its therapeutic treatment options is required to address the effects of specific nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs).

暂无摘要。

OBJECTIVE: To establish evidence-based guidelines for the use of bedside cardiac ultrasound, echocardiography, in the ICU and equivalent care sites.
METHODS: Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation system was used to rank the \"levels\" of quality of evidence into high (A), moderate (B), or low (C) and to determine the \"strength\" of recommendations as either strong (strength class 1) or conditional/weak (strength class 2), thus generating six \"grades\" of recommendations (1A-1B-1C-2A-2B-2C). Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation was used for all questions with clinically relevant outcomes. RAND Appropriateness Method, incorporating the modified Delphi technique, was used in formulating recommendations related to terminology or definitions or in those based purely on expert consensus. The process was conducted by teleconference and electronic-based discussion, following clear rules for establishing consensus and agreement/disagreement. Individual panel members provided full disclosure and were judged to be free of any commercial bias.
RESULTS: Forty-five statements were considered. Among these statements, six did not achieve agreement based on RAND appropriateness method rules (majority of at least 70%). Fifteen statements were approved as conditional recommendations (strength class 2). The rest (24 statements) were approved as strong recommendations (strength class 1). Each recommendation was also linked to its level of quality of evidence and the required level of echo expertise of the intensivist. Key recommendations, listed by category, included the use of cardiac ultrasonography to assess preload responsiveness in mechanically ventilated (1B) patients, left ventricular (LV) systolic (1C) and diastolic (2C) function, acute cor pulmonale (ACP) (1C), pulmonary hypertension (1B), symptomatic pulmonary embolism (PE) (1C), right ventricular (RV) infarct (1C), the efficacy of fluid resuscitation (1C) and inotropic therapy (2C), presence of RV dysfunction (2C) in septic shock, the reason for cardiac arrest to assist in cardiopulmonary resuscitation (1B-2C depending on rhythm), status in acute coronary syndromes (ACS) (1C), the presence of pericardial effusion (1C), cardiac tamponade (1B), valvular dysfunction (1C), endocarditis in native (2C) or mechanical valves (1B), great vessel disease and injury (2C), penetrating chest trauma (1C) and for use of contrast (1B-2C depending on indication). Finally, several recommendations were made regarding the use of bedside cardiac ultrasound in pediatric patients ranging from 1B for preload responsiveness to no recommendation for RV dysfunction.
CONCLUSIONS: There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding several class 1 recommendations for the use of bedside cardiac ultrasound, echocardiography, in the ICU. Evidence-based recommendations regarding the appropriate use of this technology are a step toward improving patient outcomes in relevant patients and guiding appropriate integration of ultrasound into critical care practice.

Pericardial diseases are not uncommon in daily clinical practice. The spectrum of these syndromes includes acute and chronic pericarditis, pericardial effusion, constrictive pericarditis, congenital defects, and neoplasms. The extent of the high-quality evidence on pericardial diseases has expanded significantly since the first international guidelines on pericardial disease management were published by the European Society of Cardiology in 2004. The clinical practice guidelines provide a useful reference for physicians in selecting the best management strategy for an individual patient by summarizing the current state of knowledge in a particular field. The new clinical guidelines on the diagnosis and management of pericardial diseases that have been published by the European Society of Cardiology in 2015 represent such a tool and focus on assisting the physicians in their daily clinical practice. The aim of this review is to outline and emphasize the most clinically relevant new aspects of the current guidelines as compared with its previous version published in 2004.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

BACKGROUND: In 2010 the National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE) released guidelines on venous thromboembolism. Strategy focused on risk assessment, antiembolic stockings, sequential compression devices, subcutaneous high dose enoxaparin (40 mg), early mobilisation and hydration. The 40 mg enoxaparin dose over the previous 20 mg regimen was worrisome, and its effect on pericardial effusion rates and mortality in proximal aortic surgery was investigated.
METHODS: Proximal aortic reconstructions performed between December 2008 and April 2011 were identified from prospectively collected data in a tertiary centre database. Retrospective analysis of patient notes was performed. Proximal aortic surgery patients were categorised as low dose (20 mg) enoxaparin and high dose (40 mg) enoxaparin, and compared for confounding variables. In-hospital, early and one-year readmission rates for pericardial effusion were ascertained from echocardiography reports. The primary outcome was total pericardial effusion rate. Secondary outcomes consisted of 30-day and 1-year mortality.
RESULTS: A total of 198 patients underwent proximal thoracic aortic surgery. Nine patients were excluded due to early postoperative death (n=5) and missing patient records (n=4). This left 189 cases for analysis. There were 93 patients in the low dose group and 96 in the high dose group. Groups were comparable for age, cardiopulmonary bypass time, aortic cross-clamp time, postoperative warfarin and antiplatelet agents. Pericardial effusion rates up to one year were comparable (low dose 19% vs high dose 21%). Thirty-day mortality was lower in the low dose group (0 vs 3 deaths). There were four deaths up to one year but these were not attributable to increased enoxaparin.
CONCLUSIONS: Increased perioperative thromboprophylaxis dosage does not increase pericardial effusion rates or mortality in proximal aortic surgery.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。