Abstract Background Pulmonary aspiration is one of the most important complications in anesthesiology. Assessment of gastric content by ultrasound is a good method to quantify gastric volume and to determine the risk of intraoperative pulmonary aspiration. The aim of this study is to determine the accuracy of the gastric ultrasonography in the qualitative analysis of gastric content, mainly in the analysis of small amounts of liquid content. Methods Gastric ultrasound was performed to 36 patients before upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (UGI), making two longitudinal scans at the epigastric level, one in supine position and the other in right lateral decubitus position, measuring two diameters and the area of the gastric antrum and assessing the content characteristics determining whether it was an empty stomach or contained fluid or solid content. Subsequently, the ultrasound findings were compared with UGI findings. Results Gastric areas were analyzed by the trace and the lengths of the craniocaudal and anteroposterior axes concluding that there are no significant differences between the two methods. No statistically significant difference was found between UGI and US assessment technics. No statistically significant difference was found between the estimated volume by UGI and US. Conclusions Though our study has some limitations, qualitative analysis of gastric content using ultrasound followed by endoscopy enabled the conclusion that there are no differences in the qualitative assessment regarding these two techniques, supporting the important role of point-of-care gastric ultrasound (POCGUS) in the assessment of pulmonary aspiration risk by the anesthesiologist in the perioperative period.

Resumo Fundamento: Enquanto a angiografia coronária invasiva é considerada padrão outro para o diagnóstico da doença arterial coronariana (DAC), envolvendo os vasos coronários epicárdicos, a revascularização coronariana guiada por fisiologia representa uma prática padrão ouro contemporânea para a administração invasiva de pacientes com DAC intermediária. Porém, os resultados de longo prazo da avaliação da gravidade da estenose por meio da fisiologia, em comparação à angiografia como guia para a cirurgia de bypass – enxerto de bypass de artéria coronária (CABG), ainda são incertos. Esta metanálise visa avaliar os resultados clínicos de um CABG guiado por fisiologia em comparação a um CABG guiado pela angiografia. Objetivos: Buscamos determinar se os resultados entre um CABG guiado por fisiologia e os de um CABG guiado por angiografia são diferentes entre si. Métodos: Pesquisamos nas bases Medline, EMBASE e Cochrane Library. A última data de busca foi junho de 2020, e todos os estudos anteriores foram incluídos. Realizamos uma metanálise de razão de risco agrupado para quatro principais resultados: morte por todas as causas, infarto do miocárdio (IM), revascularização do vaso alvo (TVR) e eventos cardiovasculares adversos maiores (MACE). Valor de p <0,05 foi considerado estatisticamente significante. A heterogeneidade foi avaliada com o teste Q de Cochran, e quantificada pelo índice I2. Resultados: Identificamos cinco estudos incluindo um total de 1.114 pacientes. Uma metanálise agrupada não demonstrou diferenças significativas entre a estratégia da fisiologia e da angiografia para IM (razão de risco [RR] = 0,72; IC95%, 0,39–1,33; I2 = 0%; p = 0,65), TVR (RR = 1,25; IC95% = 0,73–2,13; I2 = 0%; p = 0,52), ou MACE (RR = 0,81; IC95% = 0,62–1,07; I2 = 0%; p = 1). A estratégia da fisiologia apresentou 0,63 vezes o risco de morte por todas as causas em comparação à estratégia da angiografia (RR = 0,63; IC95% = 0,42–0,96; I2 = 0%; p = 0,55). Conclusão: Esta metanálise demonstrou uma redução nas mortes por todas as causas quando usada a estratégia do CABG guiado por fisiologia. Porém, o curto período de acompanhamento, o tamanho da amostra pequeno dos estudos incluídos e a não-discriminação das causas de morte podem justificar essas conclusões. Estudos com períodos mais longos de acompanhamento são necessários para tirar conclusões mais robustas e definitivas.

Abstract Background: While invasive coronary angiography is considered the gold standard for the diagnosis of coronary artery disease (CAD) involving the epicardial coronary vessels, coronary physiology-guided revascularization represents a contemporary gold-standard practice for the invasive management of patients with intermediate CAD. Nevertheless, the long-term results of assessing the severity of stenosis through physiology compared to the angiogram as the guide to bypass surgery – coronary artery bypass grafting (CABG) are still uncertain. This meta-analysis aims to assess the clinical outcomes of a physiology guided CABG compared to the angiography-guided CABG. Objectives: We sought to determine if outcomes differ between a physiology guided CABG compared to an angiography-guided CABG. Methods: We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library. The last date for this search was June 2020, and all of the previous studies were included. We conducted a pooled risk-ratio meta-analysis for four main outcomes: all-cause death, myocardial infarction (MI), target vessel revascularization (TVR) and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE). P-value <0.05 was considered as statistically significant. Heterogeneity was assessed with Cochran's Q test and quantified by the I2 index. Results: We identified five studies that included a total of 1,114 patients. A pooled meta-analysis showed no significant difference between a physiology guided strategy and an angiography-guided strategy in MI (risk ratio [RR] = 0.72; 95%CI, 0.39–1.33; I2 = 0%; p = 0.65), TVR (RR = 1.25; 95%CI = 0.73–2.13; I2 = 0%; p = 0.52), or MACE (RR = 0.81; 95%CI = 0.62–1.07; I2 = 0%; p = 1). The physiology guided strategy has 0.63 times the risk of all-cause death compared to the angiography-guided strategy (RR = 0.63; 95%CI = 0.42–0.96; I2 = 0%; p = 0.55). Conclusion: This meta-analysis demonstrated a reduction in all-cause death when a physiology guided CABG strategy was used. Nevertheless, the short follow-up period, small sample size of the included studies and the non-discrimination of the causes of death can largely justify these conclusions. Studies with an extended follow-up period of observation are required to draw more robust and definitive conclusions.

Abstract Background Some of the patients admitted for acute myocardial infarction have non-obstructive coronary artery disease (MINOCA). Their prognosis is not always benign, making it necessary the development of tools for risk stratification of these patients. Objectives To describe the characteristics of a sample of patients admitted for suspected MINOCA and to evaluate the prognostic value of GRACE score in this population. Methods This was a retrospective, observational, single-center, cohort study involving 56 consecutive patients with MINOCA. During one-year follow-up, patients were assessed for mortality and major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) – a composite of all-cause mortality and hospitalization due to acute myocardial infarction, heart failure, ischemic stroke, and acute limb ischemia. Statistical analysis was performed using a non-parametric approach, with the Mann-Whitney U test for quantitative variables and ROC curves for assessing the discriminatory power of the Grace score in predicting cardiovascular events. The level of significance was set at 5%. Results Of the 56 MINOCA patients included in the study (median age 67 years), 55.4% were female. During the one-year follow-up, mortality rate was 5.5% and 9.1% of patients had MACE. A higher GRACE score was associated with mortality (p = 0.019; AUC 0.907; 95%CI 0.812–1.000; cut off 138) and MACE (p =0.034; AUC 0.790; 95%CI 0.632–0.948; cutoff 114). Conclusion The definition of MINOCA includes various diagnoses and prognoses, and the GRACE score is useful for risk stratification of patients with this condition.

Resumo Fundamento: Existem dados limitados sobre o prognóstico do adiamento do tratamento das lesões em pacientes com síndrome coronária com base na reserva de fluxo fracionada (FFR). Objetivos: Realizar uma revisão sistemática da evidência atual sobre o prognóstico do adiamento do tratamento de lesões em pacientes com SCA com base na FFR, comparando-o com o prognóstico em pacientes sem SCA. Métodos: Pesquisamos as bases de dados do Medline, EMBASE, e Cochrane Library por estudos publicados entre janeiro de 2000 e setembro de 2017 que compararam o prognóstico do adiamento da revascularização das lesões com base na FFR em pacientes com SCA em comparação a pacientes sem SCA. Conduzimos uma metanálise do risco relativo de quatro desfechos primários: mortalidade, mortalidade cardiovascular, infarto do miocárdio (IM) e revascularização do vaso-alvo (TVR). Resultados: Identificamos sete estudos que incluíram um total de 5107 pacientes. A metanálise mostrou que não houve diferença quanto à mortalidade [risco relativo (RR) = 1,44; IC95%, 0,9-2,4), mortalidade cardiovascular (RR = 1,29; IC95% = 0,4-4,3) e TVR (RR = 1,46; IC95% = 0,9-2,3) após adiamento da revascularização com base na FFR entre pacientes com SCA e pacientes sem SCA. Tal adiamento foi associado com risco adicional de IM (RR = 1,83; IC95% = 1,4-2,4) em pacientes com SCA. Conclusão: O valor prognóstico da FFR na SCA não é tão bom como em pacientes estáveis. Os resultados mostram um risco aumentado de IM, mas não de mortalidade, mortalidade cardiovascular, e TVR em pacientes com SCA.

Abstract Background: There are limited data on the prognosis of deferral of lesion treatment in patients with acute coronary syndrome (ACS) based on fractional flow reserve (FFR). Objectives: To provide a systematic review of the current evidence on the prognosis of deferred lesions in ACS patients compared with deferred lesions in non-ACS patients, on the basis of FFR. Methods: We searched Medline, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library for studies published between January 2000 and September 2017 that compared prognosis of deferred revascularization of lesions on the basis of FFR in ACS patients compared with non-ACS patients. We conducted a pooled relative risk meta-analysis of four primary outcomes: mortality, cardiovascular (CV) mortality, myocardial infarction (MI) and target-vessel revascularization (TVR). Results: We identified 7 studies that included a total of 5,107 patients. A pooled meta-analysis showed no significant difference in mortality (relative risk [RR] = 1.44; 95% CI, 0.9-2.4), CV mortality (RR = 1.29; 95% CI = 0.4-4.3) and TVR (RR = 1.46; 95% CI = 0.9-2.3) after deferral of revascularization based on FFR between ACS and non-ACS patients. Such deferral was associated with significant additional risk of MI (RR = 1.83; 95% CI = 1.4-2.4) in ACS patients. Conclusion: The prognostic value of FFR in ACS setting is not as good as in stable patients. The results demonstrate an increased risk of MI but not of mortality, CV mortality, and TVR in ACS patients.