Skip to main content
Download PDF

Identification of intraoperative management strategies that have a differential effect on patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: a retrospective cohort study

BMC Anesthesiology volume 22, Article number: 288 (2022) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

There are few data to guide the intraoperative management of patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). This study aimed to describe how patients with reduced LVEF are managed differently and to identify and treatments had a different risk profile in this population.

Methods

We performed a retrospective cohort study of adult patients who underwent general anesthesia for non-cardiac surgery. The effect of anesthesia medications and fluid balance was compared between those with and without a reduced preoperative LVEF. The primary outcome was a composite of acute kidney injury, myocardial injury, pulmonary complications, and 30-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for confounders. Treatments that affected patients with reduced LVEF differently were defined as those associated with the primary outcome that also had a significant interaction with LVEF.

Results

A total of 9420 patients were included. Patients with reduced LVEF tended to have a less positive fluid balance. Etomidate, calcium, and phenylephrine were use more frequently, while propofol and remifentanil were used less frequently. Remifentanil affected patients with reduced LVEF differently than those without (interaction term OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.30–5.68, p = 0.008). While the use of remifentanil was associated with fewer complications in patients with normal systolic function (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.42–0.68, p < 0.001), it was associated with an increase in complications in patients with reduced LVEF (OR = 3.13, 95% CI 3.06–5.98, p = 0.026).

Conclusions

Patients with a reduced preoperative LVEF are treated differently than those with a normal LVEF when undergoing non-cardiac surgery. An association was found between the use of remifentanil and an increase in postoperative adverse events that was unique to this population. Future research is needed to determine if this relationship is secondary to the medication itself or reflects a difference in how remifentanil is used in patients with reduced LVEF.

Peer Review reports

Background

Heart failure is a devastating syndrome that often has a prognosis worse than many types of cancer [1]. Management focuses on slowing progression, management of symptoms, and the appropriate use of mechanical support. Given its association with postoperative adverse events, surgery can be avoided when possible [2, 3]. However, with the consistent incidence and increasing survival, the number of patients with heart failure presenting for surgery continues to increase making it vital that we continue to improve our ability to care for these patients perioperatively [4].

Reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) accounts for approximately half of heart failure diagnoses. The presence of reduced LVEF confirms at least stage B heart failure (structural heart disease without signs or symptoms) according to the latest ACC/AHA guidelines [5]. This has been shown to be an important and independent risk factor for patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery, even if symptoms of heart failure are absent [6, 7]. Since there are no high-grade recommendations for how to manage patients with reduced LVEF undergoing non-cardiac surgery, anesthesiologists must extrapolate data from non-surgical studies to care for these patients.

Given differences between acute physiologic stress and long-term disease progression, extrapolating data from studies of the long-term management of heart failure to the perioperative period may lead to unintended consequences. Therefore, studies are needed to define the optimal perioperative management of these patients. The objective of this study was to identify any intraoperative medications or fluid administration strategies that affect patients with reduced ejection fraction differently than other patients. We accomplished this by finding management strategies that had a significant interaction with reduced LVEF after adjusting for other patient and surgical characteristics. We hypothesized that the use of certain medications or fluid management strategies are associated with a different level of risk for patients with reduced LVEF compared to those with a normal LVEF.

Methods

Study population

This retrospective cohort study was approved by the Institutional Review Board, which waived the requirement for written informed consent. The study was presented at a departmental research forum prior to accessing data and the RECORD statement of the STROBE guidelines were followed for reporting the results. All patients had a general anesthetic for a non-cardiac surgical procedure at a single tertiary-care medical center between January 2008 and April 2019 and had an echocardiographic assessment of their LVEF within 1 year prior to surgery.

To create a homogenous study population, patients were excluded if they received blood products during the surgery. Non-operative anesthesia cases that were done for medical (endoscopy or cardiology procedures) or interventional radiology cases were excluded given their low baseline risk and common use of monitored anesthesia care instead of general anesthesia. Neuraxial anesthetics were excluded given their low use. Patients with hyperdynamic LVEFs or undergoing emergent surgery were also excluded.

Exposure

Medications were included if they were administered to greater than 5% and less than 95% of cases to have enough individuals in each group to detect an effect. Opioids, such as morphine, fentanyl, and hydromorphone, were converted to oral morphine equivalents and analyzed as a single medication [8]. Remifentanil was analyzed separately given its rapid metabolism. Medications were analyzed as a binary variable while the intraoperative fluid balance was analyzed as a continuous variable calculated by subtracting the estimated blood loss and the urine output from the volume of crystalloid recorded in the medical record.

Covariates

Baseline patient characteristics and surgical attributes were obtained from the medical record. These consisted of the subject’s age, sex, Elixhauser-based comorbidity summary measure [9], surgical type, surgical duration, and postoperative hemoglobin [10]. Surgical duration was divided into short (≤180 minutes) and long (> 180 minutes). Surgery types were empirically collapsed into three surgery risk categories (Supplemental Fig. 1). Intraoperative intravenous fluids were administered at the discretion of the clinical team. No guidelines existed recommended a minimum amount of resuscitation during the time of this study. Echocardiographic data were obtained from the institutional echocardiography database. The results of these studies are in the electronic medical record and are routinely reviewed by the anesthesia providers before the procedure. In accordance with the latest recommendations of the American Society of Echocardiography [11], LVEF was considered normal if it was within the range of 54–74% for females and 52–72% for males. Mildly reduced ejection fraction was defined as 41–53% for females and 41–51% for males. Moderately and severely reduced ejection fraction were defined as 30–40 and < 30%, respectively, for both sexes. Patients with moderately or severely reduced LVEF were combined into one group and compared to patients with normal LVEF (Fig. 1).

Fig. 1
figure 1

Derivation of study population

Full size image

Outcomes

The primary outcome was a composite of pulmonary complications, acute kidney injury, myocardial injury, and 30-day mortality. Mortality was included in the composite outcome because it represents a competing risk with the other postoperative complications [12]. The occurrence of pulmonary complications was derived from International Classifications of Disease (ICD) codes for the following: pulmonary edema (ICD-9: 518.4, ICD-10: J81.0), respiratory arrest (ICD-9: 799.1, ICD-10: R09.2), acute respiratory failure (ICD-9: 518.81; ICD-10: J95.821, J95.822, J96.00–.02, J96.90–.92), respiratory insufficiency (ICD-9:518.5, 518.51, 518.52, 518.53; ICD-10: J95.1, J95.2, J95.3), other respiratory complications (ICD-9: 514, 977.0%, 506.0, 506.1, 506.2, 506.3, 507%; ICD-10: J81.0, R09.0%, J68.0, J68.1, J68.2, J68.3, J68.8, J69.%, J95.4). These definitions were predefined by the Michigan Perioperative Outcomes Group to be consistent with those used by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality [13]. Acute kidney injury (AKI) was identified by an increase in serum creatinine by ≥0.3 mg/dL within 48 hours of anesthesia end time or a ≥ 50% increase within seven postoperative calendar days. Myocardial injury was defined as a postoperative troponin level that was above the laboratory reference limit for the assay. Finally, the occurrence of mortality within 30 days of surgery was obtained from the medical record.

Statistical analysis

Initial statistical exploratory data analysis techniques were used to assess the central tendency, dispersion, and frequency distribution of measures, outcomes, predictors, and confounders. Given the large sample size, all continuous variables were summarized as the mean ± standard deviation. Categorical variables were summarized using counts and percentages. Extreme values were identified and investigated to determine whether they represented erroneously recorded data that should be removed. Missing data patterns and rates were examined, and it was decided that complete case analysis was the most appropriate choice.

Differences between cohort characteristics were quantified using the standardized difference (SD) given the large sample size using the stddiff macro in SAS [14]. A SD greater than 0.2 was used to identify unbalanced distribution of confounders between patient groups. Given the substantial number of medications, principal component analysis was used as a dimension reduction technique that allowed for inspection of initial associations. Since the principal components did not simplify the interpretation of the intraoperative management of patients with and without reduced LVEF, each medication was analyzed individually. These were analyzed along with patient and surgical factors to find medications that had a different association in patients with reduced LVEF compared those with a normal LVEF.

Multivariable logistic regression was used to adjust for potential confounders. Variables included in multivariable logistic models were checked for multi-collinearity using the following criteria: if Pearson’s correlation index was greater than 0.7 and the variance inflation factor (VIF) was greater than 10 the variable was removed. Given the retrospective nature of the study, use of a matched sample was assessed by examination of distribution of confounders by LVEF level using standardized differences (SD) (Table 1). It was concluded that there was no need to use a matched sampling strategy. Variables with SD greater than 0.1 were included in the multivariable models. Least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) was used for variable selection and regularization [15]. To minimize confounding by indication, only intraoperative management factors with a statistically significant interaction with reduced LVEF, were considered clinically significant. p-value < 0.05 and a 95% confidence interval (CI) that excludes 1 were used to denote statistical significance.

Table 1 Subject characteristics
Full size table

Results

A total of 34,332 adult patients had preoperative echocardiographic data. The inclusion and exclusion criteria resulted in a final study population of 9420 individuals with 5.4% (n = 509) having reduced LVEF (Fig. 1). The study population had a mean age of 59 ± 15 years and slightly more females (52.6%) than males (47.4%) (Table 1). The mean anesthesia duration for these cases was 186.2 ± 106.0 minutes with a range of 9 to 1052 minutes. The study population was predominantly white (n = 7620, 80.9%), with black representing the second most common race (n = 921, 9.8%). Comorbidities were distributed similarly between cohorts except for coronary artery disease, arrhythmia, and congestive heart failure. Coronary artery disease, arrhythmia, and congestive heart failure were more common in patients with reduced LVEF compared to those with a normal LVEF 53% vs. 18% (SD = 0.81), 46% vs. 20% (SD = 0.61), and 67% vs. 9% (SD = 1.62).

Of the 7 medications meeting the conditions for inclusion, the use of etomidate differed most between the two cohorts (Table 2). A total of 101 (19.8%) patients with reduced LVEF received this medication while it was only used in 210 (2.4%) patients with a normal preoperative LVEF (SD = 0.58). Conversely, propofol was used less commonly in patients with reduced LVEF (80.2% vs 96.1%, SD = 0.51). Remifentanil was also used less commonly in patients with reduced LVEF (13.6% vs. 23.2%, SD = 0.25). Patients with reduced LVEF were given less fluid (747 ± 794 mL vs. 1065 ± 794 mL, SD 0.42).

Table 2 Comparison of intraoperative management between those with normal and reduced LVEF
Full size table

A total of 12% (n = 1114) of all patients experienced the primary outcome of pulmonary complications, acute kidney injury, myocardial injury, or 30-day mortality and this occurred more frequently in those with reduced LVEF (26% vs. 10%, SD = 0.25). AKI was the most common complication, occurring in 5% of patients with a normal LVEF and 12% of patients with reduced LVEF. Pulmonary complications occurred in 4% of patients with normal LVEF and 11% of patients with reduced LVEF. Mortality occurred in 1.7% (n = 163) with a normal LVEF and 6.7% (n = 34) patients with reduced LVEF. These and the other components of the composite outcome are summarized in Table 3. While the small overall number of composite outcomes in the those with moderate and severe reductions in preoperative LVEF did not allow these groups to be analyzed separately using multivariable regression, those with severely reduced LVEF did have a higher incidence of the primary outcome compared to those with moderately reduced LVEF (31.1% vs 23%, p < 0.0001). Similar to the Elixhauser comorbidity score, the incidence of the composite outcome was greater in those with higher ASA physical status classification scores (p < 0.0001). Over a third (36.9%) of ASA4 patients experienced the composite outcome while these complications only occurred in 8.7% of ASA1–3 patients. The composite outcome was more likely to occur in older patients as well, with an incidence of 10.7% in those less than 65 years and 13.9% in those 65 years or older.

Table 3 Characteristics of subjects with and without the primary outcome
Full size table

Of the seven medications that were given to between 5 and 95% of studied patients, only remifentanil was associated with different outcomes between patients with reduced LVEF and normal left ventricular ejection (Fig. 2, Supplemental Table 1). After adjusting for patient and surgical characteristics, remifentanil was associated with a decreased risk of complications for the subjects with a normal LVEF (adjusted OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.42–0.68, p < 0.001). However, in addition to the risk associated with reduced LVEF, those who were given remifentanil intraoperatively had 2.71 times these odds compared to those with a normal LVEF (interaction term OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.30–5.68, p = 0.008). This translated to a 4-fold increased odds (OR 4.13, 95% CI 3.06–5.98, p = 0.026), of the primary outcome when patients with reduced LVEF received remifentanil as part of their anesthetic care compared to those with normal LVEF who received remifentanil.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Forest plot of odds ratio for developing the primary outcome of pulmonary complications, acute kidney injury, myocardial injury, or 30-day mortality for anesthetic medications and fluid balance. This shows how subjects with reduced ejection fraction respond to intraoperative management factors compared to patients with a normal preoperative left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF). Only remifentanil affected those with and without reduced LVEF differently. For patients with a normal preoperative LVEF, the use of remifentanil was associated with decreased odds of the primary outcome (OR 0.54, 95% CI 0.42–0.68, p < 0.001). However, the use of this medication in patients with reduced LVEF was associated with the opposite effect since the interaction between reduced LVEF and remifentanil use (OR 2.71, 95% CI 1.30–5.68, p = 0.008) means that patients with reduced LVEF have 46% greater odds of the primary outcome

Full size image

Looking at the components of the composite outcome separately, remifentanil was associated with AKI and pulmonary complications, but not mortality or MI (Fig. 3, Supplemental Table 2). While the use of remifentanil was associated with a decreased incidence of pulmonary complications for patients with a normal preoperative LVEF (adjusted OR 0.62, 95% CI 0.43–0.88, p = 0.008), those with reduced LVEF had nearly triple the odds of this complication (interaction term OR 2.83, 95% CI 1.03–7.76, p = 0.043). Similarly, AKI occurred less frequently in patients with a normal LVEF who received remifentanil (adjusted OR 0.47, 95% CI 0.33–0.68, p < 0.001), but those with reduced LVEF had more than quadruple the risk of AKI when exposed to this medication (interaction term OR 4.46, 95% CI 1.80–11.04, p = 0.001).

Fig. 3
figure 3

Interaction plots showing the adjusted odds of suffering 30-day mortality, myocardial injury, acute kidney injury and pulmonary complication between the use of remifentanil and presence of reduced left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients undergoing general anesthesia for non-cardiac surgery. An asterisk denotes a significant interaction between reduced LVEF and the postoperative complication. Both acute kidney injury (OR 4.459, 95% CI 1.801–11.037, p = 0.0012) and pulmonary complications (OR 2.828, 95% CI 1.031–7.755, p = 0.0434) had a significant interaction between reduced LVEF and the use of remifentanil

Full size image

The impact of intraoperative fluid balance on each of the individual outcomes is shown in Fig. 4. Although there was no interaction between the intraoperative fluid balance and reduced LVEF with the primary outcome, secondary outcomes were examined as an exploratory analysis. AKI was the only outcome that showed a different relationship in those with reduced LVEF compared to those with a normal LVEF. For those with a normal LVEF, a higher fluid balance was associated with 25% increased odds of AKI (OR 1.25, 95% CI 1.12–1.40, p < 0.001). While the relationship of fluid balance was nonlinear for those with reduced LVEF, examining the first and third quartiles of fluid balance shows that, for most fluid balances observed in the study population, reduced LVEF patients had a higher incidence of AKI when they received less fluid (interaction term OR 0.62, 95% CI 1.12–1.40, p = 0.035). For example, this interaction term created greater odds of AKI in those with reduced LVEF compared to those with a normal LVEF at the first fluid balance quartile (adjusted odds 0.14 vs. 0.10, respectively), while at the third quartile, the odds between these groups were nearly equal (adjusted odds 0.11 vs 0.12, respectively) (Fig. 4, Supplemental Table 3).

Fig. 4
figure 4

Interaction plots showing the adjusted odds of suffering 30-day mortality, myocardial injury, acute kidney injury and pulmonary complication between the intraoperative fluid balance and presence of reduce left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) in patients undergoing general anesthesia for non-cardiac surgery. The 25th and 75th percentiles for fluid balance are displayed. An asterisk denotes a significant interaction between reduce LVEF and the postoperative complication. This shows that, while the intraoperative fluid balance does not change the incidence of the primary outcome in individuals with a normal LVEF, reduced LVEF was associated with a higher incidence of acute kidney injury

Full size image

Discussion

This retrospective cohort study aimed to describe if and how anesthesiologists change their care of patients with reduced LVEF and identify any treatments with a distinct risk profile in these patients. We found that etomidate, calcium, and phenylephrine were all used more in patients with reduced LVEF, while propofol, remifentanil, and fluid were used less. Only remifentanil was found to have a different effect on those with reduced LVEF compared to those with a normal preoperative LVEF. Remifentanil was associated with worse outcomes when used in those with reduced LVEF. Confounding by indication, in which an unmeasured confounder is associated with both adverse outcomes and remifentanil use, is always an issue with this study design and, while we attempted to minimize this by adjusting for multiple variables and focusing on intraoperative management features that have a significant interaction with reduced LVEF, these findings will need to be verified by future prospective studies. However, the lack of association with medications typically given to patients with a high preoperative risk of hemodynamic instability, such as etomidate, add credence to the possibility that opioid utilization may be particularly important for patients with reduced LVEF who undergo a general anesthetic as part of a non-cardiac surgical procedure.

Opioid use has important short- and long-term negative consequences such as opioid induced hyperalgesia and worsening of the opioid epidemic, respectively [16]. The use of intraoperative remifentanil has been shown to be associated with worse pain after surgery [17]. Worse pain and concomitant increased use of opioid medications is a potential mechanism underlying why remifentanil use was associated with adverse events in patients with reduced LVEF. This would be consistent with multiple studies that have shown an increased incidence of by cardiac and non-cardiac complications in patients receiving greater doses of opioids [18, 19].

The direct effect of remifentanil on cardiac function is another potential mechanism that may explain our findings. While remifentanil has minimal effect on systolic or diastolic function [20], hypotension and bradycardia, common side effects of remifentanil, may also contribute to our findings [21,22,23]. Patients with reduced LVEF are commonly prescribed medications such as beta-blockers and angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors, which may increase the incidence and severity of these side effects. Patients with reduced LVEF tend to have multiple risk factors for intraoperative hypotension and bradycardia such as those described by Cheung et al.’s HEART score [24]. These would include items such as lower baseline heart rate, use of angiotensin converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers, and congestive heart failure.

The exploration of the relationship between reduced LVEF and fluid balance also revealed interesting results. While less positive fluid balance was associated with a decreased incidence of AKI in patients with a normal LVEF, those with reduced LVEF who received less fluid experienced more AKI. The association between reduced fluid and reduced AKI in the normal ejection fraction population is at odds with prospective studies comparing restrictive and liberal fluid resuscitation in patients undergoing general anesthesia [25], which may be secondary to differences in our study population and/or residual confounding. Since this confounding would likely be present in patients with reduced LVEF and normal ejection fraction, the difference we found in the way these two populations respond to resuscitation is of interest, particularly since restrictive fluid administration in patients with reduced LVEF if thought to be beneficial. Overall, this supports future studies aimed at improving our ability to guide administration of fluid to patients with reduced LVEF, particularly given the association of AKI with increased mortality, longer hospital stays, and worse patient outcomes [26,27,28]. While careful monitoring of salt and fluid intake, along with the prescription of diuretics, have well established roles in the care of patients with heart failure [29], different strategies may be needed during times of acute stress. It is possible that patients with reduced LVEF require more aggressive volume resuscitation during surgery to overcome pre-existing diastolic dysfunction and benefit from diuretics to speed the removal of volume given for resuscitation once the inflammatory response abates. This will need to be evaluated by prospective studies to control for the many confounding factors [30,31,32].

Several limitations should be considered when interpreting these results. First, like all retrospective studies, no adjustments could be made for unmeasured confounders. Therefore, additional studies that take factors not measured in this study into account are needed to confirm these findings. Second, this study only included medications that had sufficient variability in their use to detect changes between its use and adverse events. Inferences could not be made for either ubiquitously used medications such as inhaled anesthetics and opioids or rarely used medications such as epinephrine and dobutamine. Third, since these findings were obtained from a single medical center, they may not apply to institutions that have different practice patterns for how the medications included in this study are used. Therefore, more studies are needed to evaluate for associations with adverse outcomes medications in patients with reduced LVEF undergoing general anesthesia.

While these limitations and the complexity of the surgical care of patients with reduced LVEF prevent a single study from definitively answering how to best care for these patients, several attributes of this study are worth noting. By leveraging a large database of clinical information, we were able to create a large cohort of patients with reduced LVEF undergoing multiple different non-cardiac surgical procedures, which makes our finding generalizable to similar populations at other institutions. Furthermore, requiring that patients had an echocardiogram within 1 year of surgery minimized that changes that changes in their systolic function occurred prior to surgery. Finally, even though most management features were not found to have a different effect in those with and without reduced LVEF, this still supplies data that can help when deciding what medication to use when caring for these patients. For example, although propofol was used less and etomidate was used more often in patients with reduced LVEF, we did not detect a different complication rate based on the use of these medications based on the presence of reduced LVEF based on the absence of a significant interaction term.

Conclusions

Patients with reduced LVEF are treated differently during non-cardiac surgery. The association between remifentanil and postoperative adverse events is different in those with and without reduced LVEF, where its use is associated with better outcomes in patients with normal LVEF but worse outcomes in patients with moderately or severely reduced LVEF. Future research is needed to confirm and determine if this relationship is secondary to the medication itself or if clinicians use this medication differently in this population.

Availability of data and materials

The data that support the findings of this study are available on request from the corresponding author (M.D.M). The data are not publicly available in order to minimize the risk of loss of confidentiality of human subjects.

Abbreviations

AKI:

Acute Kidney Injury

CI:

Confidence Interval

ICD:

International Classifications of Disease

LASSO:

Least Absolute Shrinkage and Selection Operator

LVEF:

Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction

OR:

Odds Ratio

RECORD:

REporting of studies Conducted using Observational Routinely-collected Data

SD:

Standardized Difference

STD:

Standard deviation

STROBE:

Strengthening the Reporting of Observational Studies in Epidemiology

VIF:

Variance Inflation Factor

References

  1. Braunwald E. The war against heart failure: the lancet lecture. Lancet. 2015;385(9970):812–24.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  2. Maile MD, Engoren MC, Tremper KK, Jewell E, Kheterpal S. Worsening preoperative heart failure is associated with mortality and noncardiac complications, but not myocardial infarction after noncardiac surgery: a retrospective cohort study. Anesth Analg. 2014;119(3):522–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Lee TH, Marcantonio ER, Mangione CM, Thomas EJ, Polanczyk CA, Cook EF, et al. Derivation and prospective validation of a simple index for prediction of cardiac risk of major noncardiac surgery. Circulation. 1999;100(10):1043–9.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Roger VL. Epidemiology of heart failure. Circ Res. 2013;113(6):646–59.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  5. Hunt SA, Baker DW, Chin MH, Cinquegrani MP, Feldman AM, Francis GS, et al. ACC/AHA guidelines for the evaluation and Management of Chronic Heart Failure in the adult: executive summary a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on practice guidelines (committee to revise the 1995 guidelines for the evaluation and Management of Heart Failure): developed in collaboration with the International Society for Heart and Lung Transplantation; endorsed by the Heart Failure Society of America. Circulation. 2001;104(24):2996–3007.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Healy KO, Waksmonski CA, Altman RK, Stetson PD, Reyentovich A, Maurer MS. Perioperative outcome and long-term mortality for heart failure patients undergoing intermediate- and high-risk noncardiac surgery: impact of left ventricular ejection fraction. Congest Heart Fail. 2010;16(2):45–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Lerman BJ, Popat RA, Assimes TL, Heidenreich PA, Wren SM. Association of Left Ventricular Ejection Fraction and Symptoms with Mortality after Elective Noncardiac Surgery among Patients with Heart Failure. JAMA. 2019;321(6):572–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Nielsen S, Degenhardt L, Hoban B, Gisev N. A synthesis of oral morphine equivalents (OME) for opioid utilisation studies. Pharmacoepidemiol Drug Saf. 2016;25(6):733–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Thompson NR, Fan Y, Dalton JE, Jehi L, Rosenbaum BP, Vadera S, et al. A new Elixhauser-based comorbidity summary measure to predict in-hospital mortality. Med Care. 2015;53(4):374–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  10. Grant MC, Whitman GJ, Savage WJ, Ness PM, Frank SM. Clinical predictors of postoperative hemoglobin drift. Transfusion. 2014;54(6):1460–8.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Lang RM, Badano LP, Mor-Avi V, Afilalo J, Armstrong A, Ernande L, et al. Recommendations for cardiac chamber quantification by echocardiography in adults: an update from the American Society of Echocardiography and the European Association of Cardiovascular Imaging. J Am Soc Echocardiogr. 2015;28(1):1–39 e14.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  12. Manja V, AlBashir S, Guyatt G. Criteria for use of composite end points for competing risks-a systematic survey of the literature with recommendations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;82:4–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  13. HCUP Clinical Classifications Software (CCS) for Mental Health and Substance Abuse. Healthcare Cost and Utilization Project (HCUP). 2009. https://www.hcup-us.ahrq.gov/toolssoftware/ccs/ccs.jsp (Last Accessed: 11/08/2020).

    Google Scholar 

  14. Yang D, Dalton J. A unified approach to measuring the effect size between two groups using SAS. Proceedings of the SAS Global Forum 2012 Conference: 2012. Cary: SAS Institute Inc.; 2012.

    Google Scholar 

  15. Tibshirani R. Regression shrinkage and selection via the Lasso. J R Stat Soc Ser B Stat Methodol. 1996;58(1):267–88.

    Google Scholar 

  16. Koepke EJ, Manning EL, Miller TE, Ganesh A, Williams DGA, Manning MW. The rising tide of opioid use and abuse: the role of the anesthesiologist. Perioper Med (Lond). 2018;7(1):16.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Fletcher D, Martinez V. Opioid-induced hyperalgesia in patients after surgery: a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Br J Anaesth. 2014;112(6):991–1004.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Doshi R, Majmundar M, Kansara T, Desai R, Shah J, Kumar A, et al. Frequency of cardiovascular events and in-hospital mortality with opioid overdose hospitalizations. Am J Cardiol. 2019;124(10):1528–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Sayal P, Bateman BT, Menendez M, Eikermann M, Ladha KS. Opioid use disorders and the risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. Anesth Analg. 2018;127(3):767–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Ogletree ML, Sprung J, Moravec CS. Effects of remifentanil on the contractility of failing human heart muscle. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2005;19(6):763–7.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Reid JE, Mirakhur RK. Bradycardia after administration of remifentanil. Br J Anaesth. 2000;84(3):422–3.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  22. DeSouza G, Lewis MC, TerRiet MF. Severe bradycardia after remifentanil. Anesthesiology. 1997;87(4):1019–20.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  23. Kazmaier S, Hanekop GG, Buhre W, Weyland A, Busch T, Radke OC, et al. Myocardial consequences of remifentanil in patients with coronary artery disease. Br J Anaesth. 2000;84(5):578–83.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  24. Cheung CC, Martyn A, Campbell N, Frost S, Gilbert K, Michota F, et al. Predictors of intraoperative hypotension and bradycardia. Am J Med. 2015;128(5):532–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Myles PS, Bellomo R, Corcoran T, Forbes A, Peyton P, Story D, et al. Restrictive versus Liberal fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery. N Engl J Med. 2018;378(24):2263–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  26. Kork F, Balzer F, Spies CD, Wernecke KD, Ginde AA, Jankowski J, et al. Minor postoperative increases of Creatinine are associated with higher mortality and longer hospital length of stay in surgical patients. Anesthesiology. 2015;123(6):1301–11.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  27. O'Connor ME, Hewson RW, Kirwan CJ, Ackland GL, Pearse RM, Prowle JR. Acute kidney injury and mortality 1 year after major non-cardiac surgery. Br J Surg. 2017;104(7):868–76.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  28. Grams ME, Sang Y, Coresh J, Ballew S, Matsushita K, Molnar MZ, et al. Acute kidney injury after major surgery: a retrospective analysis of veterans health administration data. Am J Kidney Dis. 2016;67(6):872–80.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  29. Yancy CW, Jessup M, Bozkurt B, Butler J, Casey DE Jr, Colvin MM, et al. 2017 ACC/AHA/HFSA focused update of the 2013 ACCF/AHA guideline for the Management of Heart Failure: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association task force on clinical practice guidelines and the Heart Failure Society of America. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2017;70(6):776–803.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Rubinstein J, Sanford D. Treatment of Cardiorenal syndrome. Cardiol Clin. 2019;37(3):267–73.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Nohria A, Hasselblad V, Stebbins A, Pauly DF, Fonarow GC, Shah M, et al. Cardiorenal interactions: insights from the ESCAPE trial. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2008;51(13):1268–74.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Hatamizadeh P, Fonarow GC, Budoff MJ, Darabian S, Kovesdy CP, Kalantar-Zadeh K. Cardiorenal syndrome: pathophysiology and potential targets for clinical management. Nat Rev Nephrol. 2013;9(2):99–111.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

None.

Funding

Michael D. Maile was supported by KL2TR002241. Michael R. Mathis was supported by K01-HL141701–02.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Anesthesiology, University of Michigan, 4172 Cardiovascular Center, 1500 E. Medical Center Drive, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Michael D. Maile, Michael R. Mathis, Elizabeth S. Jewell, Graciela B. Mentz & Milo C. Engoren

  2. The Max Harry Weil Institute for Critical Care Research and Innovation, Ann Arbor, MI, USA

    Michael D. Maile

Authors
  1. Michael D. Maile
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Michael R. Mathis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Elizabeth S. Jewell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Graciela B. Mentz
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Milo C. Engoren
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

Michael D Maile: This author helped with the study conception and design, analysis and interpretation of data, drafting of the manuscript, and critical revision of the manuscript; Michael R. Mathis: This author helped with the study conception and design, interpretation of data, and critical revision of the manuscript; Elizabeth S. Jewell: this author helped with acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of data, and critical revision of the manuscript; Graciela B. Mentz: this author helped with acquisition of data, analysis and interpretation of the data, critical revision of the manuscript; Milo C. Engoren: This author helped with the study conception and design, analysis of interpretation of data, and critical revision of the manuscript. The author(s) read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Michael D. Maile.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

This study was approved by the University of Michigan Medical School Institutional Review Board (IRBMED), Ann Arbor, MI, who waived the requirement for informed consent given the retrospective nature of the study and minimal risk to subjects. All methods were performed in accordance with the relevant guidelines and regulations.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1: Supplemental Table 1.

Interaction of intraoperative management and reduced left ventricular ejection fraction on the occurrence of the primary outcome. Supplemental Table 2. Multivariable logistic regressions showing effect of remifentanil on each outcome. Supplemental Table 3. Multivariable logistic regressions showing effect of fluid balance on each outcome.

Additional file 2: Supplemental Fig. 1.

Assignment of surgical risk category based on the incidence of the primary outcome for each surgical type. The surgical risk categories are displayed using distinct colors as defined in the figure legend. High-risk surgery consisted of acute care and trauma surgery. Moderate-risk surgery consisted of thoracic, vascular, otolaryngology, and neurosurgery. Low-risk surgery consisted of urology and gynecology, general surgery, orthopedics, and plastic surgery.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Maile, M.D., Mathis, M.R., Jewell, E.S. et al. Identification of intraoperative management strategies that have a differential effect on patients with reduced left ventricular ejection fraction: a retrospective cohort study. BMC Anesthesiol 22, 288 (2022). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-022-01817-z

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s12871-022-01817-z

Keywords

BMC Anesthesiology

ISSN: 1471-2253

Contact us