PubMed Health⌕ Search

PubMed · 10684474

A Therapeutic Commentary.

Abstract

ABSTRACT: Thirty-one million patients in the United States undergo surgical procedures every year. Approximately 10%-the majority of these with hypertension-are at an increased risk for perioperative and postoperative cardiovascular morbidity and mortality. Thus, hypertensive patients requiring surgery, especially the 2.1 million undergoing noncardiac procedures, should be evaluated carefully for the magnitude, and if severe, the cause of the hypertension. Additionally, their associated metabolic and cardiovascular status should be characterized and corrected with aggressive therapy. Hypertensive patients with known ischemic heart disease, those with multiple risk factors for ischemic heart disease (IHD), some with valvular heart disease, and those with congestive heart failure should be evaluated for their ability to perform the physical and social activities of everyday life, and, when necessary, have formal stress testing. Most studies suggest that blood pressures of 180/110 mm Hg or greater are associated with a greater risk for perioperative ischemic events. Therefore, the goals of blood pressure control should be to reduce the blood pressure without jeopardizing organ function. Antihypertensive medication should be administered until the time of surgery. beta-Receptor blockers should be instituted or continued in patients with angina and in some patients with congestive heart failure. Those without prior antihypertensive therapy might be best treated with beta-blocker therapy perioperatively as evidenced by the Multicenter Study of Perioperative Research Group with atenolol and those earlier studies with metoprolol. The risks of the surgery should be discussed with the patient so the risks can be weighed against the expected benefit. Studies suggest that perioperative risk for any patient, and especially patients with hypertension, are in part related to the adrenergic arousal before, during, and after the procedure as evidenced by the rise in heart rate and blood pressure, along with the liberation of clotting facators and increased risk for plaque rupture, coronary vasoplasm, and consequent myocardial infarction and fibrosis.

Explore related subjects

Keep this discovery

Explore connections, maps & timelines

BibTeXRIS

V DeQuattro, D Li. 1997. A Therapeutic Commentary.. https://doi.org/10.1177/107424849700200411

Cite the original work for its findings. Save a collection to share your selection of sources.

KEEP EXPLORING

Related citations

Effectiveness of high-dose versus standard-dose influenza vaccines against hospitalisation according to frailty risk: a prespecified analysis of the randomised trial DANFLU-2.

BACKGROUND: Frailty is a major risk factor for influenza-related complications and can influence vaccine effectiveness. We aimed to assess the relative vaccine effectiveness (rVE) of high-dose (HD-IIV) versus standard-dose inactivated influenza vaccine (SD-IIV) in older adults aged 65 years or older according to frailty risk. METHODS: This study was a prespecified analysis of DANFLU-2, an open-label, individually randomised trial, conducted in Denmark during three consecutive influenza seasons (2022-23, 2023-24, and 2024-25). Adults aged 65 years or older were randomised (1:1) to the HD-IIV or SD-IIV group. The primary endpoint was hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia. Frailty was defined according to the validated Hospital Frailty Risk Score (HFRS) based on ICD-10 codes within 10 years before randomisation. Participants were stratified into three HFRS categories, namely low (<5 points), intermediate (5-15 points), and high (>15 points) frailty risk. The rVE of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint was assessed across prespecified HFRS categories and treating HFRS as a continuous variable. Pearson's chi-square test was used to compare safety events across frailty risk groups and randomisation groups. FINDINGS: Among 332&#x2009;438 randomised participants (mean age 73&#xb7;7 years [SD 5&#xb7;8]; 161&#x2009;538 [48&#xb7;6%] were female), 276&#x2009;173 (83&#xb7;1%) had low frailty risk, 52&#x2009;395 (15&#xb7;8%) had intermediate frailty risk, and 3861 (1&#xb7;2%) had high frailty risk. The primary endpoint of hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia occurred in 1424 (0&#xb7;5%) of 276&#x2009;173 participants with low frailty risk, 761 (1&#xb7;5%) of 52&#x2009;395 with intermediate frailty risk, and 163 (4&#xb7;2%) of 3861 with high frailty risk (relative risk [RR] for intermediate vs low frailty risk 2&#xb7;8 [95% CI 2&#xb7;6-3&#xb7;1]; RR for high vs low frailty risk 8&#xb7;2 [7&#xb7;0-9&#xb7;6]). HFRS as a continuous variable significantly modified the effect of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against the primary endpoint with higher rVE estimates with increasing HFRS (pinteraction=0&#xb7;020). The rVE was 0&#xb7;2% (95% CI -10&#xb7;8 to 10&#xb7;2) among those with low frailty risk, 13&#xb7;1% (-0&#xb7;4 to 24&#xb7;8) among those with intermediate frailty risk, and 19&#xb7;9% (-10&#xb7;3 to 42&#xb7;1) among those with high frailty risk. No significant interaction was observed when HFRS was assessed according to the prespecified categorical frailty groups (pinteraction=0&#xb7;17). The proportion of participants with at least one serious adverse event increased across frailty risk groups (13&#x2009;366 [4&#xb7;8%] of 275&#x2009;795 for low frailty risk, 5475 [10&#xb7;5%] of 52&#x2009;315 for intermediate frailty risk, and 777 [20&#xb7;2%] of 3850 for high frailty risk; p<0&#xb7;0001), with similar proportions of serious adverse events in the HD-IIV and SD-IIV groups for each frailty risk group. INTERPRETATION: Among adults aged 65 years or older in Denmark, frailty risk might modify the effects of HD-IIV versus SD-IIV against hospitalisation for influenza or pneumonia, with higher rVE estimates with increasing frailty risk. These findings might support considering high-dose influenza vaccines for frail older adults. However, effect modification was not evident when frailty was assessed using prespecified categorical subgroups, and subgroup-specific estimates were imprecise, with 95% CIs crossing the null. These results should be considered exploratory, warranting further investigation. FUNDING: The DANFLU-2 trial was funded by Sanofi.

Journal Article↗