Key result
Routine ultrasound screening of the thoracic aorta during cardiac surgery may improve postoperative outcomes by accurately diagnosing atherosclerosis and preventing embolization.
Why the study?
Does routine ultrasound screening of the thoracic aorta improve postoperative outcomes in the cardiac surgery population?
Does routine ultrasound screening of the thoracic aorta improve postoperative outcomes in the cardiac surgery population?
Routine ultrasound screening of the thoracic aorta during cardiac surgery may help prevent devastating neurological complications by identifying atherosclerosis and guiding surgical manipulation.
Stroke and neurological injury are among the most devastating and disabling complications associated with cardiac surgery. Transesophageal echocardiography and epiaortic ultrasound allow for sensitive, point-of-care diagnosis of thoracic aortic disease, which is especially common in patients with heart disease. Unlike other operative procedures, the manipulation of the ascending aorta is routine in cardiac surgery and often unavoidable. Dislodgement and embolization from the ascending and aortic arch atheromas have been clearly associated with manipulation during cardiac surgery. Epiaortic ultrasound and transesophageal echocardiography screening are more accurate and more accessible to the operative team than any other available modality to diagnose atherosclerosis of the aorta. The goal of this review is to review the rationale and scientific evidence that suggests that the routine use of ultrasound guidance in cardiac surgery may improve postoperative outcomes in this patient population.
No takes yet. Share an insight, caveat, or question.
Whitley et al. (2008) conducted a review in Cardiac surgery. Routine ultrasound screening of the thoracic aorta was evaluated. Routine ultrasound screening of the thoracic aorta during cardiac surgery may improve postoperative outcomes by accurately diagnosing atherosclerosis and preventing embolization.
Synapse has enriched 5 closely related papers on similar clinical questions. Consider them for comparative context: