Review Article | DOI: https://doi.org/10.31579/2692-9759/045
1 Siran State Hospital, Anesthesist, Gümüşhane-Turkey.
2 Department of Cardiology, Faculty of Medicine, Erzincan Binali Yildirim University, Assoc.Prof. Erzincan-Turkey.
*Corresponding Author: Hakan Gokalp, Department of Anesthesiology and Reanimation, Siran State Hospital, Gümüşhane-Turkey.
Citation: H Gokalp, H Degirmenci (2022). Tips in Anesthetic Techniques in Hypertrophic Cardiomyopathy. Cardiology Research and Reports. 4(3); DOI: 10.31579/2692-9759/045
Copyright: © 2022 Hakan Gokalp, This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.
Received: 03 February 2022 | Accepted: 22 February 2022 | Published: 12 March 2022
Keywords:
Hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) is a common hereditary cardiomyopathy that affects up to 1 in 200 people in the general population [1,2] Patients with HCM usually have asymmetric or isolated areas of left ventricular hypertrophy >15 mm that aren't caused by anything else. The majority of patients have left ventricular outflow tract (LVOT) blockage at rest or with provocation owing to systolic anterior motion (SAM) of the mitral valve with mitral-ventricular septal contact. In addition, SAM causes mild to moderate mitral regurgitation (MR), which is usually oriented posteriorly [3, 4].
Up to 60% of HCM patients experience cardiac issues after surgery (myocardial infarction (MI), congestive heart failure (CHF), or both) [5].
We will discuss anesthetic technique selection during noncardiac surgery for individuals with a preoperative diagnosis of HCM and provide some tips in this review.
Standard American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) monitoring is typically sufficient for individuals with HCM undergoing minor operations needing just sedation with monitored anesthesia care (MAC) [6].
When handling HCM patients, a variety of monitoring tools should be explored. The following factors should be considered by the anesthesiologist when selecting monitoring modalities [7]:
1. The LVOTO degree
2. Does the patient have signs of heart failure;
3. The kind of operation and the possibility of major blood loss or fluid changes; and
4. Any additional diagnoses that put them at an enhanced risk of perioperative problems (i.e., diabetes mellitus, kidney failure)
Central venous pressure (CVP), continuous blood pressure monitoring using intra-arterial cannulation, and pulse plethysmographic variability (PPV) index monitoring, in addition to the regular American Society of Anesthesiologists monitoring, can also be considered [8]. CVP, like CVP/delta, isn't a good indicator of blood volume. According to two studies in both critical care and intraoperative patients, CVP is predictive of hemodynamic response to fluid difficulties (patients who are not HCM) [9, 10].
A sympathectomy is induced by a neuraxial approach (e.g., epidural, spinal, combined spinal-epidural) with local anesthetic. If the hemodynamic aims for managing such patients are kept in mind, a neuraxial method may be employed in a patient with HCM. In a parturient with HCM, a very slowly increased epidural anesthesia or a low-dose mixed spinal-epidural combined anesthetic may be chosen for cesarean delivery [7].
Any drop in arterial pressure necessitates a rise in intravascular blood volume and postload; 1-adrenergic agents like phenylephrine and noradrenaline are the drugs of preference for this since they enhance systemic vascular resistance and reduce LVOT blockage [7].
Drugs with β-adrenergic action (isoproterenol, dopamine, adrenaline, dobutamine etc.) should also be avoided since their positive inotropic and chronotropic effects increase LVOT blockage (11). Also, vasopressors (e.g., phenylephrine or vasopressin) that enhance SVR without raising contractility or pulse (phenylephrine or vasopressin) might be used as a prevention tool [7].
Because HOCM reduces LV compliance, raising dependency on atrial contraction to ensure cardiac output, preserving sinus rhythm is very important. In situations of abrupt atrial fibrillation that destabilizes the patient, urgent cardioversion is required [7].
Sevoflurane is a mild myocardial depressant that produces a lesser decrease in systemic vascular resistance and blood pressure than isoflurane or desflurane, as well as a slight increase in heart rate or none at all. Mechanical ventilation with a high positive end-expiratory pressure and a big tidal volume is dangerous because it decreases preload and obstructs the LVOT (12). Desflurane at high dosages is avoided since it has sympathomimetic effects that might produce tachycardia and increased contractility. While nitrous oxide is not contraindicated, it can increase pulmonary artery pressures, which may already be high in HCM patients [12].
Dexmedetomidine is beneficial because it lowers heart rate and inhibits sympathetic activation [11].
Amiodarone is an ineffective pharmacologic treatment for atrial fibrillation since it takes longer to work and its bolus causes hypotension [13, 14].
Positional procedures, such as putting the patient in a Trendelenburg position, might briefly increase preload. To minimize hemodynamically significant declines in preload during a laparoscopic surgical operation using carbon dioxide (CO2) insufflation, constant contact with the surgical team is required, especially if high insufflation pressures are used. Excessive positive end expiratory pressure (PEEP) and high tidal volumes are avoided since they might harm preload; hence, we usually keep PEEP at 5 mmHg [15].
When it comes to anesthesia, hypertrophic cardiomyopathy (HCM) presents a number of particular obstacles. We wanted to offer some tips on how to improve the anesthetic procedure for HCM patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.
Dear Editorial Team, Clinical Medical Reviews and Reports. My experience with the journal was highly positive. The peer-review process was rigorous, constructive, and completed in a timely manner. The reviewers provided valuable comments that helped improve the quality and clarity of our manuscript. The editorial office was professional, responsive, and supportive throughout all stages of the publication process. Communication was clear and efficient, and any questions were addressed promptly. Overall, I found the journal to maintain high scientific standards and an excellent publication workflow. I would be pleased to consider submitting future work to this journal. Best wishes from, Elena Popa.
It was my pleasure to submit my testimonial concerning the Reviewer Board of our Scientific Journal “Brain and Neurological Disorders”. The Reviewers focused on some modifications and their contribution was helpful. The ladies of our Editorial Office were also supported my efforts. It was my honor to have such a co-operation and I am looking forward for more collaboration.
Dear Grace Pierce, Editorial Coordinator of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports, Thank you for the speedy and efficient peer review process. I appreciate the fact that your peer reviewers do not take months to respond like with some other journals. I would also like to thank the editorial office for responding quickly to my questions. It is an excellent journal. I plan to submit more manuscripts in the future. Best wishes from, Robert W. McGee
Dear Grace Pierce, Editorial Coordinator of Journal of Clinical Research and Reports, Working with you and your team on our recent publication in JCRR has been a truly wonderful and enjoyable experience. The responses were prompt, and the reviewers were patient, constructive, and highly professional. One reviewer in particular gave me the feeling that a professor was carefully reading and commenting on my coursework, which was deeply touching. The entire process was straightforward and hassle‑free, with no tedious online forms to complete. I highly recommend this journal. Best wishes from, DR Aibing Rao, Head of R&D
I Appreciate the Opportunity to Share my Experience with the Journal of Clinical Research and Reports. The peer review process was timely and constructive, and the feedback provided helped improve the quality of our manuscript. The editorial office was professional, responsive, and supportive throughout the process, ensuring smooth communication and efficient handling of the submission. Overall, it was a positive experience collaborating with your team.
Dear Mercy Grace, Editorial Coordinator of Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, We would like to express our gratitude for your help at all stages of publishing and editing the article. The editors of the magazine answer all the necessary questions and help at every stage. We will definitely continue to cooperate and publish other works in the Obstetrics Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences! Best wishes from, Alla Konstantinovna Politova,