Raluca Goicea

Dr. Raluca Goicea


Research Focus & Metrics

Academic Career Length

5Years (2022-Present)

(Calculated once Scilit publication data is synced: current year − year of first publication + 1)

Representative Publications

View All Publications
13 October 2022 in Journal of Clinical Medicine
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Mihai Gabriel ȘtefanMihai Gabriel Ștefan
Mihai Gabriel Ștefan
CPCornelka Elena Predoi
Cornelka Elena Predoi
RGRaluca Goicea
Raluca Goicea
DFDaniela Filipescu
Daniela Filipescu
Recent research has contested the previously accepted paradigm that volatile anaesthetics improve outcomes in cardiac surgery patients when compared to intravenous anaesthesia. In this review we summarise the mechanisms of myocardial ischaemia/reperfusion injury and cardioprotection in cardiac surgery. In addition, we make a comprehensive analysis of evidence comparing outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery under volatile or intravenous anaesthesia, in terms of mortality and morbidity (cardiac, neurological, renal, pulmonary).

Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
Mihai Gabriel ȘtefanMihai Gabriel Ștefan
Mihai Gabriel Ștefan
DTDana Tomescu
Dana Tomescu
CPCornelka Elena Predoi
Cornelka Elena Predoi
RGRaluca Goicea
Raluca Goicea
MPMihai Perescu
Mihai Perescu
DFDaniela Filipescu
Daniela Filipescu
Introduction: The implementation of Patient Blood Management (PBM) in cardiac surgery has been shown to be effective in reducing blood transfusions and associated complications, as well as improving patient outcomes. Despite the potential benefits of PBM in cardiac surgery, there are several barriers to its successful implementation. Objectives: The main objectives of this study were to ascertain the impact of the national Romanian PBM recommendations on allogeneic blood product transfusion in cardiac surgery and identify predictors of perioperative packed red blood cell transfusion. Methods: As part of the Romanian national pilot programme of PBM, we performed a single-centre, retrospective study in a tertiary centre of cardiovascular surgery, including patients from two time periods, before and after the implementation of the national recommendations. Using coarsened exact matching, from a total of 1174 patients, 157 patients from the before group were matched to 169 patients in the after group. Finally, we built a multivariate regression model from the entire cohort to analyse independent predictors of PRBC transfusion in the perioperative period. Results: Although there was a trend towards a lower proportion of patients requiring PRBC transfusion in the “after” group compared to the “before” group (44.9%vs. 50.3%), it was not statistically significant. There was a significant difference between the “after” group and the “before” group in terms of fresh-frozen plasma (FFP) transfusion rates, with a lower percentage of patients requiring FFP transfusion in the “after” group compared to “before” (14.2%, vs. 22.9%, p = 0.04). This difference was also seen in the total perioperative FFP transfusion (mean transfusion 0.7 units in the “before” group, SD 1.73 vs. 0.38 units in the “after” group, SD 1.05, p = 0.04). In the multivariate regression analysis, age > 64 years (OR 1.652, 95% CI 1.17–2.331, p = 0.004), female sex (OR 2.404, 95% CI 1.655–3.492, p < 0.001), surgery time (OR 1.295, 95% CI 1.126–1.488, p < 0.001), Hb < 13 g/dl (OR 3.611, 95% CI 2.528–5.158, p < 0.001), re-exploration for bleeding (OR 3.988, 95% CI 1.248–12.738, p = 0.020), viscoelastic test use (OR 2.18, 95% CI 1.34–3.544, p < 0.001), FFP transfusion (OR 4.023, 95% CI 2.426–6.671, p < 0.001), and use of a standardized pretransfusion checklist (OR 8.875, 95% CI 5.496–14.332, p < 0.001) remained significantly associated with PRBC transfusion. The use of a preoperative standardized haemostasis questionnaire was independently associated with a decreased risk of perioperative PRBC transfusion (0.565, 95% CI 0.371–0.861, p = 0.008). Conclusions: Implementation of national PBM recommendations led to a reduction in FFP transfusion in a cardiac surgery centre. The use of a preoperative standardized haemostasis questionnaire is an independent predictor of a lower risk for PRBC transfusion in this setting.

4 September 2025 in COVID
Verified
Journal Article
Open access
PDF file
CPCornelka Elena Predoi
Cornelka Elena Predoi
ADAlexandru Dascalu
Alexandru Dascalu
RGRaluca Goicea
Raluca Goicea
Mihai Gabriel ȘtefanMihai Gabriel Ștefan
Mihai Gabriel Ștefan
DFDaniela Filipescu
Daniela Filipescu
NINiculae Iordache
Niculae Iordache
Background: Elective surgery soon after SARS-CoV-2 infection is linked to high morbidity, but the risk > 7 weeks post-infection is uncertain. Methods: A PROSPERO-registered systematic review (CRD42023416842) following PRISMA 2020 searched PubMed, Web of Science, WHO COVID Database, Wiley, Google Scholar, and Scopus (Jane 2020–July 2025) for studies reporting postoperative outcomes in patients with confirmed COVID-19 ≥ 7 weeks before elective surgery. Primary endpoints were cardiopulmonary, neurological, renal and thrombotic complications, ICU/hospital stay and 30-day mortality. Results: Thirteen observational studies (38,055 patients) met inclusion criteria. In patients operated ≥7 weeks after mild or asymptomatic infection, overall mortality rate was 2.27% (607/26,688), with no significant excess versus uninfected controls. Pneumonia (1.66%), pulmonary embolism (1.47%), arrhythmias (2.57%) and myocardial injury (1.06%)—did not exceed baseline surgical rates. Thrombosis occurred in 2.8% but lacked a clear association with prior infection. Conversely, individuals with previous moderate-to-severe disease or recent COVID-19-related hospitalization showed higher complication rates, especially in complex procedures such as coronary bypass. Conclusions: Evidence to date indicates that COVID-19 history beyond seven weeks does not independently raise perioperative morbidity or mortality for most elective procedures.