Transplant anesthesia and critical care: Current research and possible future developments

No abstract availabl

Coagulopathy and hemorrhage management in cirrhotic patients

tb

Liver transplantation for acute-on-chronic liver failure.

Acute-on-chronic liver failure (AoCLF) represents a newly defined entity in patients with liver disease leading to multiple organ failures and increased mortality. To date, no universally accepted definition exists, and different academic societies developed guidelines on the early diagnosis and classification of AoCLF. Recently published trials focused on factors associated with a poor outcome and on the development of severity scores aimed to identify patients who may benefit for advanced monitoring and treatment. No specific therapies are demonstrated to improve survival, and liver transplantation (LT) remains the only treatment associated with improved outcome. Our review focuses on current evidence for early diagnosis and prognostication of disease in patients with AoCLF, as well of criteria for intensive care unit admission, indication, and futility markers of LT, as well as bridging therapy and optimal timing of surgery

Preoperative cardiac assessment in liver transplant candidates

New and extended indications, older age, higher cardiovascular risk, and the long-standing cirrhosis-associated complications mandate specific skills for an appropriate preoperative assessment of the liver transplant (LT) candidate. The incidence of cardiac diseases (dysrhythmias, cardiomyopathies, coronary artery disease, valvular heart disease) are increasing among LT recipients: however, no consensus exists among clinical practice guidelines for cardiovascular screening and risk stratification. In spite of different "transplant center-centered protocols", basic "pillars" are common (electrocardiography, baseline echocardiography, functional assessment). Owing to intrinsic limitations, yields and relevance of noninvasive stress tests, under constant scrutiny even if used, are discussed, focusing the definition of the "high risk" candidate and exploring noninvasive imaging and new forms of stress imaging. The aim is to find an appropriate and rational stepwise algorithm. The final commitment is to select the right candidate for a finite resource, the graft, able to save (and change) lives

Ultrasound- versus landmark-guided subclavian vein catheterization: a prospective observational study from a tertiary referral hospital

This was a single-center, observational, prospective study designed to compare the effectiveness of a real-time, ultrasound- with landmark-guided technique for subclavian vein cannulation. Two groups of 74 consecutive patients each underwent subclavian vein catheterization. One group included patients from intensive care unit, studied by using an ultrasound-guided technique. The other group included patients from surgery or emergency units, studied by using a landmark technique. The primary outcome for comparison between techniques was the success rate of catheterization. Secondary outcomes were the number of attempts, cannulation failure, and mechanical complications. Although there was no difference in total success rate between ultrasound-guided and landmark groups (71 vs. 68, p\u2009=\u20090.464), the ultrasound-guided technique was more frequently successful at first attempt (64 vs. 30, p\u2009<\u20090.001) and required less attempts (1 to 2 vs. 1 to 6, p\u2009<\u20090.001) than landmark technique. Moreover, the ultrasound-guided technique was associated with less complications (2 vs. 13, p\u2009<\u20090.001), interruptions of mechanical ventilation (1 vs. 57, p\u2009<\u20090.001), and post-procedure chest X-ray (43 vs. 62, p\u2009=\u20090.001). In comparison with landmark-guided technique, the use of an ultrasound-guided technique for subclavian catheterization offers advantages in terms of reduced number of attempts and complications

Implementing a robotic liver resection program does not always require prior laparoscopic experience

Background: Preliminary experience in laparoscopic liver surgery is usually suggested prior to implementation of a robotic liver resection program. Methods: This was a retrospective cohort analysis of patients undergoing robotic (RLR) versus laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) for hepatocellular carcinoma at a center with concomitant initiation of robotic and laparoscopic programs RESULTS: A total of 92 consecutive patients operated on between May 2014 and February 2019 were included: 40 RLR versus 52 LLR. Median age (69 vs. 67; p = 0.74), male sex (62.5% vs. 59.6%; p = 0.96), incidence of chronic liver disease (97.5% vs.98.1%; p = 0.85), median model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) score (8 vs. 9; p = 0.92), and median largest nodule size (22 vs. 24 mm) were similar between RLR and LLR. In the LLR group, there was a numerically higher incidence of nodules located in segment 4 (20.0% vs. 16.6%; p = 0.79); a numerically higher use of Pringle's maneuver (32.7% vs. 20%; p = 0.23), and a shorter duration of surgery (median of 165.5 vs. 217.5 min; p = 0.04). Incidence of complications (25% vs.32.7%; p = 0.49), blood transfusions (2.5% vs.9.6%; p = 0.21), and median length of stay (6 vs. 5; p = 0.54) were similar between RLR and LLR. The overall (OS) and recurrence-free (RFS) survival rates at 1 and 5 years were 100 and 79 and 95 and 26% for RLR versus 96.2 and 76.9 and 84.6 and 26.9% for LLR (log-rank p = 0.65 for OS and 0.72 for RFS). Conclusions: Based on our results, concurrent implementation of a robotic and laparoscopic liver resection program appears feasible and safe, and is associated with similar oncologic long-term outcomes

The perioperative period of liver transplantation from unconventional extended criteria donors: data from two high-volume centres

Background: As literature largely focuses on long-term outcomes, this study aimed at elucidating the perioperative outcomes of liver transplant patients receiving a graft from two groups of unconventional expanded criteria donors: brain dead aged > 80 years and cardiac dead.Methods: Data of 247 cirrhotic patients transplanted at two high volume liver transplant centers were analysed. Confounders were balanced using a stabilized inverse probability therapy weighting and a propensity score for each patient on the original population was generated. The score was created using a multivariate logistic regression model considering a Comprehensive Complication Index & GE; 42 (no versus yes) as the dependent variable and 11 possible clinically relevant confounders as covariate.Results: Forty-four patients received the graft from a cardiac-dead donor and 203 from a brain-dead donor aged > 80 years. Intraoperatively, cardiac-dead donors liver transplant cases required more fresh frozen plasma units (P < 0.0001) with similar reduced need of fibrinogen to old brain-dead donors cases. The incidence of reperfusion syndrome was similar (P = 0.80). In the Intensive Care Unit, both the groups presented a comparable low need for blood transfusions, renal replacement therapy and inotropes. Cardiac-dead donors liver transplantations required more time to tracheal extubation (P < 0.0001) and scored higher Comprehensive Complication Index (P < 0.0001) however the incidence of a severe complication status (Comprehensive Complication Index & GE; 42) was similar (P = 0.52). ICU stay (P = 0.97), total hospital stay (P = 0.57), in hospital (P = 1.00) and 6 months (P = 1.00) death were similar.Conclusion: Selected octogenarian and cardiac-dead donors can be used safely for liver transplantation

The role of beta-blocker drugs in critically ill patients: a SIAARTI expert consensus statement

Background: The role of β-blockers in the critically ill has been studied, and data on the protective effects of these drugs on critically ill patients have been repeatedly reported in the literature over the last two decades. However, consensus and guidelines by scientific societies on the use of β-blockers in critically ill patients are still lacking. The purpose of this document is to support the clinical decision-making process regarding the use of β-blockers in critically ill patients. The recipients of this document are physicians, nurses, healthcare personnel, and other professionals involved in the patient's care process. Methods: The Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia, Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) selected a panel of experts and asked them to define key aspects underlying the use of β-blockers in critically ill adult patients. The methodology followed by the experts during this process was in line with principles of modified Delphi and RAND-UCLA methods. The experts developed statements and supportive rationales in the form of informative text. The overall list of statements was subjected to blind votes for consensus. Results: The literature search suggests that adrenergic stress and increased heart rate in critically ill patients are associated with organ dysfunction and increased mortality. Heart rate control thus seems to be critical in the management of the critically ill patient, requiring careful clinical evaluation aimed at both the differential diagnosis to treat secondary tachycardia and the treatment of rhythm disturbance. In addition, the use of β-blockers for the treatment of persistent tachycardia may be considered in patients with septic shock once hypovolemia has been ruled out. Intravenous application should be the preferred route of administration. Conclusion: β-blockers protective effects in critically ill patients have been repeatedly reported in the literature. Their use in the acute treatment of increased heart rate requires understanding of the pathophysiology and careful differential diagnosis, as all causes of tachycardia should be ruled out and addressed first

Postoperative pain management in non-traumatic emergency general surgery : WSES-GAIS-SIAARTI-AAST guidelines

Background Non-traumatic emergency general surgery involves a heterogeneous population that may present with several underlying diseases. Timeous emergency surgical treatment should be supplemented with high-quality perioperative care, ideally performed by multidisciplinary teams trained to identify and handle complex postoperative courses. Uncontrolled or poorly controlled acute postoperative pain may result in significant complications. While pain management after elective surgery has been standardized in perioperative pathways, the traditional perioperative treatment of patients undergoing emergency surgery is often a haphazard practice. The present recommended pain management guidelines are for pain management after non-traumatic emergency surgical intervention. It is meant to provide clinicians a list of indications to prescribe the optimal analgesics even in the absence of a multidisciplinary pain team. Material and methods An international expert panel discussed the different issues in subsequent rounds. Four international recognized scientific societies: World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), Global Alliance for Infection in Surgery (GAIS), Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia Intensive Care (SIAARTI), and American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST), endorsed the project and approved the final manuscript. Conclusion Dealing with acute postoperative pain in the emergency abdominal surgery setting is complex, requires special attention, and should be multidisciplinary. Several tools are available, and their combination is mandatory whenever is possible. Analgesic approach to the various situations and conditions should be patient based and tailored according to procedure, pathology, age, response, and available expertise. A better understanding of the patho-mechanisms of postoperative pain for short- and long-term outcomes is necessary to improve prophylactic and treatment strategies.Peer reviewe

Postoperative pain management in non-traumatic emergency general surgery: WSES-GAIS-SIAARTI-AAST guidelines

Background Non-traumatic emergency general surgery involves a heterogeneous population that may present with several underlying diseases. Timeous emergency surgical treatment should be supplemented with high-quality perioperative care, ideally performed by multidisciplinary teams trained to identify and handle complex postoperative courses. Uncontrolled or poorly controlled acute postoperative pain may result in significant complications. While pain management after elective surgery has been standardized in perioperative pathways, the traditional perioperative treatment of patients undergoing emergency surgery is often a haphazard practice. The present recommended pain management guidelines are for pain management after non-traumatic emergency surgical intervention. It is meant to provide clinicians a list of indications to prescribe the optimal analgesics even in the absence of a multidisciplinary pain team. Material and methods An international expert panel discussed the different issues in subsequent rounds. Four international recognized scientific societies: World Society of Emergency Surgery (WSES), Global Alliance for Infection in Surgery (GAIS), Italian Society of Anesthesia, Analgesia Intensive Care (SIAARTI), and American Association for the Surgery of Trauma (AAST), endorsed the project and approved the final manuscript. Conclusion Dealing with acute postoperative pain in the emergency abdominal surgery setting is complex, requires special attention, and should be multidisciplinary. Several tools are available, and their combination is mandatory whenever is possible. Analgesic approach to the various situations and conditions should be patient based and tailored according to procedure, pathology, age, response, and available expertise. A better understanding of the patho-mechanisms of postoperative pain for short- and long-term outcomes is necessary to improve prophylactic and treatment strategies