Major liver resection, systemic fibrinolytic activity, and the impact of tranexamic acid

The final publication is available at Elsevier via http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.hpb.2016.09.005 © 2016. This manuscript version is made available under the CC-BY-NC-ND 4.0 license http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/Background: Hyperfibrinolysis may occur due to systemic inflammation or hepatic injury that occurs during liver resection. Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an antifibrinolytic agent that decreases bleeding in various settings, but has not been well studied in patients undergoing liver resection. Methods: In this prospective, phase II trial, 18 patients undergoing major liver resection were sequentially assigned to one of three cohorts: (i) Control (no TXA); (ii) TXA Dose I - 1 g bolus followed by 1 g infusion over 8 h; (iii) TXA Dose II - 1 g bolus followed by 10 mg/kg/hr until the end of surgery. Serial blood samples were collected for thromboelastography (TEG), coagulation components and TXA concentration. Results: No abnormalities in hemostatic function were identified on TEG. PAP complex levels increased to peak at 1106 mu g/L (normal 0-512 mu g/L) following parenchymal transection, then decreased to baseline by the morning following surgery. TXA reached stable, therapeutic concentrations early in both dosing regimens. There were no differences between patients based on TXA. Conclusions: There is no thromboelastographic evidence of hyperfibrinolysis in patients undergoing major liver resection. TXA does not influence the change in systemic fibrinolysis; it may reduce bleeding through a different mechanism of action

Anesthesia quality indicators to measure and improve your practice: a modified delphi study

Abstract Background Implementation of the new competency-based post-graduate medical education curriculum has renewed the push by medical regulatory bodies in Canada to strongly advocate and/or mandate continuous quality improvement (cQI) for all physicians. Electronic anesthesia information management systems contain vast amounts of information yet it is unclear how this information could be used to promote cQI for practicing anesthesiologists. The aim of this study was to create a refined list of meaningful anesthesia quality indicators to assist anesthesiologists in the process of continuous self-assessment and feedback of their practice. Methods An initial list of quality indicators was created though a literature search. A modified-Delphi (mDelphi) method was used to rank these indicators and achieve consensus on those indicators considered to be most relevant. Fourteen anesthesiologists representing different regions across Canada participated in the panel. Results The initial list contained 132 items and through 3 rounds of mDelphi the panelists selected 56 items from the list that they believed to be top priority. In the fourth round, a subset of 20 of these indicators were ranked as highest priority. The list included items related to process, structure and outcome. Conclusion This ranked list of anesthesia quality indicators from this modified Delphi study could aid clinicians in their individual practice assessments for continuous quality improvement mandated by Canadian medical regulatory bodies. Feasibility and usability of these quality indicators, and the significance of process versus outcome measures in assessment, are areas of future research