Perioperative Anaesthesiological Management of Malignant Pleural Mesothelioma Patients Undergoing Extrapleural Pneumonectomy (EPP) and Extended Pleurectomy/Decortication ((E)PD)

Introduction: Macroscopic complete resection (MCR) within a multimodality treatment concept offers currently the best survival for malignant pleural mesothelioma patients. The current standardised therapy is within a multimodality approach including (neo-)adjuvant chemotherapy followed by macroscopic complete resection (MCR). However, MCR in form of extrapleural pneumonectomy (EPP) or extended pleurectomy/decortication ((E)PD) is correlated with significant morbidity and mortality if not performed in high volume centres as described previously according to the literature. In addition, there exist no standardised anaesthesiological protocol for this surgical approach according to the literature. Methods: At our institution, diagnosed mesothelioma patients up to an International Mesothelioma Interest Group (IMIG) stage III receive induction chemotherapy followed by either EPP or (E)PD and in certain cases additional adjuvant therapy. In the period 1999-end 2019, 362 patients were intended to be treated and 303 underwent induction chemotherapy followed by MCR. MCR can be achieved either by EPP or (E)PD. Both procedures request a good teamwork between the surgeon and the anaesthesiologist. Conclusion: Although, there has been a shift lately from EPP towards lung sparing procedure (E)PD, both surgical approaches are still performed to date and is a challenging procedure for both, the surgeon as well as the anaesthesiologist. Herewith, we present our institutional perioperative standard operating procedures for the surgical and anaesthesiological management of EPP or (E)PD according to international terms of reference

Environmental sustainability from anesthesia providers’ perspective: a qualitative study

Background The world faces a significant global health threat – climate change, which makes creating more environmentally sustainable healthcare systems necessary. As a resource-intensive specialty, anesthesiology contributes to a substantial fraction of healthcare’s environmental impact. This alarming situation invites us to reconsider the ecological health determinants and calls us to action. Methods We conducted a single-center qualitative study involving an online survey to explore the environmental sustainability from anesthesia providers’ perspectives in a center implementing internal environmentally-sustainable anesthesia guidelines. We asked care providers how they perceive the importance of environmental issues in their work; the adverse effects they see on ecological sustainability in anesthesia practice; what measures they take to make anesthesia more environmentally friendly; what barriers they face in trying to do so; and why they are unable to adopt ecologically friendly practices in some instances. Using a thematic analysis approach, we identified dominating themes in participants’ responses. Results A total of 62 anesthesia providers completed the online survey. 89% of the participants stated that environmental sustainability is essential in their work, and 95% reported that they implement measures to make their practice greener. A conscious choice of anesthetics was identified as the most common step the respondents take to reduce the environmental impact of anesthesia. Waste production and improper waste management was the most frequently mentioned anesthesia-associated threat to the environment. Lacking knowledge/teaching in sustainability themes was recognized as a crucial barrier to achieving ecology goals. Conclusions Sustainable anesthesia initiatives have the potential to both encourage engagement among anesthesia providers and raise awareness of this global issue. These findings inspire opportunities for action in sustainable anesthesia and broaden the capacity to decrease the climate impact of health care