Perioperative Predictors of Survival After Liver Transplantation for Familial Amyloid Polyneuropathy in a Portuguese Center.

BACKGROUND: Liver transplantation (LT) has been the treatment of choice to halt the progression of familial amyloid polyneuropathy (FAP). Few studies have identified prognostic factors for post-LT survival in FAP. Our aim was to assess survival rate and to identify independent factors for survival after LT. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study of FAP patients transplanted for the first time analyzed 116 transplantations from 2006 to 2014. The median follow-up period was 45.5 months. RESULTS: The overall survival rates at 1 month, 1 year, and 5 years were 89%, 82% and 79%, respectively. On multivariate analysis, only number of red blood cell (RBC) units transfused during surgery, operation time, and body mass index were independent prognostic factors for patient survival. Only 30% of patients were transfused during surgery, and, in these, each RBC unit transfused increased mortality by 53%. The operation time increased mortality by 20% for every 15 minutes of surgery. CONCLUSIONS: This study suggests that operation time and RBC transfused are predominant factors affecting post-LT survival in our FAP patients.

Neostigmine vs. sugammadex: observational cohort study comparing the quality of recovery using the Postoperative Quality Recovery Scale.

BACKGROUND: Quality of postoperative recovery is an important outcome after surgery. An observational cohort study was designed to assess the quality of postoperative recovery using the Portuguese version of the Postoperative Quality Recovery Scale (PQRS) in patients treated with neostigmine vs. sugammadex as neuromuscular blocking reversal agents. METHODS: A convenience sample of 101 adult patients undergoing elective surgery with general anaesthesia and treated with neostigmine (n=48) or sugammadex (n=53) as neuromuscular blocking reversal agents was included. Patients were evaluated using the Portuguese PQRS version at baseline and postoperatively at 15 (T15) and 40 (T40) min and also at days 1 and 3. Recovery was defined as return to baseline values (or better) at each time points. RESULTS: The PQRS overall recovery rates were similar in both groups, but recoveries in the nociceptive (96.2% vs. 81.3%, P=0.02) and physiological (96.2% vs. 70.2%, P=0.001) domains at T40 were higher in the sugammadex group than in the neostigmine group. Also, there was a trend that patients treated with sugammadex reported significantly better global perspective on the impact of surgery on working capacity and daily activities, as well as higher satisfaction with anaesthetic care. CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study suggests that sugammadex may improve physiological and nociceptive postoperative recovery as well as patient satisfaction with anaesthetic care. Although we lack an explanation for a possible favourable impact of sugammadex on quality of recovery, our results may provide sufficient preliminary data to justify a randomised trial to explore this possibility.