Deep learning for transesophageal echocardiography view classification.

Transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) imaging is a vital tool used in the evaluation of complex cardiac pathology and the management of cardiac surgery patients. A key limitation to the application of deep learning strategies to intraoperative and intraprocedural TEE data is the complexity and unstructured nature of these images. In the present study, we developed a deep learning-based, multi-category TEE view classification model that can be used to add structure to intraoperative and intraprocedural TEE imaging data. More specifically, we trained a convolutional neural network (CNN) to predict standardized TEE views using labeled intraoperative and intraprocedural TEE videos from Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (CSMC). We externally validated our model on intraoperative TEE videos from Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC). Accuracy of our model was high across all labeled views. The highest performance was achieved for the Trans-Gastric Left Ventricular Short Axis View (area under the receiver operating curve [AUC] = 0.971 at CSMC, 0.957 at SUMC), the Mid-Esophageal Long Axis View (AUC = 0.954 at CSMC, 0.905 at SUMC), the Mid-Esophageal Aortic Valve Short Axis View (AUC = 0.946 at CSMC, 0.898 at SUMC), and the Mid-Esophageal 4-Chamber View (AUC = 0.939 at CSMC, 0.902 at SUMC). Ultimately, we demonstrate that our deep learning model can accurately classify standardized TEE views, which will facilitate further downstream deep learning analyses for intraoperative and intraprocedural TEE imaging.

Simultaneous Lung-Kidney Transplantation in the United States.

BACKGROUND: Simultaneous lung-kidney transplantation is rarely performed. Contemporary national practice trends and outcomes are unclear. METHODS: From the United Network for Organ Sharing database, we identified 108 lung-kidney transplant recipients (2005-2022). They were compared with isolated lung recipients with pretransplantation dialysis or estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR) ≤30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 (n = 372) and isolated non-dialysis-dependent lung recipients with 30 < eGFR < 50 mL/min per 1.73 m2 (n = 1416), respectively. Lung-kidney recipients were also compared with recipients of the contralateral kidney from the same donors (n = 90). RESULTS: Lung-kidney transplantation was performed by 36 centers, with increasing annual volume (1 in 2005, 16 in 2022; P < .01). Forty percent (44/108) of lung-kidney recipients received pretransplantation dialysis, and of those without pretransplantation dialysis, median eGFR was 30.7 mL/min per 1.73 m2. Lung-kidney recipients had improved survival compared with isolated lung recipients with eGFR ≤30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or pretransplantation dialysis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.59; 95% CI, 0.38-0.92). However, no survival benefit was observed when lung-kidney recipients were compared with isolated lung recipients with 30 < eGFR < 50 mL/min per 1.73 m2 and no pretransplantation dialysis (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.88; 95% CI, 0.55-1.41). Compared with isolated kidney recipients using the contralateral kidney from the same donors, lung-kidney recipients had a higher risk of kidney allograft loss (adjusted hazard ratio, 3.27; 95% CI, 1.22-8.78), a difference largely accounted for by patient death with a functioning kidney allograft. CONCLUSIONS: Recipients of lung-kidney transplants had improved survival compared with isolated lung recipients with eGFR ≤30 mL/min per 1.73 m2 or pretransplantation dialysis. However, lung-kidney recipients had a higher rate of kidney allograft loss than recipients of the contralateral kidney allograft from the same donors.

Anesthetic Preferences for Cardiac Anesthesia: A Survey of the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists.

BACKGROUND: Volatile anesthetics have been historically preferred for cardiac anesthesia, but the evidence for their superiority to intravenous agents is mixed. We conducted a survey to better understand the current state of practice and the rationale behind provider preferences for anesthesia for cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. We hypothesized that anesthetic preference would vary considerably among surveyed providers without a clear majority, as would the rationale behind those preferences. METHODS: Email invitations were sent to members of the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesiologists, who were asked to identify the anesthetics or sedatives they typically prefer to administer during induction, prebypass, bypass, postbypass, and postoperative periods and why they prefer those agents. Members' beliefs regarding the importance of anesthetics on postoperative outcomes were also assessed. RESULTS: Invitations were sent on 2 separate dates to 3328 and 3274 members, of whom 689 (21%) responded. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) respondent age was 45 (37-56) years, 79% were men, and 75% were fellowship trained. The most frequently chosen drug for induction was propofol (80%). Isoflurane was the most frequently selected primary agent for the prebypass (57%), bypass (62%), and postbypass periods (50%). Sevoflurane was the second most frequently selected (30%; 17%, and 24%, respectively). Propofol was the third most frequently selected agent for the bypass (14%) and postbypass periods (17%). Ease of use was the most frequently selected reason for administering isoflurane and sevoflurane for each period. During bypass, the second most frequently selected rationale for using isoflurane and sevoflurane was institutional practice. A total of 76% responded that the perfusionist typically delivers the bypass anesthetic. Ischemic preconditioning, organ protection, and postoperative cognitive function were infrequently selected as rationales for preferring the volatile anesthetics. Most respondents (73%) think that anesthetics have organ-protective properties, especially isoflurane (74%) and sevoflurane (59%), and 72% believed that anesthetic choice contributes to patient outcome. The median (IQR) agreement (0 = strongly disagree to 100 = strongly agree) was 72 (63-85) for the statement that "inhaled anesthetics are an optimal maintenance anesthetic for cardiac surgery." CONCLUSIONS: In a survey of cardiac anesthesiologists, a majority of respondents indicated that they prefer volatile anesthetics for maintenance of anesthesia, that anesthetic selection impacts patient outcomes, and that volatile anesthetics have organ-protective properties. The members' rationales for preferring these agents possibly reflect that practical considerations, such as ease of use, effectiveness, and institutional practice, also influence anesthetic selection during cardiac surgery in addition to considerations such as organ protection.

Anesthetics to Prevent Lung Injury in Cardiac Surgery: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate if sevoflurane based anesthesia is superior to propofol in preventing lung inflammation and preventing postoperative pulmonary complications. DESIGN: Randomized controlled trial. SETTING: Single tertiary care university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Forty adults undergoing cardiac surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomized in a 1:1 ratio to anesthetic maintenance with sevoflurane or propofol. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Blood and bronchoalveolar lavage fluid was sampled before and after bypass to measure pulmonary inflammation using a biomarker panel. The change in bronchoalveolar lavage concentration of tumor necrosis factor alpha (TNFα) was the primary outcome. Secondary outcomes included lung inflammation defined as changes in other biomarkers and postoperative pulmonary complications. There were no significant differences between groups in the change in bronchoalveolar lavage TNFα concentration (median [IQR] change, 17.24 [1.11-536.77] v 101.51 [1.47-402.84] pg/mL, sevoflurane v propofol, p = 0.31). There was a significantly lower postbypass concentration of plasma interleukin 8 (median [IQR], 53.92 [34.5-55.91] v 66.92 [53.03-94.44] pg/mL, p = 0.04) and a significantly smaller postbypass increase in the plasma receptor for advanced glycosylation end products (median [IQR], 174.59 [73.59-446.06] v 548.22 [193.15-852.39] pg/mL, p = 0.03) in the sevoflurane group compared with propofol. The incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications was 100% in both groups, with high rates of pleural effusion (17/18 [94.44%] v 19/22 [86.36%], p = 0.39) and hypoxemia (16/18 [88.88%] v 22/22 [100%], p = 0.11). CONCLUSIONS: Sevoflurane anesthesia during cardiac surgery did not consistently prevent lung inflammation or prevent postoperative pulmonary complications compared to propofol. There were significantly lower levels of 2 plasma biomarkers specific for lung injury and inflammation in the sevoflurane group.

The Year in Cardiothoracic and Vascular Anesthesia: Selected Highlights from 2019.

This highlights in our specialty for 2019 begin with the ongoing major developments in transcatheter valve interventions. Thereafter, the advances in left ventricular assist devices are reviewed. The recent focus on conduit selection and robotic options in coronary artery bypass surgery are then explored. Finally, this special articles closes with a discussion of pulmonary hypertension in noncardiac surgery, anesthetic technique in cardiac surgery, as well as postoperative pneumonia and its outcome consequences.

Effects of Prone Positioning on Transpulmonary Pressures and End-expiratory Volumes in Patients without Lung Disease.

BACKGROUND: The effects of prone positioning on esophageal pressures have not been investigated in mechanically ventilated patients. Our objective was to characterize effects of prone positioning on esophageal pressures, transpulmonary pressure, and lung volume, thereby assessing the potential utility of esophageal pressure measurements in setting positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in prone patients. METHODS: We studied 16 patients undergoing spine surgery during general anesthesia and neuromuscular blockade. We measured airway pressure, esophageal pressures, airflow, and volume, and calculated the expiratory reserve volume and the elastances of the lung and chest wall in supine and prone positions. RESULTS: Esophageal pressures at end expiration with 0 cm H2O PEEP decreased from supine to prone by 5.64 cm H2O (95% CI, 3.37 to 7.90; P < 0.0001). Expiratory reserve volume measured at relaxation volume increased from supine to prone by 0.15 l (interquartile range, 0.25, 0.10; P = 0.003). Chest wall elastance increased from supine to prone by 7.32 (95% CI, 4.77 to 9.87) cm H2O/l at PEEP 0 (P < 0.0001) and 6.66 cm H2O/l (95% CI, 3.91 to 9.41) at PEEP 7 (P = 0.0002). Median driving pressure, the change in airway pressure from end expiration to end-inspiratory plateau, increased in the prone position at PEEP 0 (3.70 cm H2O; 95% CI, 1.74 to 5.66; P = 0.001) and PEEP 7 (3.90 cm H2O; 95% CI, 2.72 to 5.09; P < 0.0001). CONCLUSIONS: End-expiratory esophageal pressure decreases, and end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure and expiratory reserve volume increase, when patients are moved from supine to prone position. Mean respiratory system driving pressure increases in the prone position due to increased chest wall elastance. The increase in end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure and expiratory reserve volume may be one mechanism for the observed clinical benefit with prone positioning.