Anesthetic Technique (Spinal vs. General Anesthesia) in Holmium Laser Enucleation of the Prostate: Retrospective Analysis of Procedural and Functional Outcomes among 1,159 Patients.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to compare procedural efficacy, early and late functional outcomes in holmium laser enucleation of the prostate (HoLEP) under spinal anesthesia (SA) versus general anesthesia (GA). METHODS: We retrospectively reviewed patients undergoing HoLEP at our institution between 2012 and 2017. Standard pre-, peri-, and postoperative characteristics were compared according to anesthetic technique. Multivariable logistic regression analyses (MVAs) were employed to study the impact of SA on procedural efficacy and postoperative complications. RESULTS: Our study cohort consisted of 1,159 patients, of whom 374 (32%) underwent HoLEP under SA. While a medical history of any anticoagulation/antiplatelet therapy except low-dose acetylsalicylic acid was significantly more common among patients undergoing GA (16% vs. 10%, p = 0.001), no other significant differences in preoperative characteristics were noted including age, body mass index, American Society of Anesthesiologists Classification (ASA), prostate size, or International Prostate Symptom Score (IPSS), and quality of life scores. Patients under SA exhibited shorter times of enucleation 42 min (interquartile range [IQR]:27-59 vs. 45 min [IQR: 31-68], p = 0.002), and combined time of enucleation/morcellation/coagulation (57 min [IQR: 38-85] vs. 64 min [IQR: 43-93], p = 0.002), as well as fewer complications (Clavien-Dindo ≥3) (12 [3.2%] vs. 55 [7%], p = 0.013). These associations were confirmed in MVA. Patients did not differ significantly with regard to early micturition including post-void residual volume and maximum flow-rate improvement. At a median follow-up of 33 months (IQR: 32-44), patients with SA had a lower IPSS score (median 3 [IQR: 1-6] vs. 4 [IQR: 2-7], p = 0.039). However, no significant differences were observed with respect to any urinary incontinence, urge symptoms, and postoperative pain. CONCLUSION: In this large retrospective series, HoLEP under SA was a safe and efficacious procedure with comparable early and long-term functional outcomes.

Perioperative glycemic control with a computerized algorithm versus conventional glycemic control in cardiac surgical patients undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass with blood cardioplegia.

OBJECTIVE: In critical illness, hypoglycemia and hyperglycemia seem to influence outcome. While hypoglycemia can lead to organ dysfunction, hyperglycemia can lead to surgical site infections (SSI). In cardiac surgery, the use of blood cardioplegia is associated with high blood glucose levels. A computer-based algorithm (CBA) for guiding insulin towards normoglycemia might be beneficial. The authors' primary study end-point was the duration in a predefined blood glucose target range of 80 mg/dL to 150 mg/dL. Patients with conventional therapy served as controls. DESIGN: Prospective, randomized trial. SETTING: University hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Seventy-five patients. INTERVENTIONS: The start of therapy was the beginning of cardiopulmonary bypass. Group A: Therapy with CBA and measurement of blood glucose every 30 minutes. Group B: Measurement of blood glucose every 15 minutes using the identical CBA. Group C: Conventional therapy using a fixed insulin dosing scheme. End of therapy was defined as discharge from ICU. MEASUREMENT AND MAIN RESULTS: Glucose administration during cardioplegia did not differ between groups (A: 33 ± 12 g; B: 32 ± 12 g; C: 38 ± 20 g). Glucose levels in groups A and B stayed significantly longer in the target interval compared with group C (A: 75 ± 20%; B: 72 ± 19%; C: 50 ± 34%, p < 0.01 n = 25, respectively). There were no significant differences regarding ICU stay and SSI rates. CONCLUSIONS: Early computer-based insulin therapy allows practitioners to better achieve normoglycemia in patients undergoing major cardiac surgery with the use of blood cardioplegia.

Aspirin Before Elective Surgery-Stop or Continue?

BACKGROUND: Cessation of long-term aspirin treatment before noncardiac surgery can cause adverse cardiac events in patients at risk, particularly in those with previous percutaneous coronary interventions (PCI) with stent implantation. The factors influencing the clinical decision to stop aspirin treatment are currently unknown. METHODS: In a single-center, cross-sectional study (retrospective registration: NCT03049566) carried out from February to December 2014, we took a survey among patients scheduled for noncardiac surgery who were under long-term aspirin treatment, and among their treating anesthesiologists using standardized questionnaires on preoperative aspirin use, comorbidities, and risk-benefit assessments. The main objective was to identify factors associated with the decision to stop aspirin treatment. The results of multivariable logistic regressions and intraclass correlations are presented. RESULTS: 805 patients were included in the study, and 636 questionnaires were returned (203 of which concerned patients with coronary stents). 46.8% of the patients stopped their long-term aspirin treatment before surgery; 38.7% of these patients stopped it too early (>10 days before surgery) or too late (≤ 3 days before surgery). A prior PCI with stent implantation lowered the probability of aspirin cessation (odds ratio [OR] = 0.47 [0.31; 0.72]; p <0.001). On the other hand, patients were more likely to stop their long-term aspirin treatment if it had already been discontinued once before (OR = 4.58 [3.06; 6.84]; p <0.001), if there was a risk of bleeding into a closed space (OR = 4.54 [2.02; 10.22]; p <0.001), if they did not know why they were supposed to take aspirin (OR = 2.12 [1.05; 4.28]; p = 0.036), or if the preoperative consultation with the anesthesiologist occurred <2 days before surgery (OR = 1.60 [1.08; 2.37]; p = 0.018). Patients often assessed the risks related to aspirin cessation lower than their physicians did. CONCLUSION: This study reveals discordance between guideline recommendations and everyday clinical practice in patients with coronary stents. The early integration of cardiologists and anesthesiologists and a more widespread use of stent implant cards could promote adherence to the guidelines.