Cardiac arrest in the perioperative period: a consensus guideline for identification, treatment, and prevention from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care and the European Society for Trauma and Emergency Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiac arrest in the operating room is a rare but potentially life-threatening event with mortality rates of more than 50%. Contributing factors are often known, and the event is recognised rapidly as patients are usually under full monitoring. This guideline covers the perioperative period and is complementary to the European Resuscitation Council guidelines. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care and the European Society for Trauma and Emergency Surgery jointly nominated a panel of experts to develop guidelines for the recognition, treatment, and prevention of cardiac arrest in the perioperative period. A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. All searches were restricted to publications from 1980 to 2019 inclusive and to the English, French, Italian and Spanish languages. The authors also contributed individual, independent literature searches. RESULTS: This guideline contains background information and recommendation for the treatment of cardiac arrest in the operating room environment, and addresses controversial topics such as open chest cardiac massage, resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion and resuscitative thoracotomy, pericardiocentesis, needle decompression, and thoracostomy. CONCLUSIONS: Successful prevention and management of cardiac arrest during anaesthesia and surgery requires anticipation, early recognition, and a clear treatment plan. The ready availability of expert staff and equipment must also be taken into consideration. Success not only depends on medical knowledge, technical skills and a well-organised team using crew resource management, but also on an institutional safety culture embedded in everyday practice through continuous education, training, and multidisciplinary co-operation.

Cardiac arrest in the perioperative period: a consensus guideline for identification, treatment, and prevention from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care and the European Society for Trauma and Emergency Surgery.

INTRODUCTION: Cardiac arrest in the operating room is a rare but potentially life-threatening event with mortality rates of more than 50%. Contributing factors are often known, and the event is recognised rapidly as patients are usually under full monitoring. This guideline covers the perioperative period and is complementary to the European Resuscitation Council (ERC) guidelines. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care and the European Society for Trauma and Emergency Surgery jointly nominated a panel of experts to develop guidelines for the recognition, treatment and prevention of cardiac arrest in the perioperative period. A literature search was conducted in MEDLINE, EMBASE, CINAHL and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. All searches were restricted to publications from 1980 to 2019 inclusive and to the English, French, Italian and Spanish languages. The authors also contributed individual, independent literature searches. RESULTS: This guideline contains background information and recommendation for the treatment of cardiac arrest in the operating room environment, and addresses controversial topics such as open chest cardiac massage (OCCM), resuscitative endovascular balloon occlusion (REBOA) and resuscitative thoracotomy, pericardiocentesis, needle decompression and thoracostomy. CONCLUSION: Successful prevention and management of cardiac arrest during anaesthesia and surgery requires anticipation, early recognition and a clear treatment plan. The ready availability of expert staff and equipment must also be taken into consideration. Success not only depends on medical knowledge, technical skills and a well organised team using crew resource management but also on an institutional safety culture embedded in everyday practice through continuous education, training and multidisciplinary co-operation.

Machine Learning Predictive Model to Guide Treatment Allocation for Recurrent Hepatocellular Carcinoma After Surgery.

Importance: Clear indications on how to select retreatments for recurrent hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) are still lacking. Objective: To create a machine learning predictive model of survival after HCC recurrence to allocate patients to their best potential treatment. Design, Setting, and Participants: Real-life data were obtained from an Italian registry of hepatocellular carcinoma between January 2008 and December 2019 after a median (IQR) follow-up of 27 (12-51) months. External validation was made on data derived by another Italian cohort and a Japanese cohort. Patients who experienced a recurrent HCC after a first surgical approach were included. Patients were profiled, and factors predicting survival after recurrence under different treatments that acted also as treatment effect modifiers were assessed. The model was then fitted individually to identify the best potential treatment. Analysis took place between January and April 2021. Exposures: Patients were enrolled if treated by reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation, chemoembolization, or sorafenib. Main Outcomes and Measures: Survival after recurrence was the end point. Results: A total of 701 patients with recurrent HCC were enrolled (mean [SD] age, 71 [9] years; 151 [21.5%] female). Of those, 293 patients (41.8%) received reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation, 188 (26.8%) received sorafenib, and 220 (31.4%) received chemoembolization. Treatment, age, cirrhosis, number, size, and lobar localization of the recurrent nodules, extrahepatic spread, and time to recurrence were all treatment effect modifiers and survival after recurrence predictors. The area under the receiver operating characteristic curve of the predictive model was 78.5% (95% CI, 71.7%-85.3%) at 5 years after recurrence. According to the model, 611 patients (87.2%) would have benefited from reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation, 37 (5.2%) from sorafenib, and 53 (7.6%) from chemoembolization in terms of potential survival after recurrence. Compared with patients for which the best potential treatment was reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation, sorafenib and chemoembolization would be the best potential treatment for older patients (median [IQR] age, 78.5 [75.2-83.4] years, 77.02 [73.89-80.46] years, and 71.59 [64.76-76.06] years for sorafenib, chemoembolization, and reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation, respectively), with a lower median (IQR) number of multiple recurrent nodules (1.00 [1.00-2.00] for sorafenib, 1.00 [1.00-2.00] for chemoembolization, and 2.00 [1.00-3.00] for reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation). Extrahepatic recurrence was observed in 43.2% (n = 16) for sorafenib as the best potential treatment vs 14.6% (n = 89) for reoperative hepatectomy or thermoablation as the best potential treatment and 0% for chemoembolization as the best potential treatment. Those profiles were used to constitute a patient-tailored algorithm for the best potential treatment allocation. Conclusions and Relevance: The herein presented algorithm should help in allocating patients with recurrent HCC to the best potential treatment according to their specific characteristics in a treatment hierarchy fashion.