Myocardial Protection and Financial Considerations of Custodiol Cardioplegia in Minimally Invasive and Open Valve Surgery.

OBJECTIVE: Single-dose antegrade crystalloid cardioplegia with Custodiol-HTK (histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate) has been used for many years. Its safety and efficacy were established in experimental and clinical studies. It is beneficial in complex valve surgery because it provides a long period of myocardial protection with a single dose. Thus, valve procedures (minimally invasive or open) can be performed with limited interruption. The aim of this study is to compare the use of Custodiol-HTK cardioplegia with traditional blood cardioplegia in patients undergoing minimally invasive and open valve surgery. METHODS: A single-institution, retrospective case-control review was performed on patients who underwent valve surgery in Lee Memorial Health System at either HealthPark Medical Center or Gulf Coast Medical Center from July 1, 2011, through March 7, 2015. A total of 181 valve cases (aortic or mitral) performed using Custodiol-HTK cardioplegia were compared with 181 cases performed with traditional blood cardioplegia. Each group had an equal distribution of minimally invasive and open valve cases. Right chest thoracotomy or partial sternotomy was performed on minimally invasive valve cases. Demographics, perioperative data, clinical outcomes, and financial data were collected and analyzed. RESULTS: Patient outcomes were superior in the Custodiol-HTK cardioplegia group for blood transfusion, stroke, and hospital readmission within 30 days (P < 0.05). No statistical differences were observed in the other outcomes categories. Hospital charges were reduced on average by $3013 per patient when using Custodiol-HTK cardioplegia. CONCLUSIONS: Use of Custodiol-HTK cardioplegia is safe and cost-effective when compared with traditional repetitive blood cardioplegia in patients undergoing minimally invasive and open valve surgery.

Can the choice of the local anesthetic have an impact on ambulatory surgery perioperative costs? Chloroprocaine for popliteal block in outpatient foot surgery.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Short-acting regional anesthetics have already been successfully used for peripheral nerve blocks in an ambulatory surgery setting. However, the impact on direct and indirect perioperative costs comparing 2 different short-acting local anesthetics has not been performed yet. DESIGN: Observational, prospective, case-control, cost-minimization study. SETTING: Operating room, regional hospital PATIENTS: One hundred adult American Society of Anesthesiologists status I-III patients scheduled for popliteal block after minor ambulatory foot surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Application of 30 mL chloroprocaine 3% or of 30 mL mepivacaine 1.5% for anesthesia. MEASUREMENTS: Cost-minimization evaluation. Direct and indirect perioperative costs were calculated. Block success, onset time and block duration, patient satisfaction, and unplanned outpatient visits or readmissions after discharge were also assessed. MAIN RESULTS: Onset time (sensory: 4.3 ± 2.4 vs 11.5 ± 3.2 minutes; motor: 7.1 ± 3.7 vs 18.4 ± 4.5 minutes) and block duration (sensory: 105 ± 26 vs 317 ± 46 minutes; motor: 91 ± 25 vs 216 ± 31 minutes) were significantly shorter (P < .001) when chloroprocaine 3% was used. This translated to P < .001, basically due to a faster discharge home 55 ± 1 vs 175 ± 2 minutes; P < .001) in favor of chloroprocaine 3%, without negatively affecting either block efficacy or patients satisfaction. There were no unplanned outpatient visits or readmissions and no complications in the follow-up at 6 weeks. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that the more expensive chloroprocaine 3% for ambulatory foot surgery can reduce total perioperative costs and reduce length of stay in outpatient patients. Moreover, the saved time and personal resources could be used for additional cases, further increasing the revenues of an ambulatory surgical center.

Comparative analysis of clinical efficacy and cost between University of Wisconsin solution and histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate.

OBJECTIVE: To compare University of Wisconsin solution (Viaspan), the universal standard for organ preservation, with histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate solution. An analysis of each solution, in reference to clinical trials with specific organs, is presented and assessed to find the efficacy of each in a clinical environment. Also to view each solution from an economical standpoint, and in the end develop an overall understanding of the key similarities and differences between each solution in order to assess appropriate use of each in a clinical setting. DATA SOURCES: A literature search was conducted by using PubMed, MEDLINE, BIOSIS, Embase, and other online data bases to find the most recent studies of University of Wisconsin and histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate solutions. Search terms included University of Wisconsin solution, histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate, preservation solution, cost analysis, biliary complication, and other related subjects. STUDY SELECTION: Previous research was selected from the literature search to provide basic information on the 2 solutions and also to provide clinical examples of each solution and the efficacy of each with specific organs. DATA SYNTHESIS: Information and published articles on the 2 solutions were gathered for descriptive and comparative purposes. CONCLUSIONS: The 2 solutions appear equally effective in organ preservation. Each solution has its own organ-specific qualities, and each has different complications. The studies reviewed here indicate that the differences are minor and thus suggest that the 2 solutions are equally acceptable for clinical use. Of the 2 solutions, histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate costs less than University of Wisconsin solution.

Increased pancreatitis in allografts flushed with histidine-tryptophan-ketoglutarate solution: a cautionary tale.

We reviewed pancreas transplantation outcomes after Histidine-Tryptophan-Ketoglutarate (HTK) and University of Wisconsin (UW) preservation solution use between 2001 and 2007 at two transplant centers. While equivalence has been claimed for kidney and liver transplant outcomes after the use of HTK or UW preservation solution, consensus has not been reached on equivalence when flushing pancreata. Others have reported comparable patient and graft survival rates, but found an association between the use of HTK and an increase in the incidence of acute rejection and pancreatitis. In reviewing our experiences, we found in pancreata flushed with HTK a higher incidence of postoperative complications including graft pancreatitis, use of octreotide and a decreased rate of insulin-independence at hospital discharge. These findings prompted us to critically review our centers' experience to determine if there is a basis for suspecting a causal relationship.