Complications of Factor V Leiden in Adults Undergoing Noncardiac Surgical Procedures: A Systematic Review.

Factor V Leiden is the commonest hereditary prothrombotic allele, affecting 1% to 5% of the world's population. The objective of this study was to characterize the perioperative and postoperative outcomes of patients with Factor V Leiden compared to patients without a diagnosis of hereditary thrombophilia. This was a focused systematic review of studies including adult (>18 years) patients with Factor V Leiden (heterozygous or homozygous) undergoing noncardiac surgery. Included studies were either randomized controlled trials or observational. The primary clinical outcomes of interest were thromboembolic events occurring from the perioperative period up to 1 year postoperatively, defined as deep venous thrombosis, pulmonary embolism, or other clinically significant thrombosis occurring during or after a surgical procedure. Secondary outcomes included cerebrovascular events, cardiac events, death, transplant-related outcomes, and surgery-specific morbidity. Pediatric and obstetrical patients were excluded, as were case reports and case series. Databases searched included MEDLINE and EMBASE from inception until August 2021. Study bias was assessed through the CLARITY (Collaboration of McMaster University researchers) Risk of Bias tools, and heterogeneity through analysis of study design and end points, as well as the I 2 statistic with its confidence interval and the Q statistic. A total of 5275 potentially relevant studies were identified, with 115 having full text assessed for eligibility and 32 included in the systematic review. On the whole, the literature suggests that patients with Factor V Leiden have an increased risk of perioperative and postoperative thromboembolic events compared to patients without the diagnosis. Increased risk was also seen in relation to surgery-specific morbidity and transplant-related outcomes, particularly arterial thrombotic events. The literature did not support an increased risk for mortality, cerebrovascular, or cardiac complications. Limitations of the data include predisposition toward bias due in many study designs and small sample sizes across the majority of published studies. Variable outcome definitions and durations of patient follow-up across different surgical procedures resulted in high study heterogeneity precluding the effective use of meta-analysis. Factor V Leiden status may confer additional risk for surgery-related adverse outcomes. Large, adequately powered studies are required to accurately estimate the degree of this risk by zygosity.

Quality Improvement in Anesthetic Management of Patients with Left Ventricular Assist Device Support Presenting for Non-Cardiac Surgery: A Single Center Experience.

With the growing number of left ventricular assist device (LVAD) recipients requiring non-cardiac surgery and the limited availability of cardiac anesthesiologists, our study reviewed non-cardiac surgeries in HeartMate III patients with LVAD at our institution. We focused on anesthesiologist roles, detailing patient characteristics, anesthetic management, and outcomes and identifying improvement opportunities in this specialized care setting. A retrospective chart review was conducted of all patients with LVAD who underwent non-cardiac surgery at our institution between 2017 and 2022. Patient demographics, surgical characteristics, anesthetic management, and 30-day mortality rates were also assessed. A total of 23 patients were identified, with 17 (73.9%) males and a median age of 61 [53.5, 67.5] years. Cardiac anesthesiologists were present in nine (39.1%) cases. Elective surgeries were more common (73.9%), with intermediate-risk surgeries accounting for 52.2% of all surgeries. General anesthesia was administered to 18 patients (78.3%), with a median duration of 40 [24, 63.5] min. A single patient required reoperation because of bleeding, and two patients (8.7%) experienced 30-day mortality. Despite guidelines lacking detail, involving non-cardiac anesthesiologists in certain cases is essential. Sharing our experience aims to enhance the evolving discourse on non-cardiac surgeries for patients with LVAD, improving their outcomes and safety.

Respiratory complications during recovery from gastrointestinal endoscopies performed by gastroenterologists under moderate sedation.

BACKGROUND/AIMS: Data on the incidence of adverse respiratory events during recovery from gastrointestinal endoscopy are limited. The aim of this study was to investigate the incidence of these complications. METHODS: In this retrospective cohort study, data were obtained from the electronic records of 657 consecutive patients, who underwent gastroenterological procedures under sedation. RESULTS: Pulse oximetry oxygen saturation (SpO2) <90% for <60 seconds occurred in 82 patients (12.5%) and in 11 patients (1.7%), SpO2 of <90% for >60 seconds occurred in 79 patients (12.0%) and in 11 patients (1.7%), and SpO2 <75% occurred in four patients (0.6%) and in no patients during the procedure and recovery period, respectively. No major complications were noted. The occurrence of desaturation during recovery was correlated with desaturation during the procedure (p<0.001). American Society of Anesthesiologists score (odds ratio [OR], 1.867; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.008-3.458), ischemic heart disease (OR, 1.815; 95% CI, 0.649-5.080), hypertension (OR, 1.289; 95% CI, 0.472-3.516), and diabetes mellitus (OR, 2.406; 95% CI, 0.950-6.095) increased the occurrence of desaturation during recovery. CONCLUSION: We found no major complications during recovery after balanced propofol-based sedation administered by a gastroenterologist-nurse team. Patients with the identified risk predictors must be monitored carefully.

Simulation training results in performance retention for the management of airway fires: A prospective observational study.

Given the severity of the consequences of operating room fires, it is recommended that every anaesthesiologist master fire safety protocols and periodically participate in operating room fire drills. The aim of the present study was to evaluate skill retention one year after an airway fire training programme. Anaesthesiology residents were evaluated using an airway fire simulation-based scenario one year after an educational programme that included a one-h long problem-based learning session, a simulation-based airway fire drill with debriefing, and a formal group discussion. The same simulation scenario was used for both the initial training and the one-year assessment. Thirty-eight anaesthesiology residents participated as pairs in the initial training programme. Of these, 36 participated in the evaluation a year later. Performance after one year was better than performance during the initial simulation. Time to removal of tracheal tube was 7.0 (4.0-12.8) s (median (interquartile range)) at the one-year assessment compared with 22.0 (18.5-52.5) s at the time of initial training (P < 0.001). Performance improvement was also demonstrated by a higher incidence of performance of crucial action items (cessation of airway gases, removal of sponges and pouring of saline), as well as shorter duration of time necessary to perform these tasks. After controlling the fire, the time to re-establish ventilation by bag-mask ventilation or intubation was shorter at one year: 18.0 (11.0-29.0 ) s, compared with initial training 54.0 s (36.2-69.8) s (P = 0.001). We conclude that skills are effectively retained for a year after an airway fire management training session.