Predictors of major complications after elective abdominal surgery in cancer patients.

BACKGROUND: Patients undergoing abdominal surgery for solid tumours frequently develop major postoperative complications, which negatively affect quality of life, costs of care and survival. Few studies have identified the determinants of perioperative complications in this group. METHODS: We performed a prospective observational study including all patients (age > 18) undergoing abdominal surgery for cancer at a single institution between June 2011 and August 2013. Patients undergoing emergency surgery, palliative procedures, or participating in other studies were excluded. Primary outcome was a composite of 30-day all-cause mortality and infectious, cardiovascular, respiratory, neurologic, renal and surgical complications. Univariate and multiple logistic regression analyses were performed to identify predictive factors for major perioperative adverse events. RESULTS: Of a total 308 included patients, 106 (34.4%) developed a major complication during the 30-day follow-up period. Independent predictors of postoperative major complications were: age (odds ratio [OR] 1.03 [95% CI 1.01-1.06], p = 0.012 per year), ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) physical status greater than or equal to 3 (OR 2.61 [95% CI 1.33-5.17], p = 0.003), a preoperative haemoglobin level lower than 12 g/dL (OR 2.13 [95% CI 1.21-4.07], p = 0.014), intraoperative use of colloids (OR 1.89, [95% CI 1.03-4.07], p = 0.047), total amount of intravenous fluids (OR 1.22 [95% CI 0.98-1.59], p = 0.106 per litre), intraoperative blood losses greater than 500 mL (2.07 [95% CI 1.00-4.31], p = 0.043), and hypotension needing vasopressor support (OR 4.68 [95% CI 1.55-27.72], p = 0.004). The model had good discrimination with the area under the ROC curve being 0.80 (95% CI 0.75-0.84, p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that a perioperative strategy aimed at reducing perioperative complications in cancer surgery should include treatment of preoperative anaemia and an optimal fluid strategy, avoiding fluid overload and intraoperative use of colloids.

Hemostatic effects of fibrinogen concentrate compared with cryoprecipitate in children after cardiac surgery: a randomized pilot trial.

OBJECTIVES: Acute acquired hypofibrinogenemia in children undergoing cardiac surgery is a major concern because it often results in perioperative bleeding and high rates of allogeneic blood transfusion. Fibrinogen concentrate has been proposed as an alternative to cryoprecipitate (the gold standard therapy), with minimal infectious and immunologic risks. Our objective was to investigate the efficacy and safety of fibrinogen concentrate in children undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS: In this randomized pilot study, patients were allocated to receive fibrinogen concentrate (60 mg/kg) or cryoprecipitate (10 mL/kg) if bleeding was associated with fibrinogen levels<1 g/dL after cardiopulmonary bypass weaning. The primary outcome was postoperative blood losses during the 48 hours after surgery. RESULTS: A total of 63 patients were included in the study, 30 in the fibrinogen concentrate group and 33 in the cryoprecipitate group. The median 48-hour blood loss was not significantly different between the 2 groups (320 mL [interquartile range, 157-750] vs 410 mL [interquartile range, 215-510], respectively; P=.672). After treatment, plasma fibrinogen concentration increased similarly following administration of both products. There were no differences in allogeneic blood transfusion after intervention treatment. CONCLUSIONS: A large trial comparing fibrinogen concentrate and cryoprecipitate in the management of children with acute acquired hypofibrinogenemia during heart surgery is feasible. The preliminary results of our study showed that the use of fibrinogen concentrate was as efficient and safe as cryoprecipitate in the management of bleeding children undergoing cardiac surgery.

Bronchial injury and pneumothorax after reintubation using an airway exchange catheter.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We report a case of pneumothorax caused by a bronchial perforation during a reintubation using an airway exchange catheter (AEC) in a patient with a head and neck cancer. CASE REPORT: A 53 year old man with oropharynx carcinoma was admitted to ICU for severe pneumonia and severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The patient was recognized as a difficult-to-intubate patient and an endotracheal tube (ETT) was inserted through a bronchoscope. After one week of treatment, it was observed an endotracheal cuff perforation. Exchanging the endotracheal tube was necessary to achieve satisfactory pulmonary ventilation. An AEC Cook 14 was used to perform the reintubation. After reintubation, the patient presented a worsening in oxygen saturation and a chest radiography (CXR) revealed a large pneumothorax. A chest tube was inserted and we observed immediate improvement in oxygen saturation. A repeat CXR confirmed correct positioning of the chest tube and reexpansion of the right lung. A bronchoscopy performed showed a posterior laceration in the right main bronchus. The patient was extubated the following day. After four days, the chest tube was removed. A CXR performed a day after chest tube removal revealed a small right upper pneumothorax, but the patient remained asymptomatic. CONCLUSIONS: Airway exchange catheter is a valuable tool to handle with difficult-to-intubate patients. Although the physicians generally focus their attention in avoid barotrauma - caused by oxygen supplement or jet ventilation through AEC - concern for insertion technique can minimize life threatening complications and increase the safety of AEC.

Bronchial injury and pneumothorax after reintubation using an airway exchange catheter.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: We report a case of pneumothorax caused by a bronchial perforation during a reintubation using an airway exchange catheter (AEC) in a patient with a head and neck cancer. CASE REPORT: A 53 year old man with oropharynx carcinoma was admitted to ICU for severe pneumonia and severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS). The patient was recognized as a difficult-to-intubate patient and an endotracheal tube (ETT) was inserted through a bronchoscope. After one week of treatment, it was observed an endotracheal cuff perforation. Exchanging the endotracheal tube was necessary to achieve satisfactory pulmonary ventilation. An AEC Cook 14 was used to perform the reintubation. After reintubation, the patient presented a worsening in oxygen saturation and a chest radiography (CXR) revealed a large pneumothorax. A chest tube was inserted and we observed immediate improvement in oxygen saturation. A repeat CXR confirmed correct positioning of the chest tube and reexpansion of the right lung. A bronchoscopy performed showed a posterior laceration in the right main bronchus. The patient was extubated the following day. After four days, the chest tube was removed. A CXR performed a day after chest tube removal revealed a small right upper pneumothorax, but the patient remained asymptomatic. CONCLUSIONS: Airway exchange catheter is a valuable tool to handle with difficult-to-intubate patients. Although the physicians generally focus their attention in avoid barotrauma--caused by oxygen supplement or jet ventilation through AEC--concern for insertion technique can minimize life threatening complications and increase the safety of AEC.