Is routine admission to a critical care setting following hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy for ovarian cancer necessary?

INTRODUCTION: Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is increasingly being used in patients with stage III ovarian cancer undergoing interval cytoreductive surgery (CRS). It is uncertain whether routine postoperative admission to a critical care setting after CRS-HIPEC is necessary. This study aims to estimate the incidence of patients requiring critical care, and to create a prediction model to identify patients who may forego admission to a critical care setting. METHODS: We analyzed 154 patients with primary ovarian cancer undergoing interval CRS-HIPEC at two Dutch centers between 2007 and 2021. Patients were routinely admitted to a critical care setting for 12-24 h. Patients that received critical support as defined by pre-specified definitions were retrospectively identified. Logistic regression analysis with backward selection was used to predict the need for critical care and the model was validated using bootstrapping. RESULTS: Thirty-eight percent of patients received postoperative critical care, consisting mainly of hemodynamic interventions. Independent predictors of critical care were blood loss, norepinephrine dose during surgery, and age (bootstrapped AUC = 0.76). Using a probability cut-off of 20%, one-third of patients are defined as low-risk for requiring critical care, with a negative predictive value of 0.88. CONCLUSIONS: The majority of patients,primarily undergoing low to intermediate complexity surgeries, did not receive critical care interventions after CRS-HIPEC. Selective admission to a critical care setting may be warranted and its feasibility and safety needs to be evaluated prospectively. Our prediction model can help identify patients in whom admission to a critical care setting may be omitted. Hospital costs and burden on critical care units will benefit from patient selection.

Risk assessment in aortic aneurysm repair by medical specialists versus the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program risk calculator outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this online clinical vignette-based survey study was to compare risk assessments by vascular surgeons, anaesthesiologists and interventional radiologists involved in treating patients with aortic aneurysms in the Netherlands with the NSQIP risk calculator outcomes. METHODS: Participants, recruited using purposive sampling, provided their estimation of the likelihood of postoperative complications and events following aortic surgery in five fictional cases. These cases were subsequently scored using the NSQIP calculator. The risk assessments were statistically analysed using the ANOVA and student t-test. RESULTS: All participating specialists i.e. twelve vascular surgeons, ten interventional radiologists and ten anaesthesiologists completed the survey. In the vast majority of outcomes and vignettes, no significant differences were found between various specialists, whereas significant differences were found between the NSQIP risk calculator outcomes and the combined risk assessments of the specialists. Overall, specialist risk assessments differ from the NSQIP, but neither particularly higher nor lower compared to the risk calculator. CONCLUSIONS: Risk assessment by vascular surgeons, anaesthesiologists and interventional radiologists differs significantly with NSQIP risk calculator outcomes, within the framework of both endovascular and open aortic aneurysm repair. Based on these results, implementing the NSQIP risk calculator in preoperative workup could be of added value in both patient planning as well as adequately informing patients for obtaining consent.