ABSTRACT
Significant advances in surgical techniques and relevant medium- and long-term outcomes over the past two decades have led to a substantial expansion in the indications for major liver resections. To support these outstanding results and to reduce perioperative complications, anesthesiologists must address and master key perioperative issues (preoperative assessment, proactive intraoperative anesthesia strategies, and implementation of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery approach). Intensive care unit monitoring immediately following liver surgery remains a subject of active and often unresolved debate. Among postoperative complications, posthepatectomy liver failure (PHLF) occurs in different grades of severity (A-C) and frequency (9%-30%), and it is the main cause of 90-d postoperative mortality. PHLF, recently redefined with pragmatic clinical criteria and perioperative scores, can be predicted, prevented, or anticipated. This review highlights: (1) The systemic consequences of surgical manipulations anesthesiologists must respond to or prevent, to positively impact PHLF (a proactive approach); and (2) the maximal intensive treatment of PHLF, including artificial options, mainly based, so far, on Acute Liver Failure treatment(s), to buy time waiting for the recovery of the native liver or, when appropriate and in very selected cases, toward liver transplant. Such a clinical context requires a strong commitment to surgeons, anesthesiologists, and intensivists to work together, for a fruitful collaboration in a mandatory clinical continuum.
ABSTRACT
Backgrounds: Major lung resection is associated with high postoperative morbidity and mortality, especially due to cardiorespiratory complications. Right ventricle (RV) ejection, pulmonary artery (PA) pressure, and tone are tightly coupled. Since the RV is exquisitely sensitive to changes in afterload, an acute increase in RV outflow resistance (i.e., acute pulmonary embolism [PE]) will cause acute RV dilatation and, a reduction of left ventricle compliance too, rapidly spiraling to acute cardiogenic shock and death. We investigated the changing in RV performance after major lung resection. Materials and Methods: We carried out transthoracic echocardiography (TTE) aiming at searching for the incidence of early RV systolic dysfunction (defined as tricuspid annulus plane systolic excursion [TAPSE] <17 cm, S'-tissue Doppler imaging <10 cm/s) and estimate the RV-PA coupling by the TAPSE/pulmonary artery pressures (PAPs) ratio after major lung resection. The TTE has been performed before and immediately after surgery. Results: After the end of the operation the echocardiographic parameters of the RV function worsened. TAPSE decreased from 24 (21 ÷ 28) to 18 (16 ÷ 22) mm (P = 0.015) and PAPs increased from 26 (25 ÷ 30) to 30 (25 ÷ 39) mmHg (P = 0.013). TAPSE/PAPs ratio decreased from 0.85 (0.80 ÷ 0.90) to 0.64 (0.54 ÷ 0.79) mm/mmHg (P = 0.002). Conclusions: In line with previous reports, after major lung resection the increase in afterload reduces the RV function, but the impairment remains clinically not relevant. The different clinical picture of an acute cor pulmonale due to PE implies that the pathogenesis of cardiac failure involves more pathways than the mere mechanic occlusion of the blood flow.
ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: During the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) outbreak, a critical care outreach team was implemented in our hospital to guarantee multidisciplinary patient assessment at admission and prompt ICU support in medical wards. In this paper, we report the activity plan results and describe the baseline characteristics of the referred subjects. METHODS: We retrospectively evaluated data from 125 subjects referred to the critical care outreach team from March 22 to April 22, 2020. We considered subjects with a ceiling of care decision, with those deemed eligible assigned to level 3 care (ward subgroup), and those deemed ineligible admitted to the ICU (ICU subgroup). Quality indicators of the outreach team plan delivery included number of cardiac arrest calls, number of intubations in level 2 areas, and ineffective palliative support. RESULTS: We enrolled 125 consecutive adult subjects with a confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19. We did not report any emergency endotracheal intubations in the clinical ward. In the care ceiling subgroup, we had 2 (3.3%) emergency calls for cardiac arrest, whereas signs of ineffective palliative support were reported in 5 subjects (12.5%). Noninvasive forms of respiratory assistance were delivered to 40.0% of subjects in the ward subgroup (median 3 d [interquartile range (IQR) 2-5]), to 45.9% of subjects in the care ceiling subgroup (median 5 d [IQR 3-7]), and to 64.7% of subjects in the ICU subgroup (median 2.5 d [IQR 1-3]). Thirty of the 31 ward subjects (96.7%), 26 of the 34 ICU subjects, (76.4%), and 19 of the 61 ceiling of care subjects (31.1%) were discharged. CONCLUSIONS: In the context of a hospital and ICU surge, a multidisciplinary daily plan supported by a dedicated critical care outreach team was associated with a low rate of cardiac arrest calls, no emergency intubations in the ward, and appropriate palliative care support for subjects with a ceiling of care decision.
