Perioperative outcomes of goal-directed versus conventional fluid therapy in radical cystectomy with enhanced recovery protocol.

PURPOSE: The aim of this study is to evaluate the intra/perioperative fluid management and early postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent radical cystectomy with Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol, using goal-directed fluid therapy compared to conventional fluid therapy. METHODS: This cohort study included patients who underwent open RC for urothelial bladder carcinoma with intent to cure and Enhanced Recovery After Surgery protocol between May 2012 and August 2019. Patients who had palliative or salvage cystectomy and/or adjunct procedures, as well as those with missing detailed perioperative data were excluded. Data were compared between patients who received goal-directed fluid therapy using stroke volume variation by FloTrac™/Vigileo system (n = 119) and conventional fluid therapy based on the anesthesiologist discretion (n = 192). Primary outcome variable was 90-day complications and secondary outcome measures included in-hospital GFR trend, length of stay, and 90-day readmission. RESULTS: The goal-directed fluid therapy group received less total and net intra/perioperative fluid, yet early postoperative glomerular filtration rate trends were similar between both groups (p = 0.7). Estimated blood loss, blood transfusion, index hospital stay, 90-day complication and readmission rates were also comparable between the two groups. Multivariable logistic regression showed no significant association between perioperative fluid management method and 90-day complication rate (OR 1.4, 95% CI 0.8-2.4, p = 0.2). CONCLUSION: Stroke volume variation guided goal-directed fluid therapy is safe in radical cystectomy without compromising the renal function. It is associated with less intra- and perioperative fluid infusion; however, no association with hospital stay, 90-day complication or readmission rates were noted.

Impact of a Perioperative Protocol on Length of ICU and Hospital Stay in Complex Spine Surgery.

BACKGROUND: In an attempt to improve patient care, a perioperative complex spine surgery management protocol was developed through collaboration between spine surgeons and neuroanesthesiologists. The aim of this study was to investigate whether implementation of the protocol in 2015 decreased total hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) and complication rates after elective complex spine surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted by review of the medical charts of patients who underwent elective complex spine surgery at an academic medical center between 2012 and 2017. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the date of their spine surgery in relation to implementation of the spine surgery protocol; before-protocol (January 2012 to March 2015) and protocol (April 2015 to March 2017) groups. Outcomes in the 2 groups were compared, focusing on hospital and ICU LOS, and complication rates. RESULTS: A total of 201 patients were included in the study; 107 and 94 in the before-protocol and protocol groups, respectively. Mean (SD) hospital LOS was 14.8±10.8 days in the before-protocol group compared with 10±10.7 days in the protocol group (P<0.001). The spine surgery protocol was the primary factor decreasing hospital LOS; incidence rate ratio 0.78 (P<0.001). Similarly, mean ICU LOS was lower in the protocol compared with before-protocol group (4.2±6.3 vs. 6.3±7.3 d, respectively; P=0.011). There were no significant differences in the rate of postoperative complications between the 2 groups (P=0.231). CONCLUSION: Implementation of a spine protocol reduced ICU and total hospital LOS stay in high-risk spine surgery patients.

Critical Care and Personalized or Precision Medicine: Who needs whom?

The current paradigm of modern healthcare is a reactive response to patient symptoms, subsequent diagnosis and corresponding treatment of the specific disease(s). This approach is predicated on methodologies first espoused by the Cnidean School of Medicine approximately 2500years ago. More recently escalating healthcare costs and relatively poor disease treatment outcomes have fermented a rethink in how we carry out medical practices. This has led to the emergence of "P-Medicine" in the form of Personalized and Precision Medicine. The terms are used interchangeably, but in fact there are significant differences in the way they are implemented. The former relies on an "N-of-1" model whereas the latter uses a "1-in-N" model. Personalized Medicine is still in a fledgling and evolutionary phase and there has been much debate over its current status and future prospects. A confounding factor has been the sudden development of Precision Medicine, which has currently captured the imagination of policymakers responsible for modern healthcare systems. There is some confusion over the terms Personalized versus Precision Medicine. Here we attempt to define the key differences and working definitions of each P-Medicine approach, as well as a taxonomic relationship tree. Finally, we discuss the impact of Personalized and Precision Medicine on the practice of Critical Care Medicine (CCM). Practitioners of CCM have been participating in Personalized Medicine unknowingly as it takes the protocols of sepsis, mechanical ventilation, and daily awakening trials and applies it to each individual patient. However, the immediate next step for CCM should be an active development of Precision Medicine. This developmental process should break down the silos of modern medicine and create a multidisciplinary approach between clinicians and basic/translational scientists.