Combined Cardiothoracic Surgery and Liver Transplantation Versus Isolated Liver Transplantation.

OBJECTIVE: Combined cardiothoracic surgery and liver transplantation (cCSLT) recently increasingly has been used. Despite that, liver transplant immediately after cardiothoracic surgery has not been well-characterized. The authors aimed to compare perioperative management and postoperative outcomes between patients undergoing cCSLT and isolated liver transplantation (iLT). DESIGN: A retrospective study. SETTING: University tertiary medical center. PARTICIPANTS: Twenty-five cCSLT patients and 1091 iLT patients at a single institution from 2010 to 2017. INTERVENTIONS: Twenty-five cCSLT patients were compared with 100 randomly selected and 100 propensity-matched iLT patients. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: All cCSLT patients underwent comprehensive preoperative evaluation by a multidisciplinary team. Of 25 cardiothoracic surgeries, heart transplant (n = 9) was most common, followed by coronary artery bypass grafting (n = 5) and lung transplant (n = 3). Intraoperative management of cCSLT was provided by 2 separate teams, one for cardiothoracic surgery and one for liver transplantation. Patients undergoing cCSLT often required cardiopulmonary bypass, an intra-aortic balloon pump, extracorporeal membrane oxygenation, or cardiac pharmacologic therapies and, additionally, needed more interventions including antifibrinolytic administration, venovenous bypass, massive blood transfusion, and platelet transfusions compared with iLT patients. Ninety-day survival rates were similar in the cCSLT (100%) and iLT groups (random iLT 87% and matched iLT 93%, log-rank test p = 0.089). CONCLUSIONS: Despite having end-stage liver disease and advanced cardiothoracic disorders and experiencing a complex intraoperative course, cCSLT patients had comparable 90-day survival to iLT patients. Comprehensive planning before transplant, optimal patient/donor selection, the multiple-team model, and meticulous intraoperative management are critical to the success of cCSLT.

Opioid free anesthesia: feasible?

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The present review aims to address the feasibility of opioid free anesthesia (OFA). The use of opioids to provide adequate perioperative pain management has been a central practice of anesthesia, and only recently has been challenged. Understanding the goals and challenges of OFA is essential as the approach to intraoperative analgesia and postsurgical management of pain has shifted in response to the opioid epidemic in the United States. RECENT FINDINGS: OFA is an opioid sparing technique, which focuses on multimodal or balanced analgesia, relying on nonopioid adjuncts and regional anesthesia. Enhanced recovery after surgery protocols, often under the auspices of a perioperative pain service, can help guide and promote opioid reduced and OFA, without negatively impacting perioperative pain management or recovery. SUMMARY: The feasibility of OFA is evident. However, there are limitations of this approach that warrant discussion including the potential for adverse drug interactions with multimodal analgesics, the need for providers trained in regional anesthesia, and the management of pain expectations. Additionally, minimizing opioid use perioperatively also requires a change in current prescribing practices. Monitors that can reliably quantify nociception would be helpful in the titration of these analgesics and enable anesthesiologists to achieve the goal in providing personalized perioperative medicine.