A novel scoring system for identifying patients at risk for venous thromboembolism undergoing diverticular resection: an American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Study.

Following colorectal surgery, venous thromboembolism (VTE) is a serious complication occurring at an estimated incidence of 2-4%. There is a significant body of literature stratifying risk of VTE in specific populations undergoing colorectal resection for cancer or inflammatory bowel disease. There has been little research characterizing patients undergoing colorectal surgery for other indications, e.g. diverticulitis. We hypothesize that there exists a subgroup of patients with identifiable risk factors undergoing resection for diverticulitis that has relatively higher risks for VTE. We conducted a retrospective review of the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Project database from 2006 to 2017 who underwent colorectal resection for diverticulitis. Patients with a primary indication for resection other than diverticulitis were excluded. Multivariate logistic regression modeling was conducted to determine the risk of VTE for each independent variable. A novel scoring system was developed and a receiver-operating-characteristic curve was generated. The rate of VTE was 1.49%. An 7-point scoring system was developed using identified significant variables. Patients scoring ≥ 6 on the developed scoring scale had a 3.12% risk of 30-day VTE development. A simple scoring system based on identified significant risk factors was specifically developed to predict the risk of VTE in patients undergoing diverticular colorectal resection. These patients are at significantly higher risk and may justify increased vigilance regarding VTE events, similar to patients undergoing colorectal resection for cancer or inflammatory bowel disease.

Acute urinary retention rates following early removal or no placement in colon and rectal surgery: a single-center analysis.

BACKGROUND: The adequate duration of urinary drainage following colorectal surgery remains debated. The purpose of this study was to compare acute urinary retention (AUR) rates among various durations of urinary catheterization following colon and rectal surgery. METHODS: We conducted a retrospective analysis of patients undergoing elective colorectal resection enrolled in the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocol from 2018 to 2019. Patients were placed into four groups: no catheter placement (NC), catheter removed immediately after surgery (CRAS), removal less than 24 h (CR < 24), and removal greater than 24 h (CR > 24). Our primary endpoint was the rate of AUR in each group. Secondary endpoints included hospital length of stay and urinary tract infections (UTI). A multivariate logistic regression analysis was done to predict AUR. RESULTS: A total 641 patients were included in this study. 27 patients (4.2%) had NC with an AUR rate of 3.7%. 249 patients (38.8%) had CRAS with an AUR rate of 6.8%. 214 patients (33.4%) had CR < 24 with an AUR rate of 4.2%. 151 patients (23.6%) had CR > 24 with an AUR rate of 2.6%. There was no significant difference in AUR among the groups (p = 0.264). In our multivariant logistic regression, pelvic surgery was an independent risk factor for AUR (p = 0.008). There was a statistically significant higher hospital length of stay (p = 0.001) and rate of UTIs (p = 0.017) in patients with prolonged catheterization. CONCLUSION: Deferral or early removal of urinary catheters is safe and feasible following colorectal surgery without a significant increase in AUR. Avoiding prolonged indwelling urinary catheterization may decrease associated complications such as UTI and hospital length of stay.

ECMO after cardiac surgery: a single center study on survival and optimizing outcomes.

BACKGROUND: The study purpose is to examine survival prognostic and extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) application outcomes at our tertiary care center. METHODS: This is a retrospective analysis, January 2014 to September 2019. We analyzed 60 patients who underwent cardiac surgery and required peri-operative ECMO. All inpatients with demographic and intervention data was examined. 52 patients (86.6%) had refractory cardiogenic shock, 7 patients (11.6%) had pulmonary insufficiency, and 1 patient (1.6%) had hemorrhagic shock, all patients required either venous-arterial (VA) (n = 53, 88.3%), venous-venous (VV) (n = 5, 8.3%) or venous-arterial-venous (VAV) (n = 2, 3.3%) ECMO for hemodynamic support. ECMO parameters were analyzed and common postoperative complications were examined in the setting of survival with comorbidities. RESULTS: In-hospital mortality was 60.7% (n = 37). Patients who survived were younger (52 ± 3.3 vs 66 ± 1.5, p < 0.001) with longer hospital stays (35 ± 4.0 vs 20 ± 1.5, p < 0.03). Survivors required fewer blood products (13 ± 2.3 vs 25 ± 2.3, p = 0.02) with a net negative fluid balance (- 3.5 ± 1.6 vs 3.4 ± 1.6, p = 0.01). Cardiac re-operations worsened survival. CONCLUSION: ECMO is a viable rescue strategy for cardiac surgery patients with a 40% survival to discharge rate. Careful attention to volume management and blood transfusion are important markers for potential survival.

Patient Selection and Outcomes of Transfemoral Transcatheter Aortic Valve Replacement Performed with Monitored Anesthesia Care Versus General Anesthesia.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to compare outcomes of monitored anesthesia care (MAC) versus general anesthesia (GA) for transfemoral transcatheter aortic valve replacement (TF-TAVR) and to describe a selection process for the administration of MAC. DESIGN: Retrospective analysis of patients who underwent TF-TAVR under MAC or GA. SETTING: Department of Cardiac Anesthesia, Albany Medical Center, a tertiary university hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Patients selected for TF-TAVR. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were divided into those who underwent MAC and those who underwent GA. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The study comprised 104 consecutive patients (55% male, mean age 83 years) who underwent TF-TAVR under MAC (n = 60) or GA (n = 37) from 2014 to 2015. Seven patients were converted from MAC to GA and were omitted from analysis. There was no statistically significant difference between 30-day mortality and complications between the 2 groups. The MAC group had a significantly shorter median intensive care unit length of stay (48 h v 74 h, p = 0.0002). The MAC group also demonstrated reduced procedural time (45.5 min v 62 min, p = 0.003); operating room time (111 min v 153 min, p = <0.001); and fluoroscopy time (650 s v 690 s, p = 0.03). CONCLUSIONS: Patient selection for TF-TAVR with MAC can be formalized and implemented successfully. MAC allows for the minimizing of patient exposure to unnecessary interventions and improving resource utilization in suitable TAVR patients. Selection requires a multidisciplinary clinical decision-making process. MAC demonstrates good outcomes compared with GA, yet it is important to have a cardiac anesthesiologist present in the event of emergency conversion to GA.