Venovenous bypass in adult liver transplant recipients: A single-center observational case series.

BACKGROUND: Very little information is currently available on the use and outcomes of venovenous bypass (VVB) in liver transplantation (LT) in adults in Australia. In this study, we explored the indications, intraoperative course, and postoperative outcomes of patients who underwent VVB in a high-volume LT unit. METHODS: The study was a single-center, retrospective observational case series of adult patients who underwent VVB during LT at Austin Health in Melbourne, Australia between March 2008 and March 2022. Information on baseline preoperative status and intraoperative variables, including specific VVB characteristics as well as postoperative and VVB-related complications was collected. The lengths of intensive care unit and hospital stays as well as intraoperative and in-hospital mortality were recorded. RESULTS: Of the 900 LTs performed at this center during the aforementioned 14-year period, 27 (3%) included a VVB procedure. VVB was performed electively in 16 of these 27 patients (59.3%) and as a rescue technique to control massive bleeding in the other 11 (40.1%). The median (interquartile range [IQR]) age of those who underwent VVB procedures was 48 (39-55) years; the median age was 56 (47-62) years in the non-VVB group (p<0.0001). The median model for end-stage liver disease (MELD) scores were similar between the two patient groups. Complete blood data was available for 622 non-VVB patients. Twenty-six VVB (96.3%) and 603 non-VVB (96.9%) patients required intraoperative blood transfusions. The median (IQR) number of units of packed red blood cells transfused was 7 (4.8-12.5) units in the VVB group compared to 3.0 units (1.0-6.0) in the non-VVB group (p<0.0001). Inpatient mortality was 18.5% and 1.1% for the VVB and non-VVB groups, respectively (p<0.0001). There were no significant differences in length of hospital stay or incidence of acute kidney injury, primary graft dysfunction, or long-term graft failure between the two groups. Patients in the VVB group experienced a higher rate of postoperative non-anastomotic biliary stricture compared to patients in the non-VVB group (33% and 7.9%, respectively; p = 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: VVB continues to play a vital role in LT. This case series highlights the heightened risk of major complications linked to VVB. However, the global transition to selective use of VVB underscores the urgent need for collaborative multi-center studies designed to address outstanding questions and parameters related to the safe implementation of this procedure.

Textbook outcomes after oesophagectomy: a single-centre observational study.

BACKGROUND: Textbook outcomes is a composite quality assurance tool assessing the ideal perioperative and postoperative course as a unified measure. Currently, its definition and application in the context of oesophagectomy in Australia is unknown. The aim of this study was to assess the textbook outcomes after oesophagectomy in a single referral centre of Australia and investigate the association between textbook outcomes and patient, tumour, and treatment characteristics. METHODS: An observational study was retrospectively performed on patients undergoing open, laparoscopic, or hybrid oesophagectomy between January 2010 and December 2019 in a single cancer referral centre. A textbook outcome was defined as the fulfillment of 10 criteria: R0 resection, retrieval of at least 15 lymph nodes, no intraoperative complications, no postoperative complications greater than Clavien-Dindo grade III, no anastomotic leak, no readmission to the ICU, no hospital stay beyond 21 days, no mortality within 90 days, no readmission related to the surgical procedure within 30 days from admission and no reintervention related to the surgical procedure. The proportion of patients who met each criterion for textbook outcome was calculated and compared. Selected patient-related parameters (age, gender, BMI, ASA score, CCI score), tumour-related factors (tumour location, tumour histology, AJCC clinical T and N stage and treatment-related factor [neoadjuvant chemotherapy and surgical approach]) were assessed. Disease recurrence and one year survival were also evaluated. RESULTS: 110 patients who underwent oesophagectomy were included. The overall textbook outcome rate was 24%. The difference in rates across the years was not statistically significant. The most achieved textbook outcome parameters were 'no mortality in 90 days' (96%) and 'R0 resection' (89%). The least frequently met textbook outcome parameter was 'no severe postoperative complications' (58%), followed by 'no hospital stays over 21 days' (61%). No significant association was found between patient, tumour and treatment characteristics and the rate of textbook outcome. Tumour recurrence rate and overall long term survival was similar between textbook outcome and non-textbook outcome groups. Patients with R0 resection, no intraoperative complication and a hospital stay less than 21 days had reduced mortality rates. CONCLUSIONS: Textbook outcome is a clinically relevant indicator and was achieved in 24% of patients. Severe complications and a prolonged hospital stay were the key criteria that limited the achievement of a textbook outcome. These findings provide meticulous evaluation of oesophagectomy perioperative care and provide a direction for the utilisation of this concept in identifying and improving surgical and oncological care across multiple healthcare levels.

The transit of oral premedication beyond the stomach in patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy: a retrospective observational multicentre study.

BACKGROUND: Antiemetic and analgesic oral premedications are frequently prescribed preoperatively to enhance recovery after laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. However, it is unknown whether these medications transit beyond the stomach or if they remain in the sleeve resection specimen, thereby negating their pharmacological effects. METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was performed on patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy and receiving oral premedication (slow-release tapentadol and netupitant/palonosetron) as part of enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery program. Patients were stratified into the Transit group (premedication absent in the resection specimen) and Failure-to-Transit group (premedication present in the resection specimen). Age, sex, body mass index, and presence of diabetes were compared amongst the groups. The premedication lead time (time between premedications' administration and gastric specimen resection), and the premedication presence or absence in the specimen was evaluated. RESULTS: One hundred consecutive patients were included in the analysis. Ninety-nine patients (99%) were morbidly obese, and 17 patients (17%) had Type 2 diabetes mellitus. One hundred patients (100%) received tapentadol and 89 patients (89%) received netupitant/palonosetron. One or more tablets were discovered in the resected specimens of 38 patients (38%). No statistically significant differences were observed between the groups regarding age, sex, diabetes, or body mass index. The median (Q1‒Q3) premedication lead time was 80 min (57.8‒140.0) in the Failure-to-Transit group and 119.5 min (85.0‒171.3) in the Transit group; P = 0.006. The lead time required to expect complete absorption in 80% of patients was 232 min (95%CI:180‒310). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative oral analgesia and antiemetics did not transit beyond the stomach in 38% of patients undergoing laparoscopic sleeve gastrectomy. When given orally in combination, tapentadol and netupitant/palonosetron should be administered at least 4 h before surgery to ensure transition beyond the stomach. Future enhanced recovery after bariatric surgery guidelines may benefit from the standardization of premedication lead times to facilitate increased absorption. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australian and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry; number ACTRN12623000187640; retrospective registered on 22/02/2023.

MONitoring Knockbacks in EmergencY (MONKEY) - An Audit of Disposition Outcomes in Emergency Patients with Rejected Admission Requests.

Background: Emergency Department (ED) clinicians commonly experience difficulties in referring patients to inpatient teams for hospital admission. There is limited literature reporting on patient outcomes following these complicated referrals, where ED requests for inpatient admission are rejected - which study investigators termed a "knockback". Purpose: To identify disposition outcomes and referral accuracy in ED patients whose admission referral was initially rejected. Secondary objectives were to identify additional patient, clinician and systemic factors associated with knockbacks. Selection and Methodology: Emergency clinicians prospectively nominated a convenience sample of patients identified as having knockbacks over two time periods (Jan-Feb 2020 and Aug 2020 to Jan 2021) at a tertiary Australian ED. Data were analyzed with a mixed-methods approach and subsequent descriptive and thematic analyses were performed. Results: A total of 109 patients were identified as knockbacks. The referrals were warranted, with 89.0% of cases (n = 97) ultimately requiring a hospital admission. In 60.6% (n = 66) of the admissions, patients were admitted under the inpatient team initially referred to by the ED, suggesting referrals were generally accurate. The number of in-hospital units involved in the admission process and ED length of stay were positively correlated (0.409, p < 0.001). Patient factors associated with knockbacks include pre-existing chronic medical conditions and presenting acutely unwell. Analysis of clinicians' perspectives yielded recurring themes of disagreements over admission destination and diagnostic uncertainty. Conclusion: In this patient sample, emergency referrals for admission were mostly warranted and accurate. Knockbacks increase ED length of stay and may adversely affect patient care. Further focused discussion and clearer referral guidelines between ED clinicians and their inpatient colleagues are required.