Postoperative care in ICU versus non-ICU after head and neck free-flap surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

OBJECTIVE: Admission to the intensive care unit (ICU) has long been considered as routine by most head and neck surgeons after microvascular free-flap transfer. This study aimed to answer the question 'Is there a difference in the flap survival and postoperative complications rates between admission to intensive care unit (ICU) versus Non-ICU following microvascular head and neck reconstructive surgery?'. DESIGN: Systematic review, and meta-analysis. METHODS: The PubMed, Embase, Scopus and Cochrane Library electronic databases were systematically searched (till April 2021) to identify the relevant studies. Studies that compared postoperative nursing of patients who underwent microvascular head and neck reconstructive surgery in ICU and non-ICU were included. The outcome variables were flap failure and length of hospital stay (LOS) and other complications. Weighted OR or mean differences with 95% CIs were calculated. RESULTS: Eight studies involving a total of 2349 patients were included. No statistically significant differences were observed between ICU and non-ICU admitted patients regarding flap survival reported (fixed, risk ratio, 1.46; 95% CI 0.80 to 2.69, p=0.231, I2=0%), reoperation, readmission, respiratory failure, delirium and mortality (p>0.05). A significant increase in the postoperative pneumonia (p=0.018) and sepsis (p=0.033) was observed in patients admitted to ICU compared with non-ICU setting. CONCLUSION: This meta-analysis showed that an immediate postoperative nursing in the ICU after head and neck microvascular reconstructive surgery did not reduce the incidence of flap failure or complications rate. Limiting the routine ICU admission to the carefully selected patients may result in a reduction in the incidence of postoperative pneumonia, sepsis, LOS and total hospital charge.

PD-1/PDL-1 Inhibitors and Cardiotoxicity; Molecular, Etiological and Management Outlines.

Background: The US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has approved several immunotherapeutic drugs for cancer since 2010, and many more are still being evaluated in other clinical studies. These inhibitors significantly increase response rates and result in the treatment of patients with advanced cancer. However, cancer immunotherapy leads to essential cardiac toxicity properties that have become distinct from other cancer patients' care and are mostly related to their etiology. Aim of review: As potential implications, the occurrence of cardiovascular adverse events is particularly challenging and needs a comprehensive understanding of overall cancer-related etiology, clinical outcomes with different variable severity, and management. Key scientific concepts of review: In terms of improving the overall survival of patients with cancer, clinicians should be careful in selecting either programmed cell death-1 (PD-1) or its programmed cell death ligand (PDL-1) inhibitors by evaluating their risk and clinical benefit for early intervention and decrease the level of morbidity and mortality of their patients. This review focuses on the effectiveness of PD-1/PL-1 antibodies and associated cardiotoxicity adverse events, including etiological mechanisms, diagnosis, and treatment.