Outcomes of arterial resection during pancreatectomy for tumor.

OBJECTIVE: Arterial resection (AR) during pancreatic tumor resection is controversial. We examined the safety and efficacy of AR during pancreatectomy. METHODS: We used a prospective institutional database that includes 6522 patients who underwent pancreatectomy from 1970 to 2014; 35 had AR. We performed a 2:1 propensity match for patients without and with AR on the basis of preoperative patient and tumor variables. We then compared operative and postoperative outcomes between matched groups. RESULTS: AR included 18 hepatic, 8 celiac, 3 splenic, 3 middle colic, 2 superior mesenteric, and 1 left renal artery. There were 20 primary, 4 vein, and 2 graft reconstructions; 11 were emergent and 24 elective. Before matching, patients with AR were younger (58 ± 2 vs 63 ± 0.2 years old; P = .05), more likely to be of black race (26% vs 9%; P = .003), to have received preoperative chemotherapy (17% vs 2%; P < .001), have a later stage and larger tumor (4 ± 0.8 vs 3 ± 0.04 cm; P = .05), more resections that included removal of all macroscopic disease, but microscopic residual tumor remained (31% vs 14%; P = .02), greater blood loss (1285 ± 276 vs 822 ± 16 mL; P = .02), and more frequent cardiac complications (11% vs 4%; P = .03) compared with patients without AR. After propensity matching, baseline patient characteristics were similar between groups. For perioperative outcomes, the groups did not differ in surgical time, blood loss, length of stay, or complications including anastomotic leaks, bleeding, cardiac, infectious complications, or liver infarct or failure (all; P = not significant). Patency was 97% at a mean follow-up of 510 ± 184 days with 1 hepatic artery AR thrombosis. Long-term outcomes were significantly different: patients with AR had a lower rate of local tumor recurrence (20% vs 47%; P = .007) but also lower 1-year (50% vs 87%; P = .002) and median survival (22 ± 18 vs 49 ± 7 months; P = .002). CONCLUSIONS: AR during pancreatectomy is safe and not associated with increased complications. Although it significantly reduces the risk of local tumor recurrence, AR is associated with worse survival compared with patients who do not undergo AR.

Risk of venous thromboembolic events following inferior vena cava resection and reconstruction.

OBJECTIVE: The perioperative risk of an acute venous thromboembolism (VTE) event after inferior vena cava (IVC) reconstruction is unknown. We sought to describe VTE outcomes of our 15-year IVC reconstruction experience. METHODS: We performed a retrospective institutional review of all patients who underwent IVC reconstruction (September 1999-October 2014) and describe perioperative VTE outcomes. RESULTS: Sixty-five patients (mean age 58 ± 2 years) underwent IVC reconstruction (primary repair, 25%; patch, 43%; graft, 32%), most commonly for renal cell carcinoma (51%) and retroperitoneal sarcoma (22%). The overall incidence of perioperative VTE was 22% (n = 14), including isolated deep vein thrombosis (DVT) in 9% (n = 6) and pulmonary embolism in 12% (n = 8; 4 with concomitant DVT). Median time to diagnosis was 6 days (range, 1-37 days). Most VTE patients were symptomatic (57%; 8 of 14), including lower extremity edema in 50%, acute desaturation in 43%, and hemodynamic compromise in 36%. No patient died as a result of his or her VTE. There was a trend for more overall VTE events in patients who underwent graft reconstruction (primary, 13%; patch, 18%; graft, 33%; P = .06). VTE was also significantly associated with larger tumor size, renal vein reimplantation, and blood transfusions (P ≤ .05). Late complications of VTE included lower extremity edema in two patients and graft thrombosis in one patient. CONCLUSIONS: IVC reconstruction can be performed safely with low VTE-associated morbidity. Routine anticoagulation might not be warranted in these patients, but early postoperative screening for DVT should be considered, especially in cases with large tumor burden or when graft reconstruction is performed.

Outcomes of Bypass Support Use during Inferior Vena Cava Resection and Reconstruction.

BACKGROUND: The safety and effectiveness of using venovenous and cardiopulmonary bypass for resection of the inferior vena cava (IVC) is not well studied. The goal of this study was to compare outcomes following IVC resection with and without bypass support. METHODS: We analyzed all patients undergoing IVC resection at our institution (September 1999 to June 2014) and compared the use of bypass support with cross-clamp alone using univariable and Kaplan-Meier analyses. The outcomes included perioperative complications and survival. RESULTS: Sixty-three patients underwent IVC resection (mean age 58 ± 2 years, mean follow-up 21 ± 3 months). Bypass patients (32%) were similar to non-bypass patients (68%) in age, gender, tumor size, type, and grade (P = nonsignificant [NS]). Bypass patients were more likely to undergo complete IVC reconstruction (55% vs. 24%, P = 0.01) at the suprarenal level (62% vs. 35%, P = 0.05), and had higher intraoperative blood loss (9.6 ± 2.1 vs. 3.2 ± 1.4 L, P = 0.01). Complete R0 resection was similar between groups (50% vs. 52%, P = NS). There were more overall perioperative complications in bypass patients (P = 0.0005), with a trend toward more frequent venous thromboembolic events (40% vs. 21%, P = 0.13). The incidence of acute kidney injury (10% vs. 9%) and renal failure requiring dialysis (10% vs. 2%) was similar (P = NS). Length of stay was longer following bypass (12.2 ± 1.2 vs. 8.0 ± 0.1 days, P = 0.004). There were no differences in overall mortality (15% vs. 14%, P = NS) or tumor recurrence (50% vs. 47%, P = NS). Bypass patients had a nonsignificant trend toward longer disease-free survival (20.7 ± 5.2 vs. 10.4 ± 3.8 months, P = 0.12). CONCLUSIONS: The use of bypass support for IVC resection is associated with more complex operations and higher rates of perioperative complications. However, the overall mortality and morbidity of bypass, including renal complications, is similar to cross-clamping alone. Thus, the need for bypass should not preclude attempts at complete tumor resection.

Technical risk factors for portal vein reconstruction thrombosis in pancreatic resection.

OBJECTIVE: Vascular reconstruction can facilitate pancreas tumor resection, but optimal methods of reconstruction are not well studied. We report our results for portal vein reconstruction (PVR) for pancreatic resection and determinants of postoperative patency. METHODS: We identified 173 patients with PVR in a prospective database of 6522 patients who underwent pancreatic resection at our hospital from 1970 to 2014. There were 128 patients who had >1 year of follow-up with computed tomography imaging. Preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative factors were recorded. Patients with and without postoperative PVR thrombosis were compared by univariable, multivariable, and receiver operating characteristic curve analyses. RESULTS: The survival of patients was 100% at 1 month, 88% at 6 months, 66% at 1 year, and 39% on overall median follow-up of 310 days (interquartile range, 417 days). Median survival was 15.5 months (interquartile range, 25 months); 86% of resections were for cancer. Four types of PVR techniques were used: 83% of PVRs were performed by primary repair, 8.7% with interposition vein graft, 4.7% with interposition prosthetic graft, and 4.7% with patch. PVR patency was 100% at 1 day, 98% at 1 month, 91% at 6 months, and 83% at 1 year. Patients with PVR thrombosis were not significantly different from patients with patent PVR in age, survival, preoperative comorbidities, tumor characteristics, perioperative blood loss or transfusion, or postoperative complications. They were more likely to have had preoperative chemotherapy (53% vs 9%; P < .0001), radiation therapy (35% vs 2%; P < .0001), and prolonged operative time (618 ± 57 vs 424 ± 20 minutes; P = .002) and to develop postoperative ascites (76% vs 22%; P < .001). Among patients who developed ascites, 38% of those with PVR thrombosis did so in the setting of tumor recurrence at the porta detected on imaging, whereas among patients with patent PVR, 50% did so (P = .73). Patients with PVR thrombosis were more likely to have had prosthetic graft placement compared with patients with patent PVRs (18% vs 2.7%; P = .03; odds ratio [OR], 7.7; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.4-42). PVR patency overall was significantly worse for patients who had an interposition prosthetic graft reconstruction (log-rank, P = .04). On multivariable analysis, operative time (OR, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.01-1.02) and prosthetic graft placement (OR, 8.12; 95% CI, 1.1-74) were independent predictors of PVR thrombosis (C statistic = 0.88). CONCLUSIONS: Long operative times and use of prosthetic grafts for reconstruction are risk factors for postoperative portal vein thrombosis. Primary repair, patch, or vein interposition should be preferentially used for PVR in the setting of pancreatic resection.

Treatment of a complex thoracoabdominal aneurysm and dissection with a branched graft.

This article describes the management of a patient with a complex symptomatic thoracoabdominal aneurysm and discusses the branched graft approach to surgical repair of complex aortic aneurysms. The case highlights the importance of a team approach during a complex, high-risk surgery and the perioperative period.

Reversing Neuromuscular Blockade without Nerve Stimulator Guidance in a Postsurgical ICU-An Observational Study.

We aimed to determine if not using residual neuromuscular blockade (RNB) analysis to guide neuromuscular blockade reversal administration in the postsurgical ICU resulted in consequences related to residual weakness. This single-center, prospective study evaluated 104 patients arriving in a postcardiac surgical ICU. After demonstrating spontaneous movement and T > 35.5 °C, all patients underwent RNB evaluation, and neostigmine/glycopyrrolate was then administered. When patients later demonstrated an adequate Rapid Shallow Breathing Index, negative inspiratory force generation, and arterial blood gas values with minimal mechanical ventilatory support, RNB evaluation was repeated in 94 of the 104 patients, and all patients were extubated. Though RNB evaluation was performed, patients were extubated without considering these results. Eleven of one hundred four patients had not achieved a Train-of-Four (TOF) count of four prior to receiving neostigmine. Twenty of ninety-four patients demonstrated a TOF ratio ≤ 90% prior to extubation. Three patients received unplanned postextubation adjunct respiratory support-one for obvious respiratory weakness, one for pain-related splinting compounding baseline disordered breathing but without obvious benefit from BiPAP, and one for a new issue requiring surgery. Residual neuromuscular weakness may have been unrecognized before extubation in 1 of 104 patients administered neostigmine without RNB analysis. ICU-level care may mitigate consequences in such cases.

The role of advanced diagnostic technology in the selection of a patient with symptomatic but hemodynamically insignificant disease for carotid endarterectomy.

Current Level I evidence demonstrates no benefit for carotid endarterectomy in symptomatic patients with <50% carotid stenoses. However, unstable plaque morphology is increasingly recognized in the genesis of ischemic cerebral events. New advanced imaging technology, such as contrast-enhanced magnetic resonance angiography and ultrasound imaging, are emerging as important adjuncts in the evaluation of this patient population. We present a case where both modalities were beneficial in identifying plaque instability manifested by intraplaque hemorrhage and neovascularization in a patient with recurrent cerebral ischemic events and hemodynamically insignificant carotid disease.