Search

Fluids are the cornerstone of therapy in all critically ill patients. During the last decades, we have made many steps to get fluid therapy personalized and based on individual needs. In patients with lung involvement—acute respiratory distress syndrome—finding the right amount of fluids after lung surgery may be extremely important because lung tissue is one of the most vulnerable to fluid accumulation. In the current narrative review, we focus on the actual perspectives of fluid therapy with the aim of showing the possibilities to tailor the treatment to a patient's individual needs using fluid responsiveness parameters and other therapeutic modalities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Study Aims Both general and local anesthesia are used in our department for carotid endarterectomy (CEA). The decision as to which anesthetic technique to use during surgery is made individually. The aim of our study was to evaluate patient satisfaction and preference with the anesthesia type used. Material and Methods The satisfaction of a group of 205 patients with regard to anesthesia used and their future preferences were evaluated prospectively through a questionnaire. The reasons for dissatisfaction were assessed. Results CEA was performed under general anesthesia (GA) in 159 cases (77.6%) and under local anesthesia (LA) in 46 cases (22.4%). In the GA group, 148 patients (93.1%) were satisfied; 30 patients (65.2%) in the LA group were satisfied (p < 0.0001). The reason for dissatisfaction with GA were postoperative nausea and vomiting (7 patients), postoperative psychological alteration (3), and fear of GA (1). The reasons for dissatisfaction with LA were intraoperative pain (9 patients), intraoperative discomfort and stress (5), and intraoperative breathing problems (2). Of the GA group, 154 (96.9%) patients would prefer GA again, and of the LA group, 28 (60.9%) patients would prefer LA if operated on again (p < 0.0001). Overall, 172 patients (83.9%) would prefer GA in the future, and 33 patients (16.1%) would prefer LA. Conclusion Overall patient satisfaction with CEA performed under both GA and LA is high. Nevertheless, in the GA group, patient satisfaction and future preference were significantly higher. Both GA and LA have advantages and disadvantages for CEA. An optimal approach is to make use of both anesthetic techniques based on their individual indications and patient preference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background and Study Aims Both general anesthesia (GA) and local anesthesia (LA) are used in our department for carotid endarterectomy. The decision of which anesthetic technique to use during surgery is made on an individual basis. The aim of our study was to analyze the reasons for using GA or LA. Material and Methods The reasons that led to the selection of either GA or LA were analyzed retrospectively in a group of 409 patients. Results GA was used in 304 patients (74%) and LA in 105 patients (26%). The reasons for a preference for GA were clopidogrel use (88 patients), patient preference (80), increased risk of shunt insertion (43), unfavorable anatomical conditions (41), surgeon preference (21), simultaneous carotid endarterectomy and cardiac surgery (18), emergent carotid endarterectomy (12), and sleep apnea syndrome (1). The reasons for selecting LA were internal comorbidities (46 patients), patient preference (39), unavailability of intraoperative electrophysiologic monitoring (15), and pacemaker (5). Conclusion GA is the dominant choice for carotid endarterectomy in our department because of its prevailing benefits and its preference among neurosurgeons and patients. However, in some subgroups of patients, LA is preferable. An optimal approach is therefore an individual indication for both anesthesia techniques. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

BACKGROUNDː Lowering central venous pressure (CVP) can decrease blood loss during liver resection and it is associated with improved outcomes. Multiple CVP reducing maneuvers have been described, but direct comparison of their effectiveness and safety has never been performed. METHODSː Patients undergoing resections of two or more liver segments were equally randomized to absolute fluid restriction (AR, N.=17) or relative volume redistribution group (RR, N.=17). The ease of reaching low CVP, blood loss, morbidity and mortality were assessed. Besides, the effect of Pringle maneuver and utility of stroke volume variation (SVV) were analyzed. RESULTSː Both methods of CVP reduction were equally effective (0.7±0.9 vs. 0.9±1.0 protocolized steps in the AR and RR group; P=0.356) and safe (no difference in observed blood loss, intraoperative hemodynamic parameters, lactate levels, morbidity and mortality). Patients in the AR group received smaller amount of fluids in the pre-resection period (120 (100-150) vs. 600 (500-700) mL; P<0.001), and had slightly longer hospital stay (10 [8-14] vs. 8 [7-11]; P=0.045). Low CVP was predicted by SVV>10% with 81.4% sensitivity and 77.1% specificity. Reduced blood loss and transfusion rate was observed when Pringle maneuver was used. CONCLUSIONSː In our study, absolute fluid restriction and relative volume redistribution seemed to be equally effective and safe methods of lowering CVP in patients undergoing liver resection. According to our data high SVV might be considered as a low CVP replacement. Pringle maneuver reduced blood loss and transfusion requirement.

Viscoelastic methods (VEM) made available the bedside assessment of blood clotting. Unlike standard laboratory tests, the results are based on the whole blood coagulation and are available in real time at a much faster turnaround time. In combination with our new knowledge about pathophysiology of the trauma-induced coagulopathy, the goal-oriented treatment protocols have been recently proposed for the initial management of bleeding in trauma victims. Additionally, the utility of viscoelastic monitoring devices has been proved even outside this setting in cardiosurgical patients or those undergoing liver transplantation. Many other situations were described in literature showing the potential use of bedside analysis of coagulation for the management of bleeding or critically ill patients. In the near future, we may expect further improvement in current bedside diagnostic tools enabling not only the assessment of secondary hemostasis but also the platelet aggregation. More sensitive assays for new anticoagulants are underway. Aim of this review is to offer the reader a multidisciplinary overview of VEM and their potential use in anesthesiology and critical care.