Search

Immediate postoperative extubation (IPE) can reduce perioperative complications and length of stay (LOS), however it is performed variably after liver transplant across institutions and has historically excluded high-risk recipients from consideration. In late 2012, we planned and implemented a single academic institution structured quality improvement (QI) initiative to standardize perioperative care of liver transplant recipients without exceptions. We hypothesized that such an approach would lead to a sustained increase in IPE after primary (PAC) and delayed abdominal closure (DAC).We retrospectively studied 591 patients from 2013 to 2018 who underwent liver transplant after initiative implementation. We evaluated trends in incidence of IPE versus delayed extubation (DE), and reintubation, LOS, and mortality.Overall, 476/591 (80.5%) recipients underwent PAC (278 IPE, 198 DE) and 115/591 (19.5%) experienced DAC (39 IPE, 76 DE). When comparing data from 2013 to data from 2018, the incidence of IPE increased from 9/67 (13.4%) to 78/90 (86.7%) after PAC and from 1/12 (8.3%) to 16/23 (69.6%) after DAC. For the same years, the incidence of IPE after PAC for recipients with MELD scores ≥30 increased from 0/19 (0%) to 12/17 (70.6%), for recipients who underwent simultaneous liver-kidney transplant increased from 1/8 (12.5%) to 4/5 (80.0%), and for recipients who received massive transfusion (10 units of packed red blood cells) increased from 0/17 (0%) to 10/13 (76.9%). Reintubation for respiratory considerations48 h after IPE occurred in 3/278 (1.1%) after PAC and 1/39 (2.6%) after DAC. IPE was associated with decreased intensive care unit (HR of discharge: 1.92; 95% CI: 1.58, 2.33; P 0.001) and hospital LOS (HR of discharge: 1.45; 95% CI: 1.20, 1.76; P 0.001) but demonstrated no association with mortality.A structured QI initiative led to sustained high rates of IPE and reduced LOS in all liver transplant recipients, including those classified as high risk.

Background Patients undergoing liver transplantation frequently but inconsistently require massive blood transfusion. The ability to predict massive transfusion (MT) could reduce the impact on blood bank resources through customization of the blood order schedule. Current predictive models of MT for blood product utilization during liver transplantation are not generally applicable to individual institutions owing to variability in patient population, intraoperative management, and definitions of MT. Moreover, existing models may be limited by not incorporating cirrhosis stage or thromboelastography (TEG) parameters. Methods This retrospective cohort study included all patients who underwent deceased-donor liver transplantation at the Johns Hopkins Hospital between 2010 and 2014. We defined MT as intraoperative transfusion of > 10 units of packed red blood cells (pRBCs) and developed a multivariable predictive model of MT that incorporated cirrhosis stage and TEG parameters. The accuracy of the model was assessed with the goodness-of-fit test, receiver operating characteristic analysis, and bootstrap resampling. The distribution of correct patient classification was then determined as we varied the model threshold for classifying MT. Finally, the potential impact of these predictions on blood bank resources was examined. Results Two hundred three patients were included in the study. Sixty (29.6%) patients met the definition for MT and received a median (interquartile range) of 19.0 (14.0-27.0) pRBC units intraoperatively compared with 4.0 units (1.0-6.0) for those who did not satisfy the criterion for MT. The multivariable model for predicting MT included Model for End-stage Liver Disease score, whether simultaneous liver and kidney transplant was performed, cirrhosis stage, hemoglobin concentration, platelet concentration, and TEG R interval and angle. This model demonstrated good calibration (Hosmer-Lemeshow goodness-of-fit test P = .45) and good discrimination (c statistic: 0.835; 95% confidence interval, 0.781-0.888). A probability cutoff threshold of 0.25 was found to misclassify only 4 of 100 patients as unlikely to experience MT, with the majority such misclassifications within 4 units of the working definition for MT. For this threshold, a preoperative blood ordering schedule that allocated 6 units of pRBCs for those unlikely to experience MT and 15 for those who were likely to experience MT would prevent unnecessary crossmatching of 338 units/100 transplants. Conclusions When clinical and laboratory parameters are included, a model predicting intraoperative MT in patients undergoing liver transplantation is sufficiently accurate that its predictions could guide the blood order schedule for individual patients based on institutional data, thereby reducing the impact on blood bank resources. Ongoing evaluation of model accuracy and transfusion practices is required to ensure continuing performance of the predictive model.

Background: The maximum surgical blood order schedule (MSBOS) is used to determine preoperative blood orders for specific surgical procedures. Because the list was developed in the late 1970s, many new surgical procedures have been introduced and others improved upon, making the original MSBOS obsolete. The authors describe methods to create an updated, institution-specific MSBOS to guide preoperative blood ordering. Methods: Blood utilization data for 53,526 patients undergoing 1,632 different surgical procedures were gathered from an anesthesia information management system. A novel algorithm based on previously defined criteria was used to create an MSBOS for each surgical specialty. The economic implications were calculated based on the number of blood orders placed, but not indicated, according to the MSBOS. Results: Among 27,825 surgical cases that did not require preoperative blood orders as determined by the MSBOS, 9,099 (32.7%) had a type and screen, and 2,643 (9.5%) had a crossmatch ordered. Of 4,644 cases determined to require only a type and screen, 1,509 (32.5%) had a type and crossmatch ordered. By using the MSBOS to eliminate unnecessary blood orders, the authors calculated a potential reduction in hospital charges and actual costs of $211,448 and $43,135 per year, respectively, or $8.89 and $1.81 per surgical patient, respectively. Conclusions: An institution-specific MSBOS can be created, using blood utilization data extracted from an anesthesia information management system along with our proposed algorithm. Using these methods to optimize the process of preoperative blood ordering can potentially improve operating room efficiency, increase patient safety, and decrease costs.

The process of liver transplantation is a complex intermixture of patient disease, timing of transplantation, and quality of organ eventually received. Because of the shortage of cadaveric organs, efforts to expand the pool of donors have led to the use of organs from donors of marginal quality. Recent data suggest that aggressive management of all brain-dead donors, but especially marginal donors, improves the likelihood that their organs will be acceptable and function adequately. Pulmonary pathology, especially portopulmonary hypertension, is especially problematic during the perioperative period. Recent recommendations are discussed. The timing/waiting time of liver transplantation has been a contentious issue from the beginning. While most would like to transplant patients who are sufficiently sick but not too sick for a successful result, past scoring systems have often allowed time on the waiting list to trump acuity of patient disease. The recently adopted model for endstage liver disease and pediatric endstage liver disease systems have dramatically changed the way recipients are listed and medically followed, and when they receive an organ. Each of these areas directly and indirectly affects perioperative care.

The management of patients with fulminant hepatic failure is a major clinical endeavor. Early intensive care at an institution able to perform liver transplantation is essential. It is recognized that therapy focused solely on attempts at preventing/reversing increased intracranial pressure, and the treatment of other failing organs as they occur falls well short of ideal. This review covers the non-biological and biological techniques utilized in efforts to support liver function. The goal is to foster recovery, or to buy enough time for successful liver transplantation. Prospective, controlled trials are beginning to acknowledge subgroups of fulminant hepatic failure and properly randomize therapy. Our understanding of the essential elements of liver support is improving, but no single device has yet proved indispensable.

The person who gives consent to be a live organ donor should be competent, willing to donate, free from coercion, medically and psychosocially suitable, fully informed of the risks and benefits as a donor, and fully informed of the risks, benefits, and alternative treatment available to the recipient. Donors should not be called on to donate in clinically hopeless situations. The benefits to both donor and recipient must outweigh the risks associated with the donation and transplantation of the living donor organ [1]. Despite the increased awareness of organ donation possibilities in the general population, cadaveric organ donation has fallen short of the identified needs. Each year a significant number of patients awaiting transplantation die (Table 1), and the death rates per 1000 patient years at risk reflect the limitations of bridging strategies and treatments, especially for patients with end-stage liver, heart, lung, and intestinal diseases. Because of these shortages, considerable debate has arisen over strategies to expand the donor pool. Options to improve the supply of organs include the use of cadaveric, marginal and cadaveric split-organ grafts, and non-heart beating donors (also called ‘‘donation after cardiac death’’), when appropriate. Living donors, first used in kidney transplantation, potentially offer a source of organs for transplantation at an earlier stage of disease and in acute situations. The ethical dilemmas that surround living donor transplantation are many but primarily involve the appropriateness of donation for a given disease or recipient, and risks of morbidity and especially mortality for the donor. Although it is used primarily for kidney and liver transplantation, living donation for lung, pancreas, intestinal and heart transplantations are the result of continued efforts to improve survival in those with end-stage solid organ disease. In fact, in regions where

Partial veno-venous bypass (VVB) is commonly used in orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). Venous access for blood return during VVB classically uses a surgical cutdown on the left axillary vein (LAV), which may prolong operating time and can be associated with significant complications. The authors have developed an alternative means of establishing venous access whereby the anesthesia team places 8.5F venous cannulae preoperatively in one or two vessels (internal jugular, antecubital, or subclavian) percutaneously using the Seldinger technique. These cannulae then serve to accept venous return from below the diaphragm via a centrifugal pump. The aim fo the present study was to compare the hemodynamic profiles obtained during the anhepatic phase of OLT in patients in whom either a conventional LAV catheter (group 1) or percutaneous catheters (group 2) were used for return flow from a centrifugal pump. There were no identifiable complications related to venous access in either group of patients. Total operating room time was 800 +/- 30 minutes in group 1 and 720 +/- 40 minutes in group 2 (P = 0.17). Hemodynamic parameters were determined from continuous strip chart recordings of arterial, right atrial, and inferior vena caval (IVCP) pressures. Cardiac output (CO) was measured by thermodilution whereas pump flow was determined by an electromagnetic probe. Renal perfusion pressure (RPP) was calculated as the difference between mean arterial pressure (MAP) and IVCP. Bypass pump flow was greater, but not significantly different between group 1 (3.0 +/- 0.2 L/min) and group 2 (2.4 +/- 0.2 L/min) (P = 0.09).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

By making the clinical decision making process explicit, conscious, and science based, we may avoid confusing opinion with evidence. EBM may help sharpen our critical appraisal skills and thus improve the way we practice, teach, and conduct research. Nevertheless, EBM will need to supplement rather than substitute for other approaches to patient care and teaching. EBM may better incorporate patients' values into clinical decision making, and this may be especially important in anesthesiology, where we are in need of valid evidence about important clinical issues such as preoperative testing and postoperative analgesia. By incorporating valid scientific evidence and patients' values into clinical decision making, we may improve patient outcomes. Outside of internal medicine, the literature suggesting that the practice of EBM improves outcomes is sparse, though increasing. Future studies to critically evaluate the practice of EBM in anesthesiology and critical care would be helpful.