1
|
Perianesthesia Care of the Oncologic Patients Undergoing Cytoreductive Surgery with Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy: A Retrospective Study. J Perianesth Nurs 2021; 36:543-552. [PMID: 34303613 DOI: 10.1016/j.jopan.2020.10.016] [Citation(s) in RCA: 0] [Impact Index Per Article: 0] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/23/2020] [Revised: 10/23/2020] [Accepted: 10/23/2020] [Indexed: 11/21/2022]
Abstract
PURPOSE This study was to understand the perianesthesia care for patients undergoing cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS + HIPEC). METHOD This is a retrospective study. DESIGN The perioperative electronic medical records of 189 CRS + HIPEC surgical cases at a hospital of Western Pennsylvania from 2012 to 2018 were analyzed to study the characteristics of perianesthesia care for CRS + HIPEC surgery. FINDINGS The patients' median age was 57 (range 21-83) years, and 60% were men. The mean anesthesia time was 10.47 ± 2.54 hours. Most tumors were appendix or colorectal in origin, and the mean peritoneal cancer index score was 16.19 ± 8.76. The mean estimated blood loss was 623 ± 582 mL. The mean total intravenous crystalloid administered was 8,377 ± 4,100 mL. Fifty-two patients received packed red blood cells during surgery. Postoperatively, 100% of the patients were transferred to the intensive care unit. A majority (52%) of patients were extubated in the operating room. Median lengths of hospital and intensive care unit stays were 13 and 2 days, respectively. A majority (73%) of patients had 1 or more postoperative complications and 29% of patients experienced major postoperative complications (Clavien-Dindo grade III or higher) during the hospital stay. Prolonged hospitalization was owing to gastrointestinal dysfunctions and respiratory failure related to atelectasis and pleural effusion. CONCLUSIONS CRS + HIPEC is a major surgery with numerous challenges to the perianesthesia care team regarding hemodynamic adjustment, pain control, and postoperative complications, which demand training and future studies from the perianesthesia care team.
Collapse
|
2
|
Hübner M, Kusamura S, Villeneuve L, Al-Niaimi A, Alyami M, Balonov K, Bell J, Bristow R, Guiral DC, Fagotti A, Falcão LFR, Glehen O, Lambert L, Mack L, Muenster T, Piso P, Pocard M, Rau B, Sgarbura O, Somashekhar SP, Wadhwa A, Altman A, Fawcett W, Veerapong J, Nelson G. Guidelines for Perioperative Care in Cytoreductive Surgery (CRS) with or without hyperthermic IntraPEritoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC): Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS®) Society Recommendations - Part I: Preoperative and intraoperative management. Eur J Surg Oncol 2020; 46:2292-2310. [PMID: 32873454 DOI: 10.1016/j.ejso.2020.07.041] [Citation(s) in RCA: 91] [Impact Index Per Article: 22.8] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 05/19/2020] [Revised: 07/14/2020] [Accepted: 07/28/2020] [Indexed: 01/28/2023] Open
Abstract
BACKGROUND Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways have been shown to considerably reduce complications, length of stay and costs after most of surgical procedures by standardised application of best evidence-based perioperative care. The aim was to elaborate dedicated recommendations for cytoreductive surgery (CRS) ± hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) in a two-part series of guidelines based on expert consensus. The present part I of the guidelines highlights preoperative and intraoperative management. METHODS The core group assembled a multidisciplinary panel of 24 experts involved in peritoneal surface malignancy surgery representing the fields of general surgery (n = 12), gynaecological surgery (n = 6), and anaesthesia (n = 6). Experts systematically reviewed and summarized the available evidence on 72 identified perioperative care items, following the GRADE (grading of recommendations, assessment, development, evaluation) system. Final consensus (defined as ≥50%, or ≥70% of weak/strong recommendations combined) was reached by a standardised 2-round Delphi process, regarding the strength of recommendations. RESULTS Response rates were 100% for both Delphi rounds. Quality of evidence was evaluated high, moderate low and very low, for 15 (21%), 26 (36%), 29 (40%) and 2 items, respectively. Consensus was reached for 71/72(98.6%) items. Strong recommendations were defined for 37 items, No consensus could be reached regarding the preemptive use of fresh frozen plasma. CONCLUSION The present ERAS recommendations for CRS±HIPEC are based on a standardised expert consensus process providing clinicians with valuable guidance. There is an urgent need to produce high quality studies for CRS±HIPEC and to prospectively evaluate recommendations in clinical practice.
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Martin Hübner
- Department of Visceral Surgery, Lausanne University Hospital CHUV, University of Lausanne (UNIL), Switzerland.
| | - Shigeki Kusamura
- Peritoneal Surface Malignancy Unit, Fondazione IRCCS Istituto Nazionale dei Tumori, Milan, Italy
| | - Laurent Villeneuve
- Clinical Research and Epidemiological Unit, Department of Public Health, Lyon University Hospital, EA 3738, University of Lyon, Lyon, France
| | - Ahmed Al-Niaimi
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Wisconsin School of Medicine and Public Health, Madison, USA
| | - Mohammad Alyami
- Department of General Surgery and Surgical Oncology, King Faisal Specialist Hospital & Research Center, Riyadh, Saudi Arabia
| | - Konstantin Balonov
- Department of Anesthesiology and Perioperative Medicine, Tufts Medical Center, Boston, USA
| | - John Bell
- Department of Anesthesiology, Basingstoke and North Hampshire Hospital, Basingstoke, UK
| | - Robert Bristow
- Department of Obstetrics and Gynecologic Oncology, University of California, Irvine School of Medicine, Orange, USA
| | - Delia Cortés Guiral
- Department of General Surgery (Peritoneal Surface Surgical Oncology). University Hospital Principe de Asturias, Alcalá de Henares, Madrid, Spain
| | - Anna Fagotti
- Fondazione Policlinico Universitario Agostino Gemelli, IRCCS, Catholic University of the Sacred Heart, 00168, Rome, Italy
| | - Luiz Fernando R Falcão
- Discipline of Anesthesiology, Pain and Critical Care Medicine, Federal University of Sao Paulo, Sao Paulo, Brazil
| | - Olivier Glehen
- Department of Digestive Surgery, Lyon University Hospital, EA 3738, University of Lyon, Lyon, France
| | - Laura Lambert
- Peritoneal Surface Malignancy Program, Section of Surgical Oncology, Huntsman Cancer Institute, University of Utah, Salt Lake City, UT, USA
| | - Lloyd Mack
- Department of Surgical Oncology, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| | - Tino Muenster
- Department of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine. Hospital Barmherzige Brüder, Regensburg, Germany
| | - Pompiliu Piso
- Department of General and Visceral Surgery, Hospital Barmherzige Brüder, Regensburg, Germany
| | - Marc Pocard
- Department of Digestive Surgery, Lariboisière University Hospital, Paris, France
| | - Beate Rau
- Department of Surgery, Campus Virchow-Klinikum and Charité Campus Mitte, Charité-Universitätsmedizin Berlin, Germany
| | - Olivia Sgarbura
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Cancer Institute Montpellier (ICM), University of Montpellier, Montpellier, France
| | - S P Somashekhar
- Department of Surgical Oncology, Manipal Comprehensive Cancer Centre, Manipal Hospital, Bengaluru, India
| | - Anupama Wadhwa
- Department of Anesthesiology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
| | - Alon Altman
- Department of Obstetrics, Gynecology and Reproductive Sciences, University of Manitoba, Winnipeg, Canada
| | - William Fawcett
- Anaesthesia and Pain Medicine, Royal Surrey County Hospital NHS Foundation Trust, Guildford, UK
| | - Jula Veerapong
- Department of Surgery, Division of Surgical Oncology, University of California San Diego, La Jolla, CA, USA
| | - Gregg Nelson
- Division of Gynecologic Oncology, Tom Baker Cancer Centre, University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
| |
Collapse
|
3
|
Bezu L, Raineau M, Deloménie M, Cholley B, Pirracchio R. Haemodynamic management during hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: A systematic review. Anaesth Crit Care Pain Med 2020; 39:531-542. [PMID: 32320757 DOI: 10.1016/j.accpm.2020.03.019] [Citation(s) in RCA: 2] [Impact Index Per Article: 0.5] [Reference Citation Analysis] [Abstract] [Key Words] [Track Full Text] [Journal Information] [Subscribe] [Scholar Register] [Received: 10/20/2019] [Revised: 02/23/2020] [Accepted: 03/08/2020] [Indexed: 02/07/2023]
Abstract
CONTEXT Hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) is a surgical technique for peritoneal carcinomatosis combining cytoreduction surgery and peritoneal irrigation of cytotoxic agents responsible for haemodynamics and fluid homeostasis alterations. To this day, no guidelines exist concerning intraoperative management. OBJECTIVES To review data on haemodynamic monitoring and management of patients undergoing HIPEC and to help design a standardised anaesthetic protocol. DATA SOURCES MEDLINE, EMBASE and Cochrane library were searched using the following. STUDY SELECTION Original articles and case-reports. Letters to editors and reviews were excluded. DATA EXTRACTION Data on haemodynamic management, morbidity and mortality. DATA SYNTHESIS Haemodynamic management during HIPEC is highly variable and depends on local protocols. Only one randomised controlled trial evaluated the benefit of goal-directed fluid administration (GDFA). GDFA guided by advanced haemodynamic monitoring resulted in significantly less complication, shorter length of stay and less mortality compared to standard fluid administration. Renal protection protocol did not decrease the risk of acute kidney injury (AKI). CONCLUSION Our review reveals that fluid administration guided by advanced monitoring seems to be associated with less postoperative morbidity and mortality after HIPEC. Nevertheless, the literature review shows that intraoperative haemodynamic management is highly variable for this surgery. The use of renal protection strategy does not decrease the prevalence of AKI. Further prospective trials comparing different fluid management and haemodynamic monitoring strategies are urgently needed (PROSPERO registration CRD42018115720).
Collapse
Affiliation(s)
- Lucillia Bezu
- Service d'anesthésie, hôpitaux universitaires Paris Ouest, hôpital européen Georges Pompidou, Assistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, 20, rue Leblanc, 75015 Paris, France; Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France.
| | - Mégane Raineau
- Service d'anesthésie, hôpitaux universitaires Paris Ouest, hôpital européen Georges Pompidou, Assistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, 20, rue Leblanc, 75015 Paris, France
| | - Myriam Deloménie
- Service de chirurgie cancérologique gynécologique et du sein, hôpitaux universitaires Paris Ouest, hôpital européen Georges Pompidou, Assistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, 20, rue Leblanc, 75015 Paris, France; Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France
| | - Bernard Cholley
- Service d'anesthésie, hôpitaux universitaires Paris Ouest, hôpital européen Georges Pompidou, Assistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, 20, rue Leblanc, 75015 Paris, France; Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France; Inserm UMR S1140, Paris, France
| | - Romain Pirracchio
- Service d'anesthésie, hôpitaux universitaires Paris Ouest, hôpital européen Georges Pompidou, Assistance publique-Hôpitaux de Paris, 20, rue Leblanc, 75015 Paris, France; Université Paris Descartes, Sorbonne Paris Cité, Paris, France
| |
Collapse
|