Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy: Fluid and temperature remain the culprit!

Optimizing risk factors influence Intensive Care stay after Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy? An observational cohort study

BACKGROUND

It may be necessary to admit patients receiving Hyperthermic Intraperitoneal Chemotherapy (HIPEC) to the intensive care unit (ICU). They were required to evaluate the length of ICU stay (LOS) following HIPEC, as well as their survival rates and risk factors that influence LOS.

METHODS

74 HIPEC patients were observed after being admitted to the ICU. Their assignments were made based on their LOS at the ICU. Short stay group, patients who stayed in the ICU for three days or less (S-group) and patients who stayed for three days or longer (L-group).

RESULTS

Survival rates for both groups were comparable. After HIPEC, they exhibited intraoperative hypotension (P = 0.015), hyopthermia (P = 0.014), and hyperglycemia (P = 0.010). Additionally, patients in group L underwent longer surgeries (P = 0.013), lost more blood (P = 0.043), and required more transfusions (P = 0.001). Subjects in group-L had higher SOFA, fentanyl, and vasopressor requirements (all P 0.001), higher ALT and AST levels, disrupted K, lower Na, and higher INR levels (all P 0.001), as well as a higher APACHE II score (P = 0.007). Preoperative BUN had an independent risk factor for LOS of 0.861; (95% CI), (0.742- 0.999); P = 0.048; and crystalloid transfusion had an independent risk factor of 1.000; (95% CI), (0.999- 1.000); P = 0.003.

CONCLUSIONS

Transfusions of crystalloids and BUN were independent risk factors for extended LOS. ICU LOS had no impact on survival. All measures should be taken to control hemostasis in vulnerable HIPEC participants.

Utility of lung ultrasound for extravascular lung water volume estimation during cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy

Background and Aims:

Rising extravascular lung-water index (ELWI) following cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS + HIPEC), if not timely intervened, can progress to pulmonary oedema. Transpulmonary thermodilution (TPTDL) is a standard technique to estimate ELWI (T-ELWI score), and track ongoing changes. Lung ultrasound (LUS) is another technique for ELWI (L-ELWI score) estimation. However, reproducibility and reliability of LUS for tracking serial L-ELWI changes during CRS + HIPEC remains to be validated.

Methods:

This prospective observational study included 360 L-ELWI and T-ELWI measurements at 12 peri-operative time-points. Cohen's Kappa test was used to assess reproducibility, Inter-rater agreement (between the anaesthetist and radiologist), and agreement between LUS and TPTDL for classifying the severity of pulmonary oedema. Reliability of LUS for 'tracking serial changes' in ELWI over time in individual patients was assessed by determining the repeated measures correlation (z-rrm) between weighted L-ELWI and T-ELWI scores. The ability of both techniques to discriminate pulmonary oedema was compared by analysing the area under ROC curves.

Results:

Excellent inter-rater agreement for assigned L-ELWI scores was observed (linear weighted κ = 0.95 for both). Both techniques had a good agreement in classifying the severity of pulmonary oedema (linear weighted κ = 0.63, 95% CI 0.51–0.79). T-ELWI and weighted L-ELWI scores correlated strongly (z-rrm = 0.88, 95% CI 0.80–0.92, P < 0.0001). Both techniques had comparable ability to discriminate pulmonary oedema (difference in area under ROC curve = 0.0014, 95%CI –0.0027 to 0.0055, P = 0.5043).

Conclusion:

We found the utility of LUS as a reliable and reproducible technique for ELWI estimation and tracking its changes over time in CRS + HIPEC.

A phase I, nonrandomized controlled trial demonstrating the novel technique of cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy utilizing warm humidified carbon dioxide insufflation

AIM

The aim of this work was to report on the safety and feasibility of warm humidified CO₂ (WHCO₂ ) insufflation during cytoreductive surgery (CRS) and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC).

METHOD

Ten consecutive patients with histologically confirmed peritoneal cancer were enrolled in this phase I pilot nonrandomized controlled trial. They were alternately assigned to CRS and HIPEC with WHCO₂ versus standard procedure. WHCO₂ was delivered at 10 L/min, a pressure of 4.5 bar, 37ºC and 98% relative humidity during CRS using the HumiGard^TM system. HIPEC was performed with an open abdomen using the Coliseum technique at 42ºC for 60 min. All patients were admitted to the intensive care unit and commenced on total parenteral nutrition postoperatively. Surface and core temperatures were measured every 30 min using an infrared camera and nasopharyngeal probe, respectively. Clinicopathological, intra- and postoperative details were collated between groups, and median surface and core temperatures were statistically compared.

RESULTS

Surface and core temperatures were generally higher in the WHCO₂ group. Core temperature at 120 and 180 min was significantly higher in the WHCO₂ versus the non-WHCO₂ group (p = 0.028 and 0.008, respectively). There was a significant linear relationship between core and surface temperature at 30, 60, 90, 120, 150 and 180 min (p = 0.033, 0.004, 0.007, 0.021, 0.009 and 0.006, respectively). The peritoneal cancer index was lower but the estimated blood loss was higher in the non-WHCO₂ than the WHCO₂ group.

CONCLUSION

WHCO₂ in CRS and HIPEC appears to be safe and feasible. An appropriately powered phase II trial will be required to determine if WHCO₂ is associated with improved intra- and postoperative outcomes.

Rebound hypothermia after cytoreductive surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) and cardiac arrest in immediate postoperative period: a report of two cases and review of literature

OBJECTIVES

Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intra-peritoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) for peritoneal malignancies are complex surgeries marked with hemodynamic perturbations, temperature fluctuations, blood loss and metabolic disturbances in the intra-operative and post-operative period. In this report, we highlighted perioperative factors which may have led to cardiac arrest in immediate postoperative period and subsequent successful resuscitation in two patients with high volume peritoneal cancers who underwent CRS-HIPEC.

CASE PRESENTATION

Both patients had a similar clinical course, characterized by massive blood and fluid loss, metabolic derangement, hemodynamic instability, long duration of surgery, post HIPEC rebound hypothermia and hypokalemia which need to be anticipated.

CONCLUSIONS

We reviewed the literature related to postoperative hypothermia and other major complications after CRS-HIPEC and correlated the available literature with our findings.

Perioperative restrictive versus goal-directed fluid therapy for adults undergoing major non-cardiac surgery

BACKGROUND

Perioperative fluid management is a crucial element of perioperative care and has been studied extensively recently; however, 'the right amount' remains uncertain. One concept in perioperative fluid handling is goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT), wherein fluid administration targets various continuously measured haemodynamic variables with the aim of optimizing oxygen delivery. Another recently raised concept is that perioperative restrictive fluid therapy (RFT) may be beneficial and at least as effective as GDFT, with lower cost and less resource utilization.

OBJECTIVES

To investigate whether RFT may be more beneficial than GDFT for adults undergoing major non-cardiac surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

We searched the following electronic databases on 11 October 2019: Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, in the Cochrane Libary; MEDLINE; and Embase. Additionally, we performed a targeted search in Google Scholar and searched trial registries (World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP) and ClinicalTrials.gov) for ongoing and unpublished trials. We scanned the reference lists and citations of included trials and any relevant systematic reviews identified.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomized controlled trials (RCTs) comparing perioperative RFT versus GDFT for adults (aged ≥ 18 years) undergoing major non-cardiac surgery.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened references for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. We resolved discrepancies by discussion and consulted a third review author if necessary. When necessary, we contacted trial authors to request additional information. We presented pooled estimates for dichotomous outcomes as risk ratios (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs), and for continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs) with standard deviations (SDs). We used Review Manager 5 software to perform the meta-analyses. We used a fixed-effect model if we considered heterogeneity as not important; otherwise, we used a random-effects model. We used Poisson regression models to compare the average number of complications per person.

MAIN RESULTS

From 6396 citations, we included six studies with a total of 562 participants. Five studies were performed in participants undergoing abdominal surgery (including one study in participants undergoing cytoreductive abdominal surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC)), and one study was performed in participants undergoing orthopaedic surgery. In all studies, surgeries were elective. In five studies, crystalloids were used for basal infusion and colloids for boluses, and in one study, colloid was used for both basal infusion and boluses. Five studies reported the ASA (American Society of Anesthesiologists) status of participants. Most participants were ASA II (60.4%), 22.7% were ASA I, and only 16.9% were ASA III. No study participants were ASA IV. For the GDFT group, oesophageal doppler monitoring was used in three studies, uncalibrated invasive arterial pressure analysis systems in two studies, and a non-invasive arterial pressure monitoring system in one study. In all studies, GDFT optimization was conducted only intraoperatively. Only one study was at low risk of bias in all domains. The other five studies were at unclear or high risk of bias in one to three domains. RFT may have no effect on the rate of major complications compared to GDFT, but the evidence is very uncertain (RR 1.61, 95% CI 0.78 to 3.34; 484 participants; 5 studies; very low-certainty evidence). RFT may increase the risk of all-cause mortality compared to GDFT, but the evidence on this is also very uncertain (RD 0.03, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.06; 544 participants; 6 studies; very low-certainty evidence). In a post-hoc analysis using a Peto odds ratio (OR) or a Poisson regression model, the odds of all-cause mortality were 4.81 times greater with the use of RFT compared to GDFT, but the evidence again is very uncertain (Peto OR 4.81, 95% CI 1.38 to 16.84; 544 participants; 6 studies; very low-certainty evidence). Nevertheless, sensitivity analysis shows that exclusion of a study in which the final volume of fluid received intraoperatively was higher in the RFT group than in the GDFT group revealed no differences in mortality. Based on analysis of secondary outcomes, such as length of hospital stay (464 participants; 5 studies; very low-certainty evidence), surgery-related complications (364 participants; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence), non-surgery-related complications (74 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), renal failure (410 participants; 4 studies; very low-certainty evidence), and quality of surgical recovery (74 participants; 1 study; very low-certainty evidence), GDFT may have no effect on the risk of these outcomes compared to RFT, but the evidence is very uncertain. Included studies provided no data on administration of vasopressors or inotropes to correct haemodynamic instability nor on cost of treatment.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

Based on very low-certainty evidence, we are uncertain whether RFT is inferior to GDFT in selected populations of adults undergoing major non-cardiac surgery. The evidence is based mainly on data from studies on abdominal surgery in a low-risk population. The evidence does not address higher-risk populations or other surgery types. Larger, higher-quality RCTs including a wider spectrum of surgery types and a wider spectrum of patient groups, including high-risk populations, are needed to determine effects of the intervention.

Society of Onco-Anaesthesia and Perioperative Care consensus guidelines for perioperative management of patients for cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC)

Cytoreductive surgery and hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (CRS-HIPEC) for primary peritoneal malignancies or peritoneal spread of malignant neoplasm is being done at many centres worldwide. Perioperative management is challenging with varied haemodynamic and temperature instabilities, and the literature is scarce in many aspects of its perioperative management. There is a need to have coalition of the existing evidence and experts' consensus opinion for better perioperative management. The purpose of this consensus practice guideline is to provide consensus for best practice pattern based on the best available evidence by the expert committee of the Society of Onco-Anaesthesia and Perioperative Care comprising perioperative physicians for better perioperative management of patients of CRS-HIPEC.

Perioperative management and postoperative outcome of patients undergoing cytoreduction surgery with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy

Background and Aims

The existence of cytoreductive surgery (CRS) with hyperthermic intraperitoneal chemotherapy (HIPEC) as a multidisciplinary approach for peritoneal cancer gains acceptance in many countries including Saudi Arabia. The aim of our study is to describe the perioperative management of patients who received CRS/HIPEC and to report their outcomes and complications at our tertiary centre.

Methods

The preoperative characteristics, surgical variables, perioperative management, postoperative course and outcomes of 38 CRS/HIPEC patients were prospectively collected and analysed.

Results

The mean age of our patients was 52 years, and 23 (60.5%) of them were females. The overall postoperative mortality was 42.1%. Univariate analyses of risk factors for deaths after HIPEC demonstrated that low preoperative (haemoglobin, potassium, calcium and albumin), high (tumour marker (CA19.9), intraoperative transfusion of human plasma protein (HPP), colloids, postoperative activated partial thromboplastin time and bacterial infections were potential risk factors for patient's mortality. Multivariate analysis of those variables demonstrated that low preoperative calcium [hazard ratio (HR) = 0.116; 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.033-0.407; P = 0.001], high intraoperative HPP transfusion (HR = 1.004; 95% CI = 1.001-1.003; P = 0.012) and presence of postoperative bacterial infection (HR = 5.987; 95% CI = 1.009-35.54; P = 0.049) were independent predictors of patient's death. Seventy morbidities happened after HIPEC; only bacterial infection independently predicted postoperative mortality.

Conclusion

To improve postoperative outcome of CRS/HIPEC, optimisation of transfusion, temperature, electrolytes and using broader-spectrum prophylaxis to manage postoperative infections should be warranted.