Pulmonary thromboendarterectomy: The Marie Lannelongue Hospital experience

BACKGROUND

Targeted medical therapy and balloon pulmonary angioplasty (BPA) entered the field of chronic thromboembolic pulmonary hypertension (CTEPH) treatment in the early 2010's. Multimodal therapy is emerging as the new gold standard for CTEPH management. Whether this change of paradigm impacted early outcomes of pulmonary endarterectomy (PEA) remains unknown. Our aim is to report our surgical experience in the era of CTEPH multimodal management.

METHODS

Patients who underwent PEA between 2016 and 2020 were included in the study. Early outcomes were described and compared between three groups of patients: PEA alone, PEA after targeted medical therapy induction and PEA after BPA.

RESULTS

A total of 418 patients, 225 males and 193 females, with a mean age of 59±14 years were included in the study. 336 patients underwent PEA alone, 69 after medical targeted therapy induction and 13 after unilateral BPA. Baseline preoperative pulmonary vascular resistance [4.99 (IQR, 1.71-8.48), 6.21 (IQR, 4.37-8.1), 5.03 (IQR, 4.44-7.19) wood units (WU), P=0.230, respectively] and PEA effectiveness [% decrease mean pulmonary artery pressure (mPAP), 24 (IQR, 7-42), 25 (IQR, 7-35), 23 (IQR, 3-29), P=0.580] did not differ between groups. Compared to PEA alone and PEA+BPA, the medical therapy induction group represented the most challenging group with higher baseline mPAP (45±10 vs. 42±11 and 43±11 mmHg, P=0.047), longer circulatory arrest time (30.1±15 vs. 26.6±10 and 19.6±6 min, P=0.005), higher post-PEA extracorporeal membrane oxygenation use (20.6% vs. 8.7 and 9.1%, P=0.004), higher duration on mechanical ventilation [4 (IQR, 1-12) vs. 1 (IQR, 0.5-5) and 2 (IQR, 1-3) days, P=0.005], higher complication rate (85.5% vs. 74.6% and 76.9%, P=0.052) and higher 90-day mortality (13% vs. 3.9% and 0%, P=0.002). Compared to PEA and PEA+ medical therapy induction groups, patients in the BPA induction group were older [72 (IQR, 62-76) vs. 60 (IQR, 48-69) and 62 (IQR, 52-72) years, P=0.005], and underwent shorter cardiopulmonary bypass (191.9±47.9 vs. 222±107.2 and 236.8±46.4 min, P<0.001), aortic cross clamping (54.8±21 vs. 82.7±31.4 and 80.1±32.9 min, P=0.002) and circulatory arrest time (19.6±6.2 vs. 26.6±10.8 and 30.1±15.1 min, P=0.008).

CONCLUSIONS

Multimodal therapy approach to CTEPH patients did not affect effectiveness of PEA. Medical therapy and BPA could act in synergy with surgery to treat more challenging patients.

Hydroxyethyl starch for perioperative goal-directed fluid therapy in 2020: a narrative review

BACKGROUND

Perioperative fluid management - including the type, dose, and timing of administration -directly affects patient outcome after major surgery. The objective of fluid administration is to optimize intravascular fluid status to maintain adequate tissue perfusion. There is continuing controversy around the perioperative use of crystalloid versus colloid fluids. Unfortunately, the importance of fluid volume, which significantly influences the benefit-to-risk ratio of each chosen solution, has often been overlooked in this debate.

MAIN TEXT

The volume of fluid administered during the perioperative period can influence the incidence and severity of postoperative complications. Regrettably, there is still huge variability in fluid administration practices, both intra-and inter-individual, among clinicians. Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT), aimed at optimizing flow-related variables, has been demonstrated to have some clinical benefit and has been recommended by multiple professional societies. However, this approach has failed to achieve widespread adoption. A closed-loop fluid administration system designed to assist anesthesia providers in consistently applying GDFT strategies has recently been developed and tested. Such an approach may change the crystalloid versus colloid debate. Because colloid solutions have a more profound effect on intravascular volume and longer plasma persistence, their use in this more "controlled" context could be associated with a lower fluid balance, and potentially improved patient outcome. Additionally, most studies that have assessed the impact of a GDFT strategy on the outcome of high-risk surgical patients have used hydroxyethyl starch (HES) solutions in their protocols. Some of these studies have demonstrated beneficial effects, while none of them has reported severe complications.

CONCLUSIONS

The type and volume of fluid used for perioperative management need to be individualized according to the patient's hemodynamic status and clinical condition. The amount of fluid given should be guided by well-defined physiologic targets. Compliance with a predefined hemodynamic protocol may be optimized by using a computerized system. The type of fluid should also be individualized, as should any drug therapy, with careful consideration of timing and dose. It is our perspective that HES solutions remain a valid option for fluid therapy in the perioperative context because of their effects on blood volume and their reasonable benefit/risk profile.

Fully Automated Anesthesia and Fluid Management Using Multiple Physiologic Closed-Loop Systems in a Patient Undergoing High-Risk Surgery

Automated delivery of anesthesia guided by processed electroencephalogram monitoring using a closed-loop system is no longer a novel concept. However, combining multiple independent physiologic closed-loop systems together has never been documented before. The purpose of this case report was to evaluate the feasibility of automated anesthesia and fluid management based on a combination of physiological variables (bispectral index, stroke volume, and stroke volume variations) using 2 independent closed-loop systems.

Perioperative goal directed therapy using automated closed-loop fluid management: the future?

&nbsp;Although surgery has become much safer, it has also becoming increasingly more complex and perioperative complications continue to impact millions of patients worldwide each year. Perioperative hemodynamic optimization utilizing Goal Directed Therapy (GDT) has attracted considerable interest within the last decade due to its ability to improve postoperative short and long-term outcomes in patients undergoing higher risk surgeries. The concept of GDT in this context can be loosely defined as collecting data from minimally invasive hemodynamic monitors with the intention of using such data (flow-related parameters and/or dynamic parameters of fluid responsiveness) to titrate therapeutic interventions (intravenous fluids and/or inotropic therapy administration) with the ultimate aim of optimizing end organ tissue perfusion. Recently, the increasing amount of evidence supporting the implementation of GDT strategies has been considered so robust as to allow for the creation of national recommendations in the United Kingdom (UK), France, and Europe. These recommendations from such influential scientific societies and the potential clinical and economic benefits of GDT protocols need to also be examined within the current shift from a "pay for service" to a "pay for performance" health care system. This shift is strongly encouraged within emerging systems such as the Perioperative Surgical Home (PSH) paradigm from the United States. As a result, hospitals and clinicians around the world have become increasingly incentivized to implement perioperative hemodynamic optimization using GDT strategies within their departments. Unfortunately, its adoption continues to be quite limited and a lack of standardized criteria for perioperative fluid administrations has resulted in significant clinical variability among practitioners. This current review will provide a brief up-to-date overview of GDT, discuss current clinical practice, analyze why implementation has been limited and finally, describe the newer closed-loop GDT concept along with its potential risks and benefits.

Single-access laparoscopic adjustable gastric band removal: technique and initial experience

BACKGROUND

Single-access laparoscopy (SAL) has gained significant interest in recent years. Potential benefits, beyond cosmetic outcomes, could be reduction of abdominal trauma, decreased risk of incisional hernia and diminished postoperative pain. Technique and initial experience in patients submitted to laparoscopic adjustable gastric band removal (LAGBR) through SAL is reported here.

METHODS

Between December 2009 and March 2012, 14 patients (9 females, 5 males) underwent LAGBR through SAL. Indications for operation were band intolerance (11), pouch dilatation (2) and insufficient weight loss (1). The mean age was 40.3 ± 9.1 years (range 26-57), and the mean interval time between LAGB placement and removal was 94.7 ± 41.9 months (range 37-157). The mean weight and the mean body mass index at the time of LAGBR were 89.3 ± 17.6 kg (range 65-119) and 30.6 ± 4.5 kg/m(2) (range 25.3-36.7), respectively. Technically, the previous port site scar was used as the single-access site to the abdominal cavity. An 11-mm reusable trocar was adopted for a 10-mm regular scope, besides curved reusable instruments.

RESULTS

No patients required conversion to open surgery and none necessitated additional trocars. The mean laparoscopic time was 24.6 ± 7.9 min (range 13-37), and the mean final scar length was 3.6 ± 0.3 cm (range 3-4). Two patients experienced early postoperative complications. The mean hospital stay was 1.3 ± 1.1 days (range 1-5). The mean follow-up time was of 18 ± 9.8 months (range 3-30), and there were no late complications.

CONCLUSIONS

LAGBR can be safely performed through SAL. Thanks to this technique, the laparoscopic working triangulation is established as well as the ergonomic positions of the surgeon. Due the use of only reusable material, the cost of this SAL remains similar to multiport laparoscopy.