DeMaria, Samuel

AbstractIntroductionFor patients with catecholamine‐resistant vasoplegic syndrome (VS) during liver transplantation (LT), treatment with methylene blue (MB) and/or hydroxocobalamin (B12) has been an acceptable therapy. However, data on the effectiveness of B12 is limited to case reports and case series.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed records of patients undergoing LT from January 2016 through March 2022. We identified patients with VS treated with vasopressors and MB, and abstracted hemodynamic parameters, vasopressor requirements, and B12 administration from the records. The primary aim was to describe the treatment efficacy of B12 for VS refractory to vasopressors and MB, measured as no vasopressor requirement at the conclusion of the surgery.ResultsOne hundred one patients received intraoperative VS treatment. For the 35 (34.7%) patients with successful VS treatment, 14 received MB only and 21 received both MB and B12. Of the 21 patients with VS resolution after receiving both MB and B12, 17 (89.5%) showed immediate, but transient, hemodynamic improvements at the time of MB administration and later showed sustained response to B12.ConclusionImmediate but transient hemodynamic response to MB in VS patients during LT supports the diagnosis of VS and should prompt B12 administration for sustained treatment response.

AbstractOptimal perioperative care contributes to improved patient outcomes, as demonstrated in the field of liver transplant (LT). The evolution in perioperative care over the past two decades has been driven by research in areas such as preoperative testing, coagulation management, and intraoperative monitoring. However, much of this research is driven by local institutional pressures and practices with a dearth of studies emanating from research consortia or other groups of experts within the field. To better characterize the top research questions in the field, we queried a group of 128 LT anesthesiologists representing 87 international liver transplant centers with a response from 71 practitioners (59.2%). Three experts then codified the responses into the top 20 questions, which were sent to the survey recipients as a second survey to rank order. Seventy‐five respondents (61.5%) provided responses, which were merged into a weighted ranked priority list and analyzed by respondent location and center size. The highest ranked question was, “What intraoperative anesthetic management/interventions affect graft outcome?” Most of the top research questions focused on preoperative risk factor management or optimization and intraoperative management techniques. In general, this priorities list may serve as a guide for transplant anesthesiology researchers to focus future research endeavors on shared interests that improve patient care.

Abstract Introduction: Even physicians who routinely work in complex, dynamic practices may be unprepared to optimally manage challenging critical events. High-fidelity simulation can realistically mimic critical clinically relevant events, however the reliability and validity of simulation-based assessment scores for practicing physicians has not been established.Methods: Standardised complex simulation scenarios were developed and administered to board-certified, practicing anesthesiologists who volunteered to participate in an assessment study during formative maintenance of certification activities. A subset of the study population agreed to participate as the primary responder in a second scenario for this study. The physicians were assessed independently by trained raters on both teamwork/behavioural and technical performance measures. Analysis using Generalisability and Decision studies were completed for the two scenarios with two raters.Results: The behavioural score was not more reliable than the technical score. With two raters > 20 scenarios would be required to achieve a reliability estimate of 0.7. Increasing the number of raters for a given scenario would have little effect on reliability.Conclusions: The performance of practicing physicians on simulated critical events may be highly context-specific. Realistic simulation-based assessment for practicing physicians is resource-intensive and may be best-suited for individualized formative feedback. More importantly, aggregate data from a population of participants may have an even higher impact if used to identify skill or knowledge gaps to be addressed by training programs and inform continuing education improvements across the profession.

Abstract Introduction: Even physicians who routinely work in complex, dynamic practices may be unprepared to optimally manage challenging critical events. High-fidelity simulation can realistically mimic critical clinically relevant events, however the reliability and validity of simulation-based assessment scores for practicing physicians has not been established.Methods: Standardized complex simulation scenarios were developed and administered to board-certified, practicing anesthesiologists who volunteered to participate in an assessment study during formative maintenance of certification activities. A subset of the study population agreed to participate as the primary responder in a second scenario for this study. The physicians were assessed independently by trained raters on both teamwork/behavioral and technical performance measures. Analysis using Generalizability and Decision studies were completed for the two scenarios with two raters.Results: The technical score was not more reliable than the behavioral score. With two raters > 20 scenarios would be required to achieve a reliability estimate of 0.7. Increasing the number of raters would have little effect on reliability.Discussion: The performance of practicing physicians on simulated critical events may be highly context-specific. Realistic simulation-based assessment for practicing physicians is resource-intensive and may be best-suited for individualized formative feedback. Moreover, aggregate data from a population of participants may yield even higher impact if used to identify skill or knowledge gaps to be addressed by training programs and continuing education improvements across the profession.

Background: Intraoperative cardiac arrest (ICA) has a reported frequency of 1 in 10,000 anesthetics but has a much higher estimated incidence in orthotopic liver transplantation (OLT). Single-center studies of ICA in OLT are limited by small sample size that prohibits multivariable regression analysis of risks. METHODS: Utilizing data from 7 academic medical centers, we performed a retrospective, observational study of 5296 adult liver transplant recipients (18–80 years old) between 2000 and 2017 to identify the rate of ICA, associated risk factors, and outcomes. RESULTS: ICA occurred in 196 cases (3.7% 95% confidence interval [CI], 3.2–4.2) and mortality occurred in 62 patients (1.2%). The intraoperative mortality rate was 31.6% in patients who experienced ICA. In a multivariable generalized linear mixed model, ICA was associated with body mass index (BMI) <20 (odds ratio [OR]: 2.04, 95% CI, 1.05–3.98; P = .0386), BMI ≥40 (2.16 [1.12–4.19]; P = .022), Model for End-Stage Liver Disease (MELD) score: (MELD 30–39: 1.75 [1.09–2.79], P = .02; MELD ≥40: 2.73 [1.53–4.85], P = .001), postreperfusion syndrome (PRS) (3.83 [2.75–5.34], P < .001), living donors (2.13 [1.16–3.89], P = .014), and reoperation (1.87 [1.13–3.11], P = .015). Overall 30-day and 1-year mortality were 4.18% and 11.0%, respectively. After ICA, 30-day and 1-year mortality were 43.9% and 52%, respectively, compared to 2.6% and 9.3% without ICA. CONCLUSIONS: We established a 3.7% incidence of ICA and a 1.2% incidence of intraoperative mortality in liver transplantation and confirmed previously identified risk factors for ICA including BMI, MELD score, PRS, and reoperation and identified new risk factors including living donor and length of surgery in this multicenter retrospective cohort. ICA, while rare, is associated with high intraoperative mortality, and future research must focus on therapy to reduce the incidence of ICA.