Bezinover, Dmitri

Analgesia in liver transplantation patients has been traditionally considered a secondary priority where perioperative management principally focused on survival rates in these critically ill patients. With recent advancements in both surgical and medical management, posttransplant survival rates have steadily improved. Outcome measurements are no longer limited to short-term mortality rates and hospital length of stay but are also measured by patient-centered outcomes, such as pain control and quality of life. As living donor liver transplantation has increased access to transplantation, it has also added a different patient population to manage in the perioperative period. For healthy patients undergoing living donor hepatectomies, it is important to reduce the impact of the surgery with proper perioperative pain management. We performed a literature search for articles related to perioperative pain management for liver transplantation living donors and recipients to identify current practices and recent advances. Neuraxial techniques, peripheral nerve blocks, and enteral and parenteral medications were all found to be feasible analgesia modalities for patients undergoing either liver transplant or donor hepatectomy. Patients may also benefit from nonpharmacological interventions and preoperative counseling. No particular perioperative analgesic modality was deemed superior to any other. For liver transplant living donors and recipients, perioperative pain management should emphasize the application of sustainable patient-centered pain control protocols.

Background. Anesthesiologists frequently use intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) to aid in the diagnosis and management of hemodynamic problems during liver transplantation (LT). Although the use of TEE in US centers continues to increase, data regarding international use are lacking. Methods. This prospective, global, survey-based study evaluates international experience with TEE for LT. Responses from 252 LT (105 US and 147 non-US) centers representing 1789 anesthesiologists were analyzed. Results. Routine use of TEE in the United States has increased in the last 5 y (from 37% to 47%), but only 21% of non-US LT anesthesiologists use TEE routinely. Lack of training (44% US versus 70% non-US) and equipment (9% non-US versus 34% US) were cited as obstacles. Most survey participants preferred not to perform a complete cardiac examination but rather use only 6 of 11 basic views. Although non-US LT anesthesiologists more frequently had additional clinical training than their US counterparts, they had less TEE experience (13% versus 44%) and less frequently, TEE certification (22% versus 35%). Most LT anesthesiologists agreed that TEE certification is essential for proficiency. Of all respondents, 89% agreed or strongly agreed that TEE provides valuable information needed for immediate clinical decision-making, and >86% agreed or strongly agreed that that information could not be derived from other sources. Conclusions. The use of TEE for LT surgery in the US LT centers is currently higher compared with non-US LT centers. This may become a standard monitoring modality during LT in the near future.

Background. During the perioperative period of living donor liver transplantation, anesthesiologists and intensivists may encounter patients in receipt of small grafts that puts them at risk of developing small for size syndrome (SFSS). Methods. A scientific committee (106 members from 21 countries) performed an extensive literature review on aspects of SFSS with proposed recommendations. Recommendations underwent a blinded review by an independent expert panel and discussion/voting on the recommendations occurred at a consensus conference organized by the International Liver Transplantation Society, International Living Donor Liver Transplantation Group, and Liver Transplantation Society of India. Results. It was determined that centers with experience in living donor liver transplantation should utilize potential small for size grafts. Higher risk recipients with sarcopenia, cardiopulmonary, and renal dysfunction should receive small for size grafts with caution. In the intraoperative phase, a restrictive fluid strategy should be considered along with routine use of cardiac output monitoring, as well as use of pharmacologic portal flow modulation when appropriate. Postoperatively, these patients can be considered for enhanced recovery and should receive proactive monitoring for SFSS, nutrition optimization, infection prevention, and consideration for early renal replacement therapy for avoidance of graft congestion. Conclusions. Our recommendations provide a framework for the optimal anesthetic and critical care management in the perioperative period for patients with grafts that put them at risk of developing SFSS. There is a significant limitation in the level of evidence for most recommendations. This statement aims to provide guidance for future research in the perioperative management of SFSS.

Background. We sought to establish consensus on the essential skills, knowledge, and attributes that a liver transplant (LT) anesthesiologist should possess in a bid to help guide the further training process. Methods. Consensus was achieved via a modified Delphi methodology, surveying 15 identified international experts in the fields of LT anesthesia and critical care. Results. Key competencies were identified in preoperative management and optimization of a potential LT recipient; intraoperative management, including hemodynamic monitoring; coagulation and potential crisis management; and postoperative intensive and enhanced recovery care. Conclusions. This article provides an essential guide to competency-based training of an LT anesthesiologist.

Background. Intraoperative fluid management may affect the outcome after kidney transplantation. However, the amount and type of fluid administered, and monitoring techniques vary greatly between institutions and there are limited prospective randomized trials and meta-analyses to guide fluid management in kidney transplant recipients. Methods. Members of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) committee on transplantation reviewed the current literature on the amount and type of fluids (albumin, starches, 0.9% saline, and balanced crystalloid solutions) administered and the different monitors used to assess fluid status, resulting in this consensus statement with recommendations based on the best available evidence. Results. Review of the current literature suggests that starch solutions are associated with increased risk of renal injury in randomized trials and should be avoided in kidney donors and recipients. There is no evidence supporting the routine use of albumin solutions in kidney transplants. Balanced crystalloid solutions such as Lactated Ringer are associated with less acidosis and may lead to less hyperkalemia than 0.9% saline solutions. Central venous pressure is only weakly supported as a tool to assess fluid status. Conclusions. These recommendations may be useful to anesthesiologists making fluid management decisions during kidney transplantation and facilitate future research on this topic.