Cata, Juan P.

BACKGROUND: Packed red blood cell (pRBC) transfusions in patients undergoing surgery for cancer are given to treat anemia or acute hemorrhage. Evidence indicates that pRBC transfusions are associated with poor perioperative and oncological outcomes. The ARCA-1 (Perioperative Care in the Cancer Patient-1) study was designed to test the association between perioperative pRBC transfusions and postoperative morbidity and mortality in patients undergoing cancer surgery. The primary hypothesis of our study was that perioperative pRBC transfusions have a negative impact on postoperative morbidity and 1-year mortality. METHODS: ARCA-1 was an international multicenter prospective observational cohort study. Participating centers enrolled a minimum of 30 consecutive adult patients with cancer who underwent surgery with curative intent. The primary end point was all-cause mortality 1 year after major cancer surgery. Secondary end points were rates of perioperative blood product use, 1-year cancer-specific mortality, overall survival, and 30-day morbidity and mortality. We performed a propensity score matching analysis to adjust for selection bias. A multivariable logistic regression model was fitted to estimate the effects of significant covariates on 1-year mortality, cancer-related mortality, and overall survival. RESULTS: A total of 1079 patients were included in the study. The rate of perioperative pRBC transfusions was 21.1%. Preoperative comorbidities, including anemia, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) score of III to IV, a history of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), myocardial infarction, stroke, need for dialysis, history of blood transfusions, and metastatic disease were statistically significantly more frequent in transfused patients compared to nontransfused patients. The 1-year mortality rate was higher in transfused patients before (19.7% vs 6.5%; P < .0001) and after (17.4% vs 13.2%; P = .29) propensity score matching. 1-year mortality was 1.97 times higher in transfused than in no-transfused patients (odd ratio [OR], 1.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13–3.41). The odds of 1-year cancer mortality for patients who had perioperative pRBCs was 1.82 times higher (OR, 1.82; 95% CI, 0.97–3.43) compared to those who did not receive perioperative pRBC transfusion. The effect of perioperative pRBC transfusion on overall survival was also significant (hazard ratio [HR], 1.85; 95% CI, 1.15–2.99). Transfused patients also had a higher rate of 30-day postoperative mortality before (3.5% vs 0.7%; P = .0009) and after propensity score matching (4.2% vs 1.8%; P = .34). CONCLUSIONS: This international, multicenter observational study showed that perioperative pRBC transfusion was associated with an increased mortality risk.

Introduction Blood transfusion is still common in patients undergoing major cancer surgery. Blood transfusion can be associated with poor prognosis in patients with cancer. Perioperative Care in the Cancer Patient -1 (ARCA-1) aims to assess in a large cohort of patients the current incidence, pattern of practice and associations between perioperative blood transfusions and 1-year survival in patients undergoing major cancer surgery. Methods and analysis ARCA-1 is a prospective international multicentre observational study that will include adult patients scheduled to have major cancer surgical procedures with the intention to cure, and an overnight planned hospital admission. The study will be opened for 1 year for enrolment (7 January 2020–7 February 2021). Each centre will enrol patients for 30 days. The primary endpoint of this study is all-cause mortality 1 year after major cancer surgery. Secondary endpoints are rate of perioperative blood product use, cancer-specific mortality at 1 year and PFSs and 30-day morbidity and mortality. Ethics and dissemination This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board at The University of Texas—MD Anderson Cancer Center. The study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated at international conferences. Trial registration number NCT04491409 .

Introduction Robotic-assisted surgery (RAS) has emerged as an alternative minimally invasive surgical option. Despite its growing applicability, the frequent need for pneumoperitoneum and Trendelenburg position could significantly affect respiratory mechanics during RAS. AVATaR is an international multicenter observational study aiming to assess the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC), to characterise current practices of mechanical ventilation (MV) and to evaluate a possible association between ventilatory parameters and PPC in patients undergoing RAS. Methods and analysis AVATaR is an observational study of surgical patients undergoing MV for general anaesthesia for RAS. The primary outcome is the incidence of PPC during the first five postoperative days. Secondary outcomes include practice of MV, effect of surgical positioning on MV, effect of MV on clinical outcome and intraoperative complications. Ethics and dissemination This study was approved by the Institutional Review Board of the Hospital Israelita Albert Einstein. The study results will be published in peer-reviewed journals and disseminated at international conferences. Trial registration number NCT02989415 ; Pre-results.

Objective: To describe the anesthetic considerations in patients undergoing laser interstitial thermal therapy (LITT) for neurosurgical procedures. Background: LITT for neurosurgical procedures is being increasingly used in a variety of central nervous system diseases. Several studies have demonstrated promising results including a shorter hospital stay. Given the rising trend for the use of LITT, anesthesiologists need to be familiar with the anesthetic considerations to provide care for patients undergoing these types of procedures. Materials and Methods: PubMed was searched in April 2016 using different combinations of the following MeSH terms: “Central nervous System,” “laser therapy,” “Ablation Techniques,” “Anesthesia,” and “Spinal Cord Neoplasms.” A total of 54 relevant manuscripts were included in this review article. Conclusions: LITT is a promising therapeutic approach for multiple central nervous system disorders. Anesthesiologists must be familiar with the anesthetic considerations and the technical aspects of the procedure when providing care for patients undergoing LITT. The literature is scarce on the impact of different anesthesia and analgesia techniques on clinical outcomes. Therefore, studies comparing different anesthetic regimens and the impact on outcomes are needed to make relevant recommendations on the anesthesia care of these patients.