Abstract Background High ratios of fresh frozen plasma:packed red blood cells in damage control resuscitation (DCR) are associated with increased survival. The impact of volume and type of ...resuscitative fluid used during high ratio transfusion has not been analyzed. We hypothesize a difference in outcomes based on the type and quantity of resuscitative fluid used in patients that received high ratio DCR. Methods A matched case control study of patients who received transfusions of ≥ four units of PRBC during damage control surgery over 4 1/2 y, was conducted at a Level I Trauma Center. All patients received a high ratio DCR, >1:2 of fresh frozen plasma:packed red blood cells. Demographics and outcomes of the type and quantity of resuscitative fluids used in combination with high ratio DCR were compared and analyzed. A Kaplan-Meier survival analysis was computed among four groups: colloid (median quantity = 1.0 L), <3 L crystalloid, 3–6 L crystalloid, and >6 L crystalloid. Results There were 56 patients included in the analysis (28 in the crystalloid group and 28 in the colloid group). Demographics were statistically similar. Intraoperative median units of PRBC: crystalloid versus colloid groups was 13 (IQR 8-21) versus 16 (IQR 12–19), P = 0.135; median units of FFP: 12 (IQR 7–18) versus 12 (IQR 10–18), P = 0.440. OR for 10-d mortality in the crystalloid group was 8.41 95% CI 1.65–42.76 ( P = 0.01). Kaplan-Meier survival analysis demonstrated lowest mortality in the colloid group and higher mortality with increasing amounts of crystalloid ( P = 0.029). Conclusions During high ratio DCR, resuscitation with higher volumes of crystalloids was associated with an overall decreased survival, whereas low volumes of colloid use were associated with increased survival. In order to improve outcomes without diluting the survival benefit of hemostatic resuscitation, guidelines should focus on effective low volume resuscitation when high ratio DCR is used. A multi-institutional analysis is needed in order to validate these results.
Background Detection of hepatic metastases during EUS is an important component of tumor staging. Objective To describe our experience with EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) of solid hepatic masses and derive ...and validate criteria to help distinguish between benign and malignant hepatic masses. Design Retrospective study, survey. Setting Single, tertiary-care referral center. Patients Medical records were reviewed for all patients undergoing EUS-FNA of solid hepatic masses over a 12-year period. Interventions EUS-FNA of solid hepatic masses. Main Outcome Measurements Masses were deemed benign or malignant according to predetermined criteria. EUS images from 200 patients were used to create derivation and validation cohorts of 100 cases each, matched by cytopathologic diagnosis. Ten expert endosonographers blindly rated 15 initial endosonographic features of each of the 100 images in the derivation cohort. These data were used to derive an EUS scoring system that was then validated by using the validation cohort by the expert endosonographer with the highest diagnostic accuracy. Results A total of 332 patients underwent EUS-FNA of a hepatic mass. Interobserver agreement regarding the initial endosonographic features among the expert endosonographers was fair to moderate, with a mean diagnostic accuracy of 73% (standard deviation 5.6). A scoring system incorporating 7 EUS features was developed to distinguish benign from malignant hepatic masses by using the derivation cohort with an area under the receiver operating curve (AUC) of 0.92; when applied to the validation cohort, performance was similar (AUC 0.86). The combined positive predictive value of both cohorts was 88%. Limitations Single center, retrospective, only one expert endosonographer deriving and validating the EUS criteria. Conclusion An EUS scoring system was developed that helps distinguish benign from malignant hepatic masses. Further study is required to determine the impact of these EUS criteria among endosonographers of all experience.
Background Pancreaticoduodenectomy needs simple, validated risk models to better identify 30-day mortality. The goal of this study is to develop a simple risk score to predict 30-day mortality after ...pancreaticoduodenectomy. Methods We reviewed cases of pancreaticoduodenectomy from 2005–2012 in the American College of Surgeons-National Surgical Quality Improvement Program databases. Logistic regression was used to identify preoperative risk factors for morbidity and mortality from a development cohort. Scores were created using weighted beta coefficients, and predictive accuracy was assessed on the validation cohort using receiver operator characteristic curves and measuring area under the curve. Results The 30-day mortality rate was 2.7% for patients who underwent pancreaticoduodenectomy ( n = 14,993). We identified 8 independent risk factors. The score created from weighted beta coefficients had an area under the curve of 0.71 (95% confidence interval, 0.66–0.77) on the validation cohort. Using the score WH ipple- ABACUS (hypertension W ith medication + H istory of cardiac surgery + A ge >62 + 2 × B leeding disorder + A lbumin <3.5 g/dL + 2 × disseminated C ancer + 2 × U se of steroids + 2 × S ystemic inflammatory response syndrome), mortality rates increase with increasing score ( P < .001). Conclusion While other risk scores exist for 30-day mortality after pancreaticoduodenectomy, we present a simple, validated score developed using exclusively preoperative predictors surgeons could use to identify patients at risk for this procedure.
Background Peritoneal carcinomatosis (PC) greatly affects cancer staging and resectability. Objective To compare the PC detection rate by using EUS and noninvasive imaging and to determine the impact ...on staging and resectability. Design Retrospective study. Setting Single tertiary-care referral center. Patients A prospectively maintained EUS database was reviewed to identify patients who underwent EUS-guided FNA (EUS-FNA) of a peritoneal anomaly. Findings were compared with a strict criterion standard that incorporated cytohistologic, radiologic, and clinical data. Intervention EUS-FNA of a peritoneal anomaly. Main Outcome Measurements Safety and diagnostic yield. Results Of 106 patients, a criterion standard was available in 98 (39 female patients; median age, 65 years). The sensitivity, specificity, and accuracy of EUS-FNA versus CT/magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) was 91% versus 28%, 100% versus 85%, and 94% versus 47%, respectively. In newly diagnosed cancer patients, peritoneal FNA upstaged 17 patients (23.6%). Of 32 patients deemed resectable by pre-EUS CT/MRI, 15 (46.9%) were deemed unresectable based solely on peritoneal FNA. The odds of FNA changing the resectability status remained highly significant after adjustment for cancer type, time between CT/MRI and EUS-FNA, and the quality of CT/MRI. The malignant appearance of the peritoneal anomaly but not the presence of ascites on EUS predicted a positive FNA finding (odds ratio 2.56; 95% confidence interval, 1.23-5.4 and odds ratio 0.83; 95% confidence interval, 0.4-1.8, respectively). There were 3 adverse events among 4 patients. Two of the patients developed abdominal pain and one each hypertensive urgency and pancreatitis. Limitations Retrospective design, single-center, bias toward EUS as a diagnostic test. Conclusion Peritoneal EUS-FNA appears to safely detect radiographically occult PC and improve cancer staging and patient care.
PDF
