Time spent on the waiting list before liver transplantation (LT) provides an opportunity to optimize recipient fitness through prehabilitation, potentially reducing the physiological impact of major ...surgery. We assessed the feasibility and effectiveness of a 6-week exercise program in patients with cirrhotic liver disease awaiting LT.
This single-center, prospective cohort, feasibility study, enrolled patients awaiting LT to a 6-week period of thrice weekly, supervised exercise on a static bike. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) was used to objectively assess cardiopulmonary fitness at baseline and after 6 weeks of exercise. A follow-up CPET was performed at 12 weeks. CPET-derived measures were used to guide prescription of the training program. A nonrandomized control cohort of LT patients were selected to match the exercise group based on specific demographic data. Allocation to study arms was primarily based on the distance participants lived from the hospital where training occurred. Both groups received structured nutritional advice.
The exercise program was feasible, with 9 of 16 (56%) patients completing the full program of 6 weeks. Peak oxygen consumption (VO2peak) in the exercise group rose from a mean (SD) of 16.2 (±3.4) mL/kg/min at baseline to 18.5 (±4.6) mL/kg/min at week 6 (P = 0.02). In the control group, VO2peak decreased from a mean (SD) of 19.0 (±6.1) mL/kg/min to 17.1 (±6.0) at week 6 (P = 0.03).
We have demonstrated that it is feasible to engage patients awaiting LT in an intensive aerobic exercise program with a signal of improvement in fitness being detected.
Background
Fluid management practices during and after liver transplantation vary widely among centers despite better understanding of the pathophysiology of end‐stage liver disease and of the ...effects of commonly used fluids. This reflects a lack of high quality trials in this setting, but also provides a rationale for both systematic review of all relevant studies in liver recipients and evaluation of new evidence from closely related domains, including hepatology, non‐transplant abdominal surgery, and critical care.
Objectives
To develop evidence‐based recommendations for perioperative fluid management to optimize immediate and short‐term outcomes following liver transplantation.
Data sources
Ovid MEDLINE, Embase, Scopus, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central.
Methods
Systematic review following PRISMA guidelines and recommendations using the GRADE approach derived from an international expert panel. Studies included those evaluating the following postoperative outcomes: acute kidney injury, respiratory complications, operative blood loss/red cell units required, and intensive care length of stay.
PROSPERO protocol ID: CRD42021241392
Results
Following expert panel review, 18 of 1624 screened studies met eligibility criteria for inclusion in the final quantitative synthesis. These included six single center RCTs, 11 single center observational studies, and one observational study comparing centers with different fluid management techniques. Definitions of interventions and outcomes varied between studies. Recommendations are therefore based substantially on expert opinion and evidence from other clinical settings.
Conclusions
A moderately restrictive or “replacement only” fluid regime is recommended, especially during the dissection phase of the transplant procedure. Sustained hypervolemia, based on absence of fluid responsiveness, elevated filling pressures and/or echocardiographic findings, should be avoided (Quality of Evidence: Moderate | Grade of Recommendation: Weak for restrictive fluid regime. Strong for avoidance of hypervolemia). Mean Arterial Pressure (MAP) should be maintained at >60–65 mmHg in all cases (Quality of Evidence: Low | Grade of Recommendation: Strong). There is insufficient evidence in this population to support preferential use of any specific colloid or crystalloid for routine volume replacement. However, we recommend against the use of 130/.4 HES given the high incidence of AKI in this population.
There is a limited evidence base and no national consensus regarding the perioperative management of patients undergoing renal transplantation. We developed an electronic survey to capture an ...overview of renal transplant perioperative practice across UK renal transplant centres and determine the need for future guidelines on patient management.
A 29-question survey was developed to encompass the entire renal transplant perioperative pathway and input was sought from clinicians with expertise in renal transplant surgery, anaesthesia, nephrology and intensive care. The survey was sent to lead renal anaesthetists at each of the 23 transplant centres across the UK.
A 96% response rate was achieved with 22 out of 23 centres returning complete responses. There was limited evidence of guideline-based approaches to preoperative workup. Questions regarding intraoperative fluid management, blood pressure targets, vasopressor administration and central venous pressure (CVP) monitoring identified a broad range of practice. Of note, the routine use of goal-directed fluid therapy based on cardiac output estimation was reported in six (27.3%) centres, while nine centres (40.9%) continue to target a specific CVP intraoperatively. In all, 12 (54.5%) centres perform transversus abdominis plane blocks with fentanyl-based patient-controlled analgesia as the most common mode of postoperative analgesia. A single centre reported a renal transplant-specific Enhanced Recovery after Surgery programme for cadaveric organ recipients.
This questionnaire highlighted a high degree of heterogeneity in current UK practice as regards the perioperative management of renal transplant recipients. Development of evidence-based national consensus guidelines to standardize the perioperative care of these patients is recommended in order to improve patient outcomes and focus areas of future research.
Considerable controversy remains about how much oxygen patients should receive during surgery. The 2016 World Health Organization (WHO) guidelines recommend that intubated patients receive a ...fractional inspired oxygen concentration (FIO
) of 0.8 throughout abdominal surgery to reduce the risk of surgical site infection. However, this recommendation has been widely criticised by anaesthetists and evidence from other clinical contexts has suggested that giving a high concentration of oxygen might worsen patient outcomes. This retrospective multi-centre observational study aimed to ascertain intraoperative oxygen administration practice by anaesthetists across parts of the UK.
Patients undergoing general anaesthesia with an arterial catheter in situ across hospitals affiliated with two anaesthetic trainee audit networks (PLAN, SPARC) were eligible for inclusion unless undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass. Demographic and intraoperative oxygenation data, haemoglobin saturation and positive end-expiratory pressure were retrieved from anaesthetic charts and arterial blood gases (ABGs) over five consecutive weekdays in April and May 2017.
Three hundred seventy-eight patients from 29 hospitals were included. Median age was 66 years, 205 (54.2%) were male and median ASA grade was 3. One hundred eight (28.6%) were emergency cases. An anticipated difficult airway or raised BMI was documented preoperatively in 31 (8.2%) and 45 (11.9%) respectively. Respiratory or cardiac comorbidity was documented in 103 (27%) and 83 (22%) respectively. SpO
< 96% was documented in 83 (22%) patients, with 7 (1.9%) patients desaturating < 88% at any point intraoperatively. The intraoperative FIO
ranged from 0.25 to 1.0, and median PaO
/FIO
ratios for the first four arterial blood gases taken in each case were 24.6/0.5, 23.4/0.49, 25.7/0.46 and 25.4/0.47 respectively.
Intraoperative oxygenation currently varies widely. An intraoperative FIO
of 0.5 currently represents standard intraoperative practice in the UK, with surgical patients often experiencing moderate levels of hyperoxaemia. This differs from both WHO's recommendation of using an FIO
of 0.8 intraoperatively, and also, the value most previous interventional oxygen therapy trials have used to represent standard care (typically FIO
= 0.3). These findings should be used to aid the design of future intraoperative oxygen studies.
PDF
