To determine the impact of different flush and reperfusion techniques on postreperfusion syndrome (PRS) and postoperative graft function, 100 transplants were randomly assigned into four groups as follows: group 1 (n=31), portal vein flush, no vena caval venting; group 2 (n=21), hepatic arterial flush, no vena caval venting; group 3 (n=29), portal vein flush with vena caval venting; and group 4 (n=19), hepatic artery flush with vena caval venting. Donor and recipient characteristics were similar. Extensive intraoperative and postoperative monitoring was performed and measurements were documented immediately before reperfusion and at 1, 5, 15, and 30 min after reperfusion. PRS was defined by three criteria: mean arterial pressure (MAP) <60 mmHg at 1 min after reperfusion, MAP <60 mmHg at 5 min after reperfusion, and a decrease of 30% or more for the MAP percent area under the curve during the initial 5 min after reperfusion (%AUC). Using these definitions, the overall incidence of PRS was 21%, 8%, and 43%, respectively. Group 1 was the most hemodynamically stable; the incidence of PRS in group 1 was 2/31 (7%) at 1 min and 8/31 (25%) using %AUC criteria compared with 7/21 (33%) at 1 min and 12/21 (57%) using %AUC criteria for group 2 (P<0.05). The patients in groups 3 and 4 (vena caval venting) demonstrated smaller percentage increases in serum potassium levels (as determined by %AUC; 4.3+/-6.8 and 0.3+/-5.4, vs. 15.1+/-8.1 for group 1 and 22.9+/-8.2 for group 2). The difference between group 4 and group 2 was statistically significant (P<0.05). The increases in serum potassium did not translate into increased cardiac or hemodynamic instability. Combining all data obtained over the first 30 min after reperfusion, there was no statistically significant difference in hemodynamic or biochemical changes noted among the four groups. Postoperative liver function was similar among the four groups. We conclude that portal vein flush without vena caval venting provided a lower incidence of PRS than any other technique. Vena caval venting decreased the release of potassium into the circulation. Postoperative graft function was not significantly affected by flush and reperfusion techniques.
Background
The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in reduced performance of elective surgeries and procedures at medical centers across the U.S. Awareness of the prevalence of asymptomatic disease is critical for guiding safe approaches to operative/procedural services. As COVID-19 PCR testing has been limited largely to symptomatic patients, healthcare workers (HCWs), or to those in communal care centers, data regarding asymptomatic viral disease carriage are limited.
Study Design
In this retrospective observational case series evaluating UCLA Health patients enrolled in pre-operative/pre-procedure protocol COVID-19 RT-PCR testing between 4/7/20 – 5/21/20, we determine the prevalence of COVID-19 infection in asymptomatic patients scheduled for surgeries and procedures.
Results
Primary outcomes include the prevalence of COVID-19 infection in this asymptomatic population. Secondary data analysis includes overall population testing results and population demographics. 18 of 4751 (0.38%) patients scheduled for upcoming surgeries and high risk procedures had abnormal (positive/inconclusive) COVID-19 RT-PCR testing results. 6/18 patients were confirmed asymptomatic. 4/18 had inconclusive results. 8/18 had positive results in the setting of recent symptoms or known COVID-19 infection. The prevalence of asymptomatic COVID-19 infection was 0.13%. More than 90% of patients had residential addresses within a 67 mile geographic radius of our medical center, the median age was 58, and there was equal male/female distribution.
Conclusions
These data demonstrating low levels (0.13% prevalence) of COVID-19 infection in an asymptomatic population of patients undergoing scheduled surgeries/procedures in a large urban area have helped to inform perioperative protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic. Testing protocols like ours may prove valuable for other health systems in their approaches to safe procedural practices during COVID-19.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.