No abstract

Background. Pulmonary artery obstruction is an uncommon but significant complication after lung transplantation. Although numerous reports have documented its occurrence, the hemodynamic parameters associated with its presentation and diagnostic considerations remain ill-defined. This systematic review summarizes evidence in the literature surrounding pulmonary artery obstruction after lung transplantation surgery. Methods. Databases were searched for all articles and abstracts reporting on pulmonary artery obstruction. Data collected included the number of patients studied, patient characteristics, incidences of pulmonary artery obstruction, and timing and imaging modality used for diagnosis. Results. Thirty-four full-text citations were included in this review. The point prevalence of pulmonary artery obstruction was 3.66%. The peak pulmonary artery velocity associated with obstruction was found to be 2.60 ± 0.58 m/s. The diameter of the obstructed pulmonary artery predictive of poor outcomes was noted to be 0.78 ± 0.40 cm. The majority of diagnoses were made in the late postoperative period using pulmonary angiogram and transesophageal echocardiography. Overall, 76% of patients (47 of 62) required emergent procedural reintervention, and 23% of patients (14 of 62) diagnosed with pulmonary artery obstruction died during their hospital stay. Conclusions. This systematic review underscores the importance of identifying pulmonary artery obstruction immediately after lung transplant surgery. The clinical implications of these results warrant the development of identification and management strategies for early detection of irregularities in pulmonary artery anastomosis in lung transplant patients.

No abstract

No abstract

Background The perioperative anesthesia care during subcutaneous implantable cardioverter‐defibrillator (S‐ICD) implantation is still evolving. Objective To assess the feasibility and safety of S‐ICD implantation with monitored anesthesia care (MAC) versus general anesthesia (GA) in a tertiary care center. Methods This is a single‐center retrospective study of patients undergoing S‐ICD implantation between October 2012 and May 2019. Patients were categorized into MAC and GA group based on the mode of anesthesia. Procedural success without escalation to GA was the primary endpoint of the study, whereas intraprocedural hemodynamics, need of pharmacological support for hypotension and bradycardia, length of the procedure, stay in the post‐anesthesia care unit, and postoperative pain were assessed as secondary endpoints. Results The study comprises 287 patients with MAC in 111 and GA in 176 patients. Compared to MAC, patients in GA group were younger and had a higher body mass index. All patients had successful S‐ICD implantation. Only one patient (0.9%) in the MAC group was converted to GA. Despite a similar baseline heart rate (HR) and mean arterial blood pressure (MAP) in both groups, patients with GA had significantly lower HR and MAP during the procedure and more frequently required pharmacological hemodynamic support. Length of the procedure, stay in the postanesthesia care unit, and postoperative pain was similar in both groups. Conclusion This retrospective experience suggests that implantation of S‐ICD is feasible and safe with MAC. Use of GA is associated with more frequent administration of hemodynamic drugs during S‐ICD implantation.