Prospective, randomized clinical trial comparing use of intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography to standard care during radical cystectomy

Purpose: Our prospective, randomized clinical study aims to evaluate the utility of intraoperative transesophageal echocardiography (TEE) in patients undergoing radical cystectomy. Materials and Methods: Eighty patients were randomized to a standard of care group or the intervention group that received continuous intraoperative TEE. Data are presented as means ± standard deviations, median (25th percentile, 75th percentile), or numbers and percentages. Characteristics were compared between groups using independent sample t-tests, Wilcoxon–Mann–Whitney tests or Chi-square tests, as appropriate. All tests were two-sided and P < 0.05 was considered to indicate statistical significance. Results: Both groups had similar preoperative demographic characteristics. There was a significant difference between central line insertion with all insertions in the control group (15%, 6 vs. 0%, 0; P < 0.003). Of all the perioperative complications, 80% occurred in the control group versus 20% in the TEE group, with 21% of controls experiencing a cardiac or pulmonary complication compared to 5% in the TEE group (8 vs. 2, P < 0.04). The control group patients were more likely to have adverse cardiac complications than the TEE group (15%, 6 vs. 3%, 1; P < 0.040). Postoperative cardiac arrhythmia was observed only in the control group (13%, 5 vs. 0%, 0; P <.007). Prolonged intubation was only observed in the control group (10%, 4 vs. 0%, 0; P < 0.017). Conclusion: TEE can be a useful monitoring tool in patients undergoing radical cystectomy, limiting the use of central line insertion and potentially translating into earlier extubation and decreased postoperative cardiac morbidities.

Transoesophageal echocardiography and central line insertion.

We investigated the potential utility of transoesophageal echocardiography (TOE) in facilitating central venous catheter (CVC) insertion in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Thirty five patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery and CVC insertion were prospectively included in the observational, single-centre clinical investigation. Following induction of general anaesthesia and tracheal intubation, the TOE probe was inserted and the bicaval view obtained prior to CVC insertion (site at discretion of the anaesthesiologist). Prospectively collected data included site and sequence of CVC insertion attempts, information regarding ease of guidewire insertion, whether or not guidewire was visualized via TOE, and other pertinent information. In 1 patient, the TOE bicaval view could not be readily obtained because of right atrial (RA) distortion. In 31 patients, the TOE bicaval view was obtained and CVC access was successful at the site of first choice (guidewire visualized in all). Three patients had noteworthy CVC insertions. In one, CVC insertion was difficult despite visualization ofguidewire in the RA. In another, multiple guidewire insertions met with substantial resistance and without visualization of guidewire in the RA. One patient was found to have an unanticipated large mobile superior vena cava thrombus that extended into the RA, which changed clinical management by prompting initial CVC insertion into the femoral vein (potentially avoiding morbidity associated with thrombus dislodgement). Our prospective observational clinical study indicates that routine use of TOE during CVC insertion may help avoid potential complications associated with this intervention. If both CVC insertion and TOE are going to be used in the same patient, the benefits of TOE should be maximized by routine visualization of the bicaval view during guidewire insertion.