ABSTRACT
Abstract We describe an unusual case of hyperacute hepatic failure following general anesthesia in a patient receiving a simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplant. Despite an aggressive evaluation of structural, immunological, viral, and toxicological causes, a definitive cause could not be elucidated. The patient required a liver transplant and suffered a protracted hospital course. We discuss the potential causes of fulminant hepatic failure and the perioperative anesthesia management of her subsequent liver transplantation.
Resumo Descrevemos um caso incomum de insuficiência hepática hiperaguda após a anestesia geral em uma paciente que recebeu um transplante simultâneo de rim-pâncreas. Apesar de uma avaliação agressiva das causas estruturais, imunológicas, virais e toxicológicas, uma causa definitiva não pôde ser identificada. A paciente precisou de um transplante de fígado que resultou em prolongamento da internação hospitalar. Discutimos as potenciais causas da insuficiência hepática fulminante e o manejo da anestesia no período perioperatório de seu subsequente transplante de fígado.
Subject(s)
Humans , Kidney Transplantation/instrumentation , Liver Transplantation/instrumentation , Anesthetics, Inhalation/administration & dosage , Hepatic Insufficiency/surgery , Isoflurane/adverse effectsABSTRACT
We describe an unusual case of hyperacute hepatic failure following general anesthesia in a patient receiving a simultaneous kidney-pancreas transplant. Despite an aggressive evaluation of structural, immunological, viral, and toxicological causes, a definitive cause could not be elucidated. The patient required a liver transplant and suffered a protracted hospital course. We discuss the potential causes of fulminant hepatic failure and the perioperative anesthesia management of her subsequent liver transplantation.
ABSTRACT
RATIONALE: Studies have shown the importance of simulation-based training on the outcomes of central venous catheter (CVC) insertion by trainees. OBJECTIVES: To compare the performance of internal medicine trainees who underwent standardized simulation training of CVC insertion with that of internal medicine trainees who had traditional CVC training and were already deemed competent to perform the procedure during a proficiency evaluation using a training mannequin. METHODS: Trainees who perform CVC insertion were enrolled in the institutional Central Line Workshop, which includes both an online and an experiential simulation component. The training is followed by a certification station proficiency assessment. Residents and fellows previously certified competent to perform CVC placement without supervision completed the online module, but they could opt out of the experiential component and proceed directly to the evaluation. RESULTS: Forty-eight trainees participated in the study. Twenty-one (44%), 15 (31%), 6 (13%), 1 (2%), 2 (4%), and 3 (6%) were in postgraduate year 1 (PGY1), PGY2, PGY3, PGY4, PGY5, and PGY6, respectively. Twenty-nine completed the hands-on instruction, 28 (97%) of whom successfully passed the simulation-based assessment on their first attempt. Nineteen trainees previously credentialed to perform CVC placement without supervision opted out of the simulation-based experiential training. Of these, five (26%) failed in their first attempt (P = 0.02 vs. trainees who completed the simulation training). CONCLUSIONS: Standardized simulation-based training can improve CVC insertion proficiency, even among trainees with previous experience sufficient to have been deemed competent in the procedure. Improved performance at simulation-based testing may translate to improved outcomes of CVC placement by trainees.
