Extracorporeal carbon dioxyde removal for additional pulmonary resection after pneumonectomy.

Additional pulmonary surgery in a previously pneumonectomized patient requires apnea during surgical manipulation of the surviving lung. We report on a novel approach to manage the intraoperative apnea period, combining apneic oxygenation and minimally invasive, low flow extracorporeal CO2 removal. A 69-year-old man previously submitted to left pneumonectomy was scheduled for wedge resection of a single right upper lobe lesion. During the intraoperative apnea period, oxygenation was maintained through apneic oxygenation with continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) of 5 cmH2O and inspiratory oxygen fraction (FiO2) of 1 and respiratory acidosis was prevented through extracorporeal CO2 removal, performed with the Decap® system (Hemodec, Salerno, Italy), a veno¬venous pump-driven extracorporeal circuit including a neonatal membrane lung. The extracorporeal circuit was connected to the right femoral vein, accessed via a 14 Fr double lumen catheter. The blood flow through the circuit was 350 mL/min and the sweep flow of oxygen through the membrane lung was 8 L/min. The intraoperative apnea period lasted 13 minutes. Our approach allowed maintaining normocapnia (PaCO2 38,5 and 40 mmHg before and at the end of the apnea period, respectively), preserving oxygenation (P/F ratio 378, 191, 198 and 200 after 3, 6, 9 and 12 min of apnea, respectively). Our report suggests that the minimally invasive CO2 removal associated with apneic oxygenation is an useful technique for managing anesthesiological situations requiring moderate apnea periods.

Surgical and anesthesiological procedures and patients outcome in a major teaching hospital, in a major non-teaching hospital and in a minor hospital.

AIM: This study was carried out to evaluate the outcome of patients in different hospitals with the aim to plan future structural and management changes. METHODS: All the anaesthesiological and surgical procedures were observed for a 2 weeks period in a major teaching hospital (A), in a major nonteaching hospital (B) and in a minor nonteaching hospital (C) in all the patients requiring anaesthesia. The main and the co-existing diseases and the surgical and anaesthesiological treatments they received were evaluated to determine the outcome. The ASA class, the duration of the procedure, the length of staying in hospital, the transfusions of blood or derivatives, the adverse events for each patient were also observed. RESULTS: The results showed that the patients admitted to the teaching hospital were classified in higher ASA risk classes and had surgery of longer duration, with a higher ratio of major surgery. The outcome was satisfactory in all the 3 hospitals, with a 2 days length of stay respectively in 30% (A and B) and 50% (C) of the patients. The rate of mortality was low: only 3 patients in hospital A and no patient in B and C died in a period of 2 days following surgery. Hospitals B and C showed a large use of modern techniques such as autologous blood transfusion and central and peripheral anaesthetic blocks, with a better cost-benefit ratio than the major teaching hospital. CONCLUSIONS: This study showed good results, but it should be repeated in a few years in order to evaluate any change and possible improvement in the management and outcome of the patients.