Norepinephrine versus phenylephrine for treating hypotension during general anaesthesia in adult patients undergoing major noncardiac surgery: a multicentre, open-label, cluster-randomised, crossover, feasibility, and pilot trial.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative hypotension is associated with postoperative complications. The use of vasopressors is often required to correct hypotension but the best vasopressor is unknown. METHODS: A multicentre, cluster-randomised, crossover, feasibility and pilot trial was conducted across five hospitals in California. Phenylephrine (PE) vs norepinephrine (NE) infusion as the first-line vasopressor in patients under general anaesthesia alternated monthly at each hospital for 6 months. The primary endpoint was first-line vasopressor administration compliance of 80% or higher. Secondary endpoints were acute kidney injury (AKI), 30-day mortality, myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery (MINS), hospital length of stay, and rehospitalisation within 30 days. RESULTS: A total of 3626 patients were enrolled over 6 months; 1809 patients were randomised in the NE group, 1817 in the PE group. Overall, 88.2% received the assigned first-line vasopressor. No drug infiltrations requiring treatment were reported in either group. Patients were median 63 yr old, 50% female, and 58% white. Randomisation in the NE group vs PE group did not reduce readmission within 30 days (adjusted odds ratio=0.92; 95% confidence interval, 0.6-1.39), 30-day mortality (1.01; 0.48-2.09), AKI (1.1; 0.92-1.31), or MINS (1.63; 0.84-3.16). CONCLUSIONS: A large and diverse population undergoing major surgery under general anaesthesia was successfully enrolled and randomised to receive NE or PE infusion. This pilot and feasibility trial was not powered for adverse postoperative outcomes and a follow-up multicentre effectiveness trial is planned. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04789330 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Colonic perforation in graft versus host disease: a case report.

Graft versus host disease (GVHD) is a phenomenon that occurs after allogeneic bone marrow transplants. Gastrointestinal (GI) manifestations of acute GVHD are common, but severe GI GVHD complications, such as bowel perforation, occur rarely and necessitate surgical intervention. To our knowledge, there are no recorded cases of colonic perforation resulting from GVHD with negative cultures for infectious agents such as cytomegalovirus. We present a case of large bowel perforation due to GVHD.

Incidence of iatrogenic ureteral injury after laparoscopic colectomy.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the incidence of iatrogenic ureteral injury between laparoscopic and open colectomies at a single institution. DESIGN: From June 1, 2005, through July 31, 2010, patients were identified from a prospectively maintained database and hospital records were retrospectively reviewed. SETTING: Mount Sinai Medical Center. PATIENTS: Fourteen patients who underwent colectomy complicated by a ureteral injury. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A significant increase in ureteral injuries occurred after laparoscopic vs open procedures (0.66% vs 0.15%, P = .007). RESULTS: A total of 5729 colectomies were performed during the study period. Fourteen ureteral injuries occurred, resulting in a 0.244% incidence of iatrogenic ureteral injury. Patient demographics demonstrated that 9 injuries (64%) occurred in females and 7 patients (50%) had undergone prior abdominal operations. Operative indications were inflammatory bowel disease (n = 7), diverticulitis (n = 2), and malignant neoplasm (n = 4). Thirteen operations (87%) in this study were elective colectomies, and 7 patients (50%) underwent laparoscopic procedures, with 2 open conversions. Of the 5729 colectomies, 4669 were open and 1060 laparoscopic. Regarding ureteral injuries, no difference was observed in intraoperative identification of ureteral injury in patients who underwent preoperative ureteral stent placement (n = 4) vs those who did not (50% [2 of 4] vs 50% [5 of 10]). CONCLUSIONS: A significant increase was found in the incidence of iatrogenic ureteral injuries with laparoscopy compared with open colectomies. Preoperative stent placement did not ensure intraoperative identification of injury. Female sex and increased operative blood loss appear to predispose patients to injury.

Use of mesh during ventral hernia repair in clean-contaminated and contaminated cases: outcomes of 33,832 cases.

OBJECTIVE: To analyze and compare postoperative occurrences following ventral hernia repairs (VHRs) using mesh in clean-contaminated and contaminated wounds. BACKGROUND: Ventral hernia repairs using mesh is one of the most common surgical procedures performed. However, guidelines and outcomes of repairs in clean-contaminated or grossly contaminated ventral hernias have not been established. METHODS: Patients who underwent VHR with mesh between the dates January 1, 2005 and April 4, 2010 at all hospitals in the United States participating in the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) were reviewed. Data from 33,832 patients were analyzed by field contamination level and then compared with data from patients who underwent VHR without mesh. Data were analyzed using the odds ratio test with a 95% confidence interval. RESULTS: The odds of having one or more postoperative occurrences were significantly greater in clean-contaminated and contaminated cases using mesh when compared with clean cases, with odds ratios of 3.56 (3.25-3.89) and 5.05 (1.78-12.41), respectively. There was a significantly increased risk of superficial surgical site infections (SSI) (2.53), deep SSI (3.09) and organ/space SSI (6.16), wound disruption (4.41), pneumonia (4.43), and sepsis (4.90) for clean-contaminated cases. Both clean-contaminated and contaminated cases had an increased risk of septic shock (5.82 and 26.74, respectively), and need for ventilator for more than 48 hours (5.59 and 26.76, respectively). In addition, there was a significantly increased odds ratio of complications in patients who underwent VHR with mesh (3.56) to nonmesh (2.52) in clean-contaminated cases. CONCLUSION: There is a significant increase in risk of postoperative occurrences following VHRs using mesh in clean-contaminated and contaminated cases relative to clean cases. We recommend avoiding the use of mesh in any level of contamination.