Abstract Background: Manipulation of carcinoid tumors during ablation or selective hepatic artery embolization (transarterial embolization, TAE) can release vasoactive mediators inducing hemodynamic instability. The main aim of our study was to review hemodynamics and complications related to minimally invasive treatments of liver carcinoids with TAE or ablation. Methods: Electronic medical records of all patients with metastatic liver carcinoid undergoing ablation or TAE from 2003 to 2019 were abstracted. Noted were severe hypotension (mean arterial pressure [MAP] ≤ 55 mmHg), severe hypertension (systolic blood pressure ≥ 180 mmHg), and perioperative complications. Associations of procedure type and pre-procedure octreotide use with intraprocedural hemodynamics were assessed using linear regression. A robust covariance approach using generalized estimating equation method was used to account for multiple observations. Results: A total of 161 patients underwent 98 ablations and 207 TAEs. Severe hypertension was observed in 24 (24.5%) vs. 15 (7.3%), severe hypotension in 56 (57.1%) vs. 6 (2.9%), and cutaneous flushing observed in 2 (2.0%) vs. 48 (23.2%) ablations and TAEs, respectively. After adjusting for preprocedural MAP, ablation was associated with lower intraprocedural MAP compared to TAE (estimate −27 mmHg, 95%CI −30 to −24 mmHg, p < 0.001). Intraprocedural declines in MAP were not affected by preprocedural use of octreotide (p = 0.7 for TAE and p = 0.4 for ablation). Conclusions: Ablation of liver carcinoids was associated with substantial hemodynamic instability, especially hypotension. In contrast, a higher number of TAE patients had cutaneous flushing. Preprocedural use of octreotide was not associated with attenuation of intraprocedural hypotension.

Resumo Justificativa e objetivos Determinar os fatores de risco da administração de flumazenil durante a recuperação pós-anestésica e descrever os desfechos entre os pacientes que receberam flumazenil. Métodos Os pacientes admitidos em sala de recuperação pós-anestésica de um grande centro universitário em setor terciário de cuidados pós-cirurgia sob anestesia geral entre 1° de janeiro de 2010 e 30 de abril de 2015 foram identificados e pareados com dois controles cada por idade, sexo e procedimento cirúrgico. Flumazenil foi administrado na fase de recuperação imediatamente após a anestesia geral, de acordo com a avaliação clínica do anestesiologista. Os dados demográficos, dos procedimentos e dos desfechos foram extraídos do registro eletrônico de saúde. A regressão logística condicional para os desenhos do estudo de caso-controle pareado em 1:2 foi usada para avaliar as características associadas ao uso de flumazenil. Resultados A incidência da administração de flumazenil em sala de recuperação pós-anestésica foi de 9,9 por 10.000 (95% IC: 8,4-1,6) anestesias gerais. História da apneia obstrutiva do sono (razão de chances [OR] = 2,27; IC 95%: 1,02-5,09), anestesia de longa duração (OR = 1,13; IC 95%: 1,03-1,24 por 30 minutos), uso de anestesia intravenosa total (OR = 6,09; IC de 95%: 2,60-14,25) e uso de benzodiazepínicos (OR = 8,17; IC 95%: 3,71-17,99) foram associados a risco para a administração de flumazenil. Entre os pacientes que receberam midazolam, os casos tratados com flumazenil receberam uma dose mediana mais alta (intervalo interquartil) do que os controles: 3,5 mg (2,0-4,0 mg) vs. 2,0 mg (2,0-2,0 mg), respectivamente (p < 0,001). O uso de flumazenil foi correlacionado com uma taxa maior não prevista de ventilação não invasiva com pressão positiva, permanência mais longa em sala de recuperação pós-anestésica e aumento da taxa de admissões em unidade de terapia intensiva. Conclusão Os pacientes que precisaram de flumazenil no pós-operatório receberam uma dose maior de benzodiazepínicos e usaram mais recursos de cuidados da saúde no pós-operatório. O uso mais conservador de benzodiazepínicos no período perioperatório pode melhorar a recuperação e o uso de recursos de cuidados da saúde no pós-operatório.

Abstract Background and objectives The primary aim was to determine risk factors for flumazenil administration during postanesthesia recovery. A secondary aim was to describe outcomes among patients who received flumazenil. Methods Patients admitted to the postanesthesia recovery room at a large, academic, tertiary care facility after surgery under general anesthesia from January 1, 2010, to April 30, 2015, were identified and matched to 2 controls each, by age, sex, and surgical procedure. Flumazenil was administered in the recovery phase immediately after general anesthesia, according to the clinical judgment of the anesthesiologist. Demographic, procedural, and outcome data were extracted from the electronic health record. Conditional logistic regression, accounting for the 1:2 matched-set case-control study designs, was used to assess characteristics associated with flumazenil use. Results The incidence of flumazenil administration in the postanesthesia care unit was 9.9 per 10,000 (95% CI, 8.4-11.6) general anesthetics. History of obstructive sleep apnea (Odds Ratio [OR] = 2.27; 95% CI 1.02-5.09), longer anesthesia (OR = 1.13; 95% CI 1.03-1.24 per 30 minutes), use of total intravenous anesthesia (OR = 6.09; 95% CI 2.60-14.25), and use of benzodiazepines (OR = 8.17; 95% CI 3.71-17.99) were associated with risk for flumazenil administration. Among patients who received midazolam, cases treated with flumazenil received a higher median (interquartile range) dose than controls: 3.5 mg (2.0-4.0 mg) vs. 2.0 mg (2.0-2.0 mg), respectively (p < 0.001). Flumazenil use was correlated with a higher rate of unanticipated noninvasive positive pressure ventilation, longer postanesthesia care unit stay, and increased rate of intensive care unit admissions. Conclusions Patients who required flumazenil postoperatively had received a higher dosage of benzodiazepines and utilized more postoperative health care resources. More conservative perioperative use of benzodiazepines may improve postoperative recovery and use of health care resources.