Velocity–pressure loops for continuous assessment of ventricular afterload: influence of pressure measurement site

VPloop, the graphical representation of pressure versus velocity, and its characteristic angles, GALA and β, can be used to monitor cardiac afterload during anesthesia. Ideally VPloop should be measured from pressure and velocity obtained at the same arterial location but standard of care usually provide either radial or femoral pressure waveforms. The purpose of this study was to look at the influence of arterial sites and the use of a transfer function (TF) on VPloop and its related angles. Invasive pressure signals were recorded in 25 patients undergoing neuroradiology intervention under general anesthesia with transesophageal flow velocity monitoring. Pressures were recorded in the descending thoracic aorta, abdominal aorta, femoral and radial arteries. We compared GALA and β from VPloops generated from each location and in high and low risk patients. GALA was similar in the central locations (55°[49–63], 52°[47–61] and 54°[45–62] from descending thoracic to femoral artery, median[interquartile], p?=?0.10), while there was a difference in β angle (16°[4–27] to 8°[3–15], p?<?0.0001). GALA and β obtained from radial waveforms were different (39°[31–47] compared to 46°[36–54] and 6°[2–14] compared to 16°[4–27] for GALA and β angles respectively, p?<?0.001) which was corrected by the use of a TF (45°[32–55] and 17°[5–28], p?=?ns). GALA and β are underestimated when measured with a radial catheter. Using pressure waveforms from femoral locations alters VPloops, GALA and β in a smaller extend. The use of a TF on radial pressure allows to correctly plot VPloops and their characteristic angles for routine clinical use.     

The Effect of Initial Patient Experiences and Life Stressors on Predicting Lost to Follow-Up in Patients New to an HIV Clinic

AIDS and Behavior - We conducted a prospective cohort study of 450 patients new to an HIV clinic in Houston, TX, to examine the roles of life stressors and initial care experiences in predicting...     

Complete mesocolic excision and extended (D3) lymphadenectomy for colonic cancer: is it worth that extra effort? A review of the literature

Purpose

Recent interest in complete mesocolic excision (CME) with central vascular ligation (CVL) or extended (D3) lymphadenectomy (EL) for curative resection of colon cancer has been driven by published series from experienced practitioners showing excellent survival outcomes and low recurrence rates. In this article, we attempt to clarify the role of CME or EL in modern colorectal surgery.

Methods

A narrative review of the evidence for CME and EL in the curative treatment of colon cancer.

Results

The principal of CME surgery, similar to total mesorectal excision (TME) for rectal cancer, is the removal of all lymphatic, vascular, and neural tissue in the drainage area of the tumour in a complete mesocolic envelope with intact mesentery, peritoneum and encasing fascia. Extended (D3) lymphadenectomy (EL) is based on similar principles. Sound anatomical and oncological arguments are made to support the principles of removing the tumor contained within an intact mesocolic facial envelope together with an extended lymph node harvest. Excellent oncological outcomes with minimal morbidity and mortality have been reported. This has led to calls for the standardisation of surgery for colon cancer using CME. However, there is conflicting evidence regarding the prognostic benefit of greater lymph node harvests and the evidence for an oncological benefit of CME is limited by methodology flaws and several potential confounding factors.

Conclusions

Although there is a reasonable anatomical and oncological basis for these techniques, there are no randomised controlled trials from which to draw confident conclusions and there is insufficient consistent high quality evidence to recommend widespread adoption of CME.