The End-Organ Impairment in Liver Cirrhosis: Appointments for Critical Care

Liver cirrhosis (LC) can lead to a clinical state of liver failure, which can exacerbate through the course of the disease. New therapies aimed to control the diverse etiologies are now more effective, although the disease may result in advanced stages of liver failure, where liver transplantation (LT) remains the most effective treatment. The extended lifespan of these patients and the extended possibilities of liver support devices make their admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) more probable. In this paper the LC is approached from the point of view of the pathophysiological alterations present in LC patients previous to ICU admission, particularly cardiovascular, but also renal, coagulopathic, and encephalopathic. Infections and available liver detoxifications devices also deserve mentioning. We intend to contribute towards ICU physician readiness to the care for this particular type of patients, possibly in dedicated ICUs.

Mortality after Discharge from Intensive Care: the Impact of Organ System Failure and Nursing Workload Use at Discharge

OBJECTIVES: Mortality after ICU discharge accounts for approx. 20-30% of deaths. We examined whether post-ICU discharge mortality is associated with the presence and severity of organ dysfunction/failure just before ICU discharge. PATIENTS AND METHODS: The study used the database of the EURICUS-II study, with a total of 4,621 patients, including 2,958 discharged alive to the general wards (post-ICU mortality 8.6%). Over a 4-month period we collected clinical and demographic characteristics, including the Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS II), Nine Equivalents of Nursing Manpower Use Score, and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score. RESULTS: Those who died in the hospital after ICU discharge had a higher SAPS II score, were more frequently nonoperative, admitted from the ward, and had stayed longer in the ICU. Their degree of organ dysfunction/failure was higher (admission, maximum, and delta SOFA scores). They required more nursing workload resources while in the ICU. Both the amount of organ dysfunction/failure (especially cardiovascular, neurological, renal, and respiratory) and the amount of nursing workload that they required on the day before discharge were higher. The presence of residual CNS and renal dysfunction/failure were especially prognostic factors at ICU discharge. Multivariate analysis showed only predischarge organ dysfunction/failure to be important; thus the increased use of nursing workload resources before discharge probably reflects only the underlying organ dysfunction/failure. CONCLUSIONS: It is better to delay the discharge of a patient with organ dysfunction/failure from the ICU, unless adequate monitoring and therapeutic resources are available in the ward.

Blood Donation in the Hospital de S. José. A 11-Year Retrospective Analysis of Deferrals and Exclusions

Background: Approximately 5% of the population donates blood each year in developed countries. Recruiting and maintaining a pool of altruistic and healthy blood donors is a challenging task. Blood donation as a dynamic process must naturally co-exist with the arguably essential deferrals. Aims: To analyse a 11-year cohort of donors and blood donations in order to determine the profile of the average donor and the typical donation. Characterize the donor’s population in terms of gender, age, number of donations, most common causes for deferral and exclusion and the possible relationships between them. Establish the tendency flow of donations per year. Methods: Analysis of 95861 blood donations from 31550 donors collected between 2000 and 2010 (11 years) in the Immunohemotherapy Department of the ‘‘Centro Hospitalar Lisboa Central - Hospital de Sa˜o Jose´’’ (Lisboa, Portugal). Prior to blood donation, donors were required to fill out a form of informed consent, a questionnaire of 21 ‘‘yes or no’’ questions and were submitted to a clinical assessment and physical examination including: measurement of weight, blood pressure, pulse and capillary hemoglobin levels. Post-donation, the collected blood was tested for ALT elevation and blood-borne viral agents (HBV, HCV, HIV 1 and 2 and HTLV 1 and 2) and other infections (Treponema pallidum). Blood donors and donations were registered in a database and statistically studied in terms of: gender and age distribution, number of donations, most common causes for deferral and exclusion. The frequency of blood donations throughout the period of observation was analyzed and statistically significant relationships between the collected variables were investigated. Results: From the population of 31550 donors 61% were male and a mean age of 41.5 years (± 12.5 years) was found. From the total of 95682 blood donations collected 78% were successful while the most common causes for deferral were: donation incompatible hemoglobin levels (5% of the blood donations and 22% of deferrals), ALT elevation (3% and 14%), positive blood screening test for Treponema pallidum (1% and 6%), medication (1% and 4%), positive serological blood markers for HBV (1% and 4%), endoscopy in the previous 12 months (1% and 3%), arterial hypertension (1% and 3%), infectious conditions (1% and 3%), influenza or influenza-like symptoms (1% and 2%) and positive serological blood markers for HCV (1% and 2%). Summary/Conclusions: Several factors may have contributed to a limited number of new regular donors in the population, namely: ageing population, the alienation of the individual from the community induced by modern lifestyles and job precariousness. It is of the utmost importance to refine our blood donation campaigns according to the existing population of donors. The optimization of the blood donation potential of a population of donors must be achieved through the development of reliable and consistent screening methods. In order to appeal to new donors it is important to promote blood donations considering the profile of the regular and healthy blood donor of the existing population.

The Oncological and Functional Risks of the Organ Preservation Experimental Treatment Approach

We increasingly face conservative surgery for rectal cancer and even the so called ‘wait and see’ approach, as far as 10–20% patients can reach a complete pathological response at the time of surgery. But what can we say to our patients about risks? Standard surgery with mesorectal excision gives a <2% local recurrence with a post operative death rate of 2–8% (may reach 30% at 6 months in those over 85), but low AR has some deterioration in bowel function and in low cancer a permanent stoma may be required. Also a long-term impact on urinary and sexual function is possible. Distant metastasis rate seem to be identical in the standard and conservative approach. It is difficult to evaluate conservative approach because a not clear standardization of surgery for low rectal cancer. Rullier et al tried to clarify, and they found identical results for recurrence (5–9%), disease free survival (70%) at 5y for coloanal anastomosis and intersphinteric resection. Other series have found local recurrence higher than with standard approach and functional results may be worse and, in some situations, salvage therapy is compromised or has more complications. In this context, functional outcomes are very important but most studies are incomplete in measuring bowel function in the context of conservative approach. In 2005 Temple et al made a survey of 122/184 patient after sphinter preserving surgery and found a 96.9% of incomplete evacuation, 94.4% clustering, 93.2% food affecting frequency, 91.8% gas incontinence and proposed a systematic evaluation with a specific questionnaire. In which concerns ‘Wait and see’ approach for complete clinical responders, it was first advocated by Habr Gama for tumors up to 7cm, with a low locoregional failure of 4.6%, 5y overall survival 96%, 72% for disease free survival; one fifth of patients failed in the first year; a Dutch trial had identical results but others had worse recurrence rates; in other series 25% of patients could not be salvaged even with APR; 30% have subsequent metastatic disease what seems equal for ‘wait and see’ and operated patients. In a recent review Glynne Jones considers that all the evaluated ‘wait and see’ studies are heterogeneous in staging, inclusion criteria, design and follow up after chemoradiation and that there is the suggestion that patients who progress while under observation fare worse than those resected. He proposes long-term observational studies with more uniform inclusion criteria. We are now facing a moment where we may be more aggressive in early cancer and neoadjuvant treatment to be more conservative in the subsequent treatment but we need a better stratification of patients, better evaluation of results and more clear prognostic markers.