Although pretransplant cardiac dysfunction is considered a major predictor of poor outcomes after liver transplantation (LT), the ability of left ventricular (LV) systolic/diastolic function (LVSF/LVDF), together or individually, to predict mortality after LT is poorly characterized. We retrospectively evaluated pretransplant clinical and Doppler echocardiographic data of 839 consecutive LT recipients from 2009 to 2012 aged 18–60 years. The primary endpoint was all-cause mortality at 4 years. The overall survival rate was 91.2%. In multivariate Cox analysis, reduced LV ejection fraction (LVEF, P = 0.014) and decreased transmitral E/A ratio(P = 0.022) remained significant prognosticators. In LVSF analysis, patients with LVEF≤60% (quartile [Q]1) had higher mortality than those with LVEF>60% (hazard ratio = 1.90, 95% confidence interval = 1.15–3.15, P = 0.012). In LVDF analysis, patients with an E/A ratio<0.9(Q1) had a 2.19-fold higher risk of death (95% confidence interval = 1.11–4.32, P = 0.024) than those with an E/A ratio>1.4(Q4). In combined LVDF and LVSF analysis, patients with an E/A ratio<0.9 and LVEF≤60% had poorer survival outcomes than patients with an E/A ratio≥0.9 and LVEF>60% (79.5% versus 93.3%, P = 0.001). Patients with an early mitral inflow velocity/annular velocity (E/e’ ratio)>11.5(Q4) and LV stroke volume index (LVSVI)<33mL/m2(Q1) showed worse survival than those with an E/e’ ratio≤11.5 and LVSVI ≥33mL/m2(78.4% versus 92.2%, P = 0.003). A combination of LVSF and LVDF is a better predictor of survival than LVSF or LVDF alone.

Narrowing of the dural sac cross-sectional area (DSCSA) and spinal canal cross-sectional area (SCCSA) have been considered major causes of lumbar central canal spinal stenosis (LCCSS). DSCSA and SCCSA were previously correlated with subjective walking distance before claudication occurs, aging, and disc degeneration. DSCSA and SCCSA have been ideal morphological parameters for evaluating LCCSS. However, the comparative value of these parameters is unknown and no studies have evaluated the clinical optimal cut-off values of DSCSA and SCCSA. This study assessed which parameter is more sensitive.Both DSCSA and SCCSA samples were collected from 135 patients with LCCSS, and from 130 control subjects who underwent lumbar magnetic resonance imaging (MRI) as part of a medical examination. Axial T2-weighted MRI scans were acquired at the level of facet joint from each subject. DSCSA and SCCSA were measured at the L4-L5 intervertebral level on MRI using a picture archiving and communications system.The average DSCSA value was 151.67 ± 53.59 mm2 in the control group and 80.04 ± 35.36 mm2 in the LCCSS group. The corresponding average SCCSA values were 199.95 ± 60.96 and 119.17 ± 49.41 mm2. LCCSS patients had significantly lower DSCSA and SCCSA (both P < .001). Regarding the validity of both DSCSA and SCCSA as predictors of LCCSS, Receiver operating characteristic curve analysis revealed an optimal cut-off value for DSCSA of 111.09 mm2, with 80.0% sensitivity, 80.8% specificity, and an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.87 (95% confidence interval, 0.83–0.92). The best cut off-point of SCCSA was 147.12 mm2, with 74.8% sensitivity, 78.5% specificity, and AUC of 0.85 (95% confidence interval, 0.81–0.89).DSCSA and SCCSA were both significantly associated with LCCSS, with DSCSA being a more sensitive measurement parameter. Thus, to evaluate LCCSS patients, pain specialists should more carefully investigate the DSCSA than SCCSA.

BackgroundThe use of monitored anesthesia care (MAC) as the technique of choice for a variety of invasive or noninvasive procedures is increasing. The purpose of this study to compare the outcomes of two different methods, spinal anesthesia and ilioinguinal-hypogastric nerve block (IHNB) with target concentrated infusion of remifentanil for inguinal herniorrhaphy.MethodsFifty patients were assigned to spinal anesthesia (Group S) or IHNB with MAC group (Group M). In Group M, IHNB was performed and the effect site concentration of remifentanil, starting from 2 ng/ml, was titrated according to the respiratory rate or discomfort, either by increasing or decreasing the dose by 0.3 ng/ml. The groups were compared to assess hemodynamic values, oxygen saturation, bispectral index (BIS), observer assessment alertness/sedation scale (OAA/S), visual analogue scale (VAS) for pain score and patients' and surgeon's satisfaction.ResultsBIS and OAA/S were not significantly different between the two groups. Hemodynamic variables were stable in Group M. Thirteen patients in the same group showed decreased respiratory rate without desaturation, and recovered immediately by encouraging taking deep breaths without the use of assist ventilation. Although VAS in the ward was not significantly different between the two groups, interestingly, patients' and surgeon's satisfaction scores (P = 0.0004, P = 0.004) were higher in Group M. The number of the patients who suffered from urinary retention was higher in Group S (P = 0.0021).ConclusionsIHNB under MAC with remifentanil is a useful method for inguinal herniorrhaphy reflecting hemodynamic stability, fewer side effects and higher satisfaction. This approach can be applied for outpatient surgeries and patients who are unfit for spinal anesthesia or general anesthesia.