Introduction: COVID-19 induces coagulopathy associated with an increase of thromboembolic events. Due to the lack of agreement on recommendations for thromboprophylactic manage-ment, the aim of this study was to study the dosages of LMWH used in critically ill COVID-19 patients assessing the effect on their outcome. Metohds: We evaluated data of the Reg-COVID19. According to LMWH dose two groups were analyzed: prophylaxis and treatment. Primary outcome was the relationship of LMWH dosage with mortality. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of thrombotic and bleeding events, length of ICU stay, invasive mechanical ventilation, and thrombotic and inflammatory parame-ters. Results: Data of 720 patients were analyzed, 258 in the prophylaxis group and 462 in the treat-ment group. C Reactive Protein, invasive mechanical ventilation, tocilizumab and corticosteroid treatments were related with the choice of LMWH dose. Hemorrhagic events (66/720, 9.2%) and thrombotic complications (69/720, 9.6%) were similar in both groups (P=.819 and P=.265), as was the time course of the thrombotic events, earlier than hemorrhagic ones (9 [3-18] and 12 [6-19] days respectively). Mortality was lower in prophylaxis group (25.2% versus 35.1%), but once an inverse probability weighting model was applied, we found no effect of LMWH dose. Conclusion: We found no benefit or harm with the administration of therapeutic or prophylactic LMWH dose in COVID19 critically ill patients. With a similar rate of hemorrhagic or thrombotic events, the LMWH dose had no influence on mortality. More studies are needed to determine the optimal thromboprophylaxis protocol for critically ill patients. (c) 2022 Sociedad Espanola de Anestesiologi ' a, Reanimaci ' on y Terapeutica del Dolor. Published by Elsevier Espana, S.L.U. All rights reserved.

Simple Summary Radioembolization is a locoregional therapy used in primary liver malignancies with different applications depending on the treatment goal. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate postoperative and long-term survival outcomes of patients with unresectable or high biological risk HCC and ICC treated with RE that were finally rescued to liver surgery with curative intent. In a cohort of 34 patients, we assessed that liver resection and transplantation after RE seem safe and feasible with adequate short-term outcomes. Moreover, long-term outcomes after RE and LR were optimal, with a 10-year OS rate greater than 50% for HCC and ICC patients. On the other hand, the 10-year OS rates from RE were also greater than 50% for patients with HCC downstaged or bridged to LT. Radioembolization (RE) may help local control and achieve tumor reduction while hypertrophies healthy liver and provides a test of time. For liver transplant (LT) candidates, it may attain downstaging for initially non-candidates and bridging during the waitlist. Methods: Patients diagnosed with HCC and ICC treated by RE with further liver resection (LR) or LT between 2005-2020 were included. All patients selected were discarded for the upfront surgical approach for not accomplishing oncological or surgical safety criteria after a multidisciplinary team assessment. Data for clinicopathological details, postoperative, and survival outcomes were retrospectively reviewed from a prospectively maintained database. Results: A total of 34 patients underwent surgery following RE (21 LR and 13 LT). Clavien-Dindo grade III-IV complications and mortality rates were 19.0% and 9.5% for LR and 7.7% and 0% for LT, respectively. After RE, for HCC and ICC patients in the LR group, 10-year OS rates were 57% and 60%, and 10-year DFS rates were 43.1% and 60%, respectively. For HCC patients in the LT group, 10-year OS and DFS rates from RE were 51.3% and 43.3%, respectively. Conclusion: Liver resection after RE is safe and feasible with optimal short-term outcomes. Patients diagnosed with unresectable or high biological risk HCC or ICC, treated with RE, and rescued by LR may achieve optimal global and DFS rates. On the other hand, bridging or downstaging strategies to LT with RE in HCC patients show adequate recurrence rates as well as long-term survival.

Background: Laparoscopic liver surgery has progressively evolved. Consequently, liver procedures are increasingly performed laparoscopically, particularly in experienced centers. However, vascular resection and reconstruction still are considered a limitation for laparoscopy1 due to the risk of bleeding and the technical difficulty. Methods: A 72-year-old woman with a history of colorectal cancer had a 10 cm metastasis diagnosed in the right hemiliver with tumoral invasion of the right portal branch and tumor thrombus advancing to the portal confluence. After adjuvant chemotherapy and with stable disease, surgical resection was planned.2,3 Tips to avoid portal stenosis were carefully followed. Results: The operation was performed with a fully laparoscopic procedure. To minimize manipulation, an in situ right hepatectomy was performed.4 The right hepatic artery was dissected and ligated. The liver transection was guided with a caudal approach of the middle hepatic vein.5 The right biliary duct was then divided, achieving an excellent exposure of the portal bifurcation. The main and left portal trunks were occluded with vascular clamps, and the right portal vein was sharply divided with scissors. The stump was sutured to minimize backflow bleeding and to cover the tumor thrombus. Then, the portal opening was transversally sutured with a 5/0 running suture. The clamps were released, and the authors observed no bleeding and an adequate caliber with no stenosis. The procedure was completed in the standard fashion. The postoperative course was uneventful, and the woman was discharged on postoperative day 3. No early or late complications were observed.6 CONCLUSIONS: In selected cases, patients who require vascular resection and reconstruction during hepatectomies can benefit from the advantages of a laparoscopic approach.

Background Liver surgery after radioembolization (RE) entails highly demanding and challenging procedures due to the frequent combination of large tumors, severe RE-related adhesions, and the necessity of conducting major hepatectomies. Laparoscopic liver resection (LLR) and its associated advantages could provide benefits, as yet unreported, to these patients. The current study evaluated feasibility, morbidity, mortality, and survival outcomes for major laparoscopic liver resection after radioembolization. Material and methods In this retrospective, single-center study patients diagnosed with hepatocellular carcinoma, intrahepatic cholangiocarcinoma or metastases from colorectal cancer undergoing major laparoscopic hepatectomy after RE were identified from institutional databases. They were matched (1:2) on several pre-operative characteristics to a group of patients that underwent major LLR for the same malignancies during the same period but without previous RE. Results From March 2011 to November 2020, 9 patients underwent a major LLR after RE. No differences were observed in intraoperative blood loss (50 vs. 150 ml; p = 0.621), operative time (478 vs. 407 min; p = 0.135) or pedicle clamping time (90.5 vs 74 min; p = 0.133) between the post-RE LLR and the matched group. Similarly, no differences were observed on hospital stay ( median 3 vs. 4 days; p = 0.300), Clavien-Dindo = III complications (2 vs. 1 cases; p = 0.250), specific liver morbidity (1 vs. 1 case p = 1.000), or 90 day mortality (0 vs. 0; p = 1.000). Conclusion The laparoscopic approach for post radioembolization patients may be a feasible and safe procedure with excellent surgical and oncological outcomes and meets the current standards for laparoscopic liver resections. Further studies with larger series are needed to confirm the results herein presented.

The infection by the coronavirus SARS-CoV-2, which causes the disease called COVID19, mainly causes alterations in the respiratory system. In severely ill patients, the disease oftenevolves into an acute respiratory distress syndrome that can predispose patients to a state ofhypercoagulability, with thrombosis at both venous and arterial levels. This predisposition presents a multifactorial physiopathology, related to hypoxia as well as to the severe inflammatoryprocess linked to this pathology, including the additional thrombotic factors present in many ofthe patients. In view of the need to optimise the management of hypercoagulability, the working groupsof the Scientific Societies of Anaesthesiology-Resuscitation and Pain Therapy (SEDAR) and ofIntensive, Critical Care Medicine and Coronary Units (SEMICYUC) have developed a consensus to establish guidelines for actions to be taken against alterations in haemostasis observedin severely ill patients with COVID-19. These recommendations include prophylaxis of venousthromboembolic disease in these patients, and in the peripartum, management of patients onlongterm antiplatelet or anticoagulant treatment, bleeding complications in the course of thedisease, and the interpretation of general alterations in haemostasis.