Increasing evidence suggests that total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) may be the preferred anaesthetic for cancer resection surgery. To assist the preparation of a randomised controlled trial (RCT) examining Volatile (versus TIVA) Anaesthesia and Perioperative Outcomes Related to Cancer (VAPOR-C) we developed an 18-question electronic survey to investigate practice patterns and perspectives (emphasising indications, barriers, and impact on cancer outcomes) of TIVA versus inhalational general anaesthesia in Australasia. The survey was emailed to 1,000 (of 5,300 active Fellows) randomly selected Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) Fellows. The response rate was 27.5% (n=275). Of the respondents, 18% use TIVA for the majority of cases. In contrast, 46% use TIVA 20% of the time or less. Respondents described indications for TIVA as high risk of nausea, neurosurgery, and susceptibility to malignant hyperthermia. Lack of equipment, lack of education and cost were not considered barriers to TIVA use, and a significant proportion (41%) of respondents would use TIVA more often if setup were easier. Of the respondents, 43% thought that TIVA was associated with less cancer recurrence than inhalational anaesthesia, while 46% thought that there was no difference. Yet, only 29% of respondents reported that they use TIVA often or very often for cancer surgery. In Australasia, there is generally a low frequency of TIVA use despite a perception of benefit when compared with inhalational anaesthesia. Anaesthetists are willing to use TIVA for indications where sufficient evidence supports a meaningful level of improvement in clinical outcome. The survey explores attitudes towards use of TIVA for cancer surgery and demonstrates equipoise in anaesthetists’ opinions regarding this indication. The inconsistent use of TIVA in Australasia, minimal barriers to its use, and the equipoise in anaesthetists’ opinions regarding the effect of TIVA versus inhalational anaesthesia on cancer outcomes support the need for a large prospective RCT.

Prevention of cancer-associated thromboembolism (TE) remains a significant clinical challenge and priority world-wide safety initiative. In this prospective non-small cell lung cancer (NSCLC) cohort, longitudinal TE risk profiling (clinical and biomarker) was undertaken to develop risk stratification models for targeted TE prevention. These were compared with published models from Khorana, CATS, PROTECHT, CONKO, and CATS/MICA. The NSCLC cohort of 129 patients, median follow-up 22.0 months (range 5.6—31.3), demonstrated a hypercoagulable profile in >75% patients and TE incidence of 19%. High TE risk patients were those receiving chemotherapy with baseline fibrinogen ≥ 4 g/L and d-dimer ≥ 0.5 mg/L; or baseline d-dimer ≥ 1.5 mg/L; or month 1 d-dimer ≥ 1.5 mg/L. The model predicted TE with 100% sensitivity and 34% specificity (c-index 0.67), with TE incidence 27% vs. 0% for high vs. low-risk. A comparison using the Khorana, PROTECHT, and CONKO methods were not discriminatory; TE incidence 17–25% vs. 14–19% for high vs. low-risk (c-index 0.51–0.59). Continuous d-dimer (CATS/MICA model) was also not predictive of TE. Independent of tumour stage, high TE risk was associated with cancer progression (HR 1.9, p = 0.01) and mortality (HR 2.2, p = 0.02). The model was tested for scalability in a prospective gastrointestinal cancer cohort with equipotency demonstrated; 80% sensitivity and 39% specificity. This proposed TE risk prediction model is simple, practical, potent and can be used in the clinic for real-time, decision-making for targeted thromboprophylaxis. Validation in a multicentre randomised interventional study is underway (ACTRN12618000811202).

The effect a restrictive goal directed therapy (GDT) fluid protocol combined with an enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) programme on hospital stay for patients undergoing major liver resection is unknown. We conducted a multicentre randomized controlled pilot trial evaluating whether a patient-specific, surgery-specific intraoperative restrictive fluid optimization algorithm would improve duration of hospital stay and reduce perioperative fluid related complications. Forty-eight participants were enrolled. The median (IQR) length of hospital stay was 7.0 days (7.0:8.0) days in the restrictive fluid optimization algorithm group (Restrict group) vs. 8.0 days (6.0:10.0) in the conventional care group (Conventional group) (Incidence rate ratio 0.85; 95% Confidence Interval 0.71:1.1; p = 0.17). No statistically significant difference in expected number of complications per patient between groups was identified (IRR 0.85; 95%CI: 0.45-1.60; p = 0.60). Patients in the Restrict group had lower intraoperative fluid balances: 808 mL (571:1565) vs. 1345 mL (900:1983) (p = 0.04) and received a lower volume of fluid per kg/hour intraoperatively: 4.3 mL/kg/hr (2.6:5.8) vs. 6.0 mL/kg/hr (4.2:7.6); p = 0.03. No significant differences in the proportion of patients who received vasoactive drugs intraoperatively (p = 0.56) was observed. In high-volume hepatobiliary surgical units, the addition of a fluid restrictive intraoperative cardiac output-guided algorithm, combined with a standard ERAS protocol did not significantly reduce length of hospital stay or fluid related complications. Our findings are hypothesis-generating and a larger confirmatory study may be justified.