Precision medicine in anesthesiology

Derivation and Validation of Clinical Phenotypes of the Cardiopulmonary Bypass-Induced Inflammatory Response

BACKGROUND

Precision medicine aims to change treatment from a "one-size-fits-all" approach to customized therapies based on the individual patient. Applying a precision medicine approach to a heterogeneous condition, such as the cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB)-induced inflammatory response, first requires identification of homogeneous subgroups that correlate with biological markers and postoperative outcomes. As a first step, we derived clinical phenotypes of the CPB-induced inflammatory response by identifying patterns in perioperative clinical variables using machine learning and simulation tools. We then evaluated whether these phenotypes were associated with biological response variables and clinical outcomes.

METHODS

This single-center, retrospective cohort study used Cleveland Clinic registry data from patients undergoing cardiac surgery with CPB from January 2010 to March 2020. Biomarker data from a subgroup of patients enrolled in a clinical trial were also included. Patients undergoing emergent surgery, off-pump surgery, transplantation, descending thoracoabdominal aortic surgery, and planned ventricular assist device placement were excluded. Preoperative and intraoperative variables of patient baseline characteristics (demographics, comorbidities, and laboratory data) and perioperative data (procedural data, CPB duration, and hemodynamics) were analyzed to derive clinical phenotypes using K-means-based consensus clustering analysis. Proportion of ambiguously clustered was used to assess cluster size and optimal cluster numbers. After clusters were formed, we summarized perioperative profiles, inflammatory biomarkers (eg, interleukin [IL]-6 and IL-8), kidney biomarkers (eg, urine neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin [NGAL] and IL-18), and clinical outcomes (eg, mortality and hospital length of stay). Pairwise standardized difference was reported for all summarized variables.

RESULTS

Of 36,865 eligible cardiac surgery cases, 25,613 met inclusion criteria. Cluster analysis derived 3 clinical phenotypes: α, β, and γ. Phenotype α (n = 6157 [24%]) included older patients with more comorbidities, including heart and kidney failure. Phenotype β (n = 10,572 [41%]) patients were younger and mostly male. Phenotype γ (n = 8884 [35%]) patients were 58% female and had lower body mass index (BMI). Phenotype α patients had worse outcomes, including longer hospital length of stay (mean = 9 days for α versus 6 for both β [absolute standardized difference {ASD} = 1.15] and γ [ASD = 1.08]), more kidney failure, and higher mortality. Inflammatory biomarkers (IL-6 and IL-8) and kidney injury biomarkers (urine NGAL and IL-18) were higher with the α phenotype compared to β and γ immediately after surgery.

CONCLUSIONS

Deriving clinical phenotypes that correlate with response biomarkers and outcomes represents an initial step toward a precision medicine approach for the management of CPB-induced inflammatory response and lays the groundwork for future investigation, including an evaluation of the heterogeneity of treatment effect.

On the horns of a dilemma: choosing total intravenous anaesthesia or volatile anaesthesia

There are two established techniques of delivering general anaesthesia: propofol-based total intravenous anaesthesia (TIVA) and volatile agent-based inhaled anaesthesia. Both techniques are offered as standard of care and have an established safety track record lasting more than 30 years. However, it is not currently known whether the choice of anaesthetic technique results in a fundamentally different patient experience or affects early, intermediate-term, and longer-term postoperative outcomes. This editorial comments on a recently published study that suggests that inhaled volatile anaesthesia might be associated with fewer postoperative surgical complications than propofol-based TIVA for patients undergoing colorectal cancer surgery. We consider the strengths and limitations of the study, place these findings in the context of the broader evidence, and discuss how the current controversies regarding anaesthetic technique can be resolved, thereby helping to bring precision medicine into the modern practice of perioperative care.

Personalized Surgical Transfusion Risk Prediction Using Machine Learning to Guide Preoperative Type and Screen Orders

BACKGROUND

Accurate estimation of surgical transfusion risk is essential for efficient allocation of blood bank resources and for other aspects of anesthetic planning. This study hypothesized that a machine learning model incorporating both surgery- and patient-specific variables would outperform the traditional approach that uses only procedure-specific information, allowing for more efficient allocation of preoperative type and screen orders.

METHODS

The American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Participant Use File was used to train four machine learning models to predict the likelihood of red cell transfusion using surgery-specific and patient-specific variables. A baseline model using only procedure-specific information was created for comparison. The models were trained on surgical encounters that occurred at 722 hospitals in 2016 through 2018. The models were internally validated on surgical cases that occurred at 719 hospitals in 2019. Generalizability of the best-performing model was assessed by external validation on surgical cases occurring at a single institution in 2020.

RESULTS

Transfusion prevalence was 2.4% (73,313 of 3,049,617), 2.2% (23,205 of 1,076,441), and 6.7% (1,104 of 16,053) across the training, internal validation, and external validation cohorts, respectively. The gradient boosting machine outperformed the baseline model and was the best- performing model. At a fixed 96% sensitivity, this model had a positive predictive value of 0.06 and 0.21 and recommended type and screens for 36% and 30% of the patients in internal and external validation, respectively. By comparison, the baseline model at the same sensitivity had a positive predictive value of 0.04 and 0.144 and recommended type and screens for 57% and 45% of the patients in internal and external validation, respectively. The most important predictor variables were overall procedure-specific transfusion rate and preoperative hematocrit.

CONCLUSIONS

A personalized transfusion risk prediction model was created using both surgery- and patient-specific variables to guide preoperative type and screen orders and showed better performance compared to the traditional procedure-centric approach.

EDITOR’S PERSPECTIVE