Simplified perfusion strategy for removing retroperitoneal tumors with extensive cavoatrial involvement

ObjectivesOur objective was to compare effectiveness and safety of a simplified approach for removing retroperitoneal tumors with extensive cavoatrial involvement using beating-heart cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) versus hypothermic circulatory arrest (HCA).MethodsFrom January 1984 to January 2009, 144 patients underwent radical nephrectomy and inferior vena caval tumor thrombectomy, 56 (39%) using CPB and 88 (61%) HCA. Compared with HCA patients, CPB patients were of similar age (62 ± 10 vs 60 ± 11 years, P = .4) and gender (39% vs 39% female, P > .9), with similar stroke history (3.6% vs 2.3%, P =.6), but had less pulmonary disease (18% vs 33%, P = .06) and lower preoperative creatinine concentration (1.3 ± 0.72 vs 1.5 ± 0.86 mg · dL−1, P = .04).ResultsComplete tumor removal was achieved in all patients by both strategies. Compared with HCA procedures, CPB times were shorter (50 ± 33 vs 94 ± 40 minutes, P < .0001). CPB patients required fewer blood transfusions (36% no transfusion vs 17%, and 45% ≥4 units vs 72%; P = .003) and had no statistical difference in morbidity, including reoperation for bleeding (3.8% vs 8.0%, P = .3), renal failure requiring dialysis (3.6% vs 10%, P = .14), respiratory insufficiency (21% vs 19%, P = .8), sepsis (5.4% vs 10%, P = .3), stroke (5.4% vs 1.1%, P = .13), and in-hospital mortality (7.1% vs 13%, P = .3). Ten-year survival (22% vs 22%, P > .9) and freedom from cancer recurrence (24% vs 28%, P = .8) were similar.ConclusionsRadical nephrectomy and removal of inferior vena caval tumor–thrombus can be simply, effectively, and safely performed with beating-heart CPB, avoiding the deleterious effects of HCA and providing clinical benefit without increasing morbidity or mortality.