Canadian Journal of Anesthesia-Journal Canadien D Anesthesie最新文献

Purpose: There is significant variability in the application of positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) in patients undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation. There are numerous studies assessing methods of determining optimal PEEP, but many methods, patient populations, and study settings lack high-quality evidence. Guidelines make no recommendations about the use of a specific method because of equipoise and lack of high-quality evidence. We conducted a scoping review to determine which methods of determining optimal PEEP have been studied and what gaps exist in the literature.

Source: We searched five databases for primary research reports studying methods of determining optimal PEEP among adults undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation. Data abstracted consisted of the titration method, setting, study design, population, and outcomes.

Principle findings: Two hundred and seventy-one studies with 17,205 patients met the inclusion criteria, including 73 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with 10,733 patients. We identified 22 methods. Eleven were studied with an RCT. Studies enrolled participants within an intensive care unit (ICU) (216/271, 80%) or operating room (55/271, 20%). Most ICU studies enrolled patients with acute respiratory distress syndrome (162/216, 75%). The three most studied methods were compliance (73 studies, 29 RCTs), imaging-based methods (65 studies, 11 RCTs), and use of PEEP-F_IO₂ tables (52 studies, 20 RCTs). Among ICU RCTs, the most common primary outcomes were mortality or oxygenation. Few RCTs assessed feasibility of different methods (n = 3). The strengths and limitations of each method are discussed.

Conclusion: Numerous methods of determining optimal PEEP have been evaluated; however, notable gaps remain in the evidence supporting their use. These include specific populations (normal lungs, patients weaning from mechanical ventilation) and using alternate outcomes (ventilator-free days and feasibility) and they present significant opportunities for future study.

Study registration: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/atzqc ); first posted, 19 July 2022.

Purpose: Family members of critically ill patients spend significant periods of time in the intensive care unit (ICU) and hospital environment. We aimed to identify what services, resources, and conveniences are important to adult ICU visitors.

Methods: We conducted a cross-sectional study including visitors in four adult ICUs in the province of Ontario, Canada. In the survey, we asked visitors to rate the importance of 58 items relating to the environment of patient rooms, the waiting room, and hospital facilities. For each item, we gave respondents five categorical response options, from "not at all important" to "extremely important." We used descriptive statistics to analyze the survey results.

Results: We analyzed 224 surveys completed by ICU visitors (60% female, ages 14-87 yr). Respondents were predominantly children (41%) or the spouse/partner (23%) of adult ICU patients. Nearly half (51%) lived more than 30 km from the hospital, and 30% spent at least one night in the ICU waiting room, with a median of 2 nights (range, 1-20) spent in hospital. Within the hospital environment, the top four items rated as "extremely important" or "very important" were directional signage (82%), convenient parking (80%), discounted parking (80%), and healthy and affordable food (78%). Regarding ICU waiting rooms, 24/7 visitation (92%), convenient restrooms (87%), a water dispenser (83%), and Wi-Fi (80%) were priorities. Features of ICU patient rooms identified as most important included seating for visitors (92%), access to natural light (78%), and access to fresh air (74%).

Conclusions: Intensive care unit visitors prioritized pragmatic environmental elements. Many of these modifications are simple and inexpensive but may significantly improve visitors' comfort and experience.

Purpose: Surgical patient optimization is a proactive approach to improve postoperative outcomes. This article reviews the development of the Surgical Patient Optimization Collaborative, an initiative supporting preoperative optimization in British Columbia, Canada.

Methods: The Collaborative facilitated optimization programs over two cohorts between 2019 and 2024. A "Change Package" offered screening, intervention, and measurement tools for the following 13 surgical risk factors: anemia, anxiety, body mass index (cohort 2 only), cardiac status, frailty, glycemic control, nutrition, sleep apnea, pain management, physical activity, smoking, social support, substance use, and venous thromboembolism (cohort 1 only). Monthly data submissions from participating sites included the number of patients undergoing optimization, National Surgical Quality Improvement Program-defined 30-day outcomes, length of stay, and patient-reported measures. Run charts were used to analyze the progress of optimization implementation across both cohorts.

Results: Fourteen sites participated in each cohort. In total, 9,686 patients were screened for optimization, with 7,100/7,505 (95%) patients receiving at least one optimization intervention. Improvement shifts in the number of patients screened were identified in the run charts across both cohorts. Most patients felt that their optimization improved their surgical experience and outcomes. Data for clinical outcomes were inconsistently reported from sites and precluded analyses. Barriers to implementation included project complexity and structural characteristics, and facilitators were knowledge and beliefs about the intervention, reflection, and evaluation.

Conclusion: Preoperative optimization programs were successfully implemented across multiple sites in British Columbia. High-quality clinical outcome analyses are still needed to determine the impact of preoperative optimization on postoperative outcomes. The insight gained from the Collaborative's implementation process may help inform future multicentre preoperative optimization efforts.

Purpose: The impact of postoperative dexmedetomidine sedation on outcomes following cardiac surgery remains controversial. We sought to compare postoperative sedation techniques with dexmedetomidine vs propofol infusions on postoperative recovery outcomes following cardiac surgery to assess whether dexmedetomidine is associated with longer time to achieve recovery milestones.

Methods: In this historical cohort study, we abstracted the electronic medical records of a convenience sample of cardiac surgery patients either receiving dexmedetomidine (0.5-1.5 µg·kg^-1·hr^-1) or propofol (5-80 µg·kg^-1·min^-1) infusions for postoperative sedation. The study period included time periods where the standard postoperative sedation practice included dexmedetomidine (March 2019-January 2022) or propofol (January 2022-June 2022) infusions. Measured outcomes for both groups included time to tracheal extubation and intensive care unit and hospital length of stay.

Results: Two thousand and sixty-five patients receiving dexmedetomidine and 510 patients receiving propofol were included. Postoperative sedation after cardiac surgery with dexmedetomidine was associated with a 1.8-hr longer time to tracheal extubation than propofol (98.3% confidence interval, 1.5 to 2.1; P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine administration for postoperative sedation in a convenience sample of over 2,000 cardiac surgery patients was associated with a longer time to tracheal extubation than propofol.

Purpose: The optimal method for monitoring intensive care unit (ICU) performance is unknown. We sought to compare process control charts using standardized mortality ratio (SMR), p-charts, and cumulative sum (CUSUM) charts for detecting increases in risk-adjusted mortality within ICUs.

Methods: Using data from 17 medical-surgical ICUs that included 29,592 patients in Ontario, Canada, we created risk-adjusted p-charts and SMRs on monthly intervals and CUSUM charts. We defined positive signals as any data point that was above the 3-sigma limit (approximating a 99% confidence interval [CI]) on a p-chart, any data point whose 95% CI did not include 1 for the SMR charts, and when a data point exceeded control limits for an odds ratio of 1.5 for CUSUM charts. We simulated increases in mortality of 10%, 30%, and 50% for each ICU to determine the sensitivity of each method. We calculated sensitivity as the number of positive signals divided by the number of ICUs (equal to number of simulated events).

Results: Cumulative sum charts generated 31 signals in 12 different ICUs, while p-charts and SMR agreed in 10 and 6 of these signals, respectively, followed by 21 signals from p-charts across 14 ICUs (agreement in 10 of these signals for both CUSUM and SMR) and 15 signals from SMR charts across eight ICUs (agreement from p-charts and CUSUM in 10 and six signals, respectively). The p-chart had a sensitivity of 88% (95% CI, 73 to 104) for a 50% simulated increase in ICU mortality followed by CUSUM at 71% (95% CI, 49 to 102) and SMR at 59% (95% CI, 35 to 82). Performance with lower simulated increases was poor for all three methods.

Conclusions: P-charts created with risk-adjusted mortality at monthly intervals are potentially useful tools for monitoring ICU performance. Future studies should consider usability testing with ICU leaders and application of these methods to additional clinical domains.

Purpose: We sought to assess the feasibility and estimate the effects on outcomes of a multimodal prehabilitation service implemented as an ancillary surgical service.

Methods: We conducted a pragmatic, nonrandomized feasibility study of surgical prehabilitation. Patients were eligible if they were ≥ 18 yr of age, fluent in English, and referred by a health professional for prehabilitation. Participants received an individualized program of preoperative exercise, nutrition, psychological, and/or smoking cessation support. The primary outcome was operational feasibility, including referral volume, enrolment rate, prehabilitation window, engagement, completion rate, and safety. Secondary outcomes included surgical complications, length of hospital stay, readmission, quality of life, and physical and mental health. Qualitative data related to intervention feasibility and acceptability. We compared intervention participants with patients who were referred for, but declined, prehabilitation.

Results: One hundred and sixteen patients were referred for prehabilitation. The mean age of referred patients was 71 yr and 55% were male. Over 90% of referrals were from surgical oncology, and the most common indication for referral was frailty (46%). Of the 116 referred patients, 83 consented to participate in the study. Patient-reported and objectively measured outcomes improved by a clinically important margin from baseline to presurgery, and returned to presurgery levels by 90 days postoperatively. Qualitative findings suggest that the prehabilitation intervention was well received.

Conclusion: Multimodal surgical prehabilitation is feasible as an integrated clinical service and may be effective for improving physical and psychological outcomes. Further evaluations of clinically integrated prehabilitation programs in Canada are needed to confirm these findings.