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

Purpose: Physical rehabilitation (PR) in the intensive care unit (ICU) may improve outcomes for survivors but clinical trial results have been discordant. We hypothesized that discordant results may reflect treatment heterogeneity received by "usual care" comparator groups in PR studies. Usual-care PR is typically underspecified, which is a barrier to comparing results across treatment studies. The primary objective of the present study was to describe the usual-care PR received by critically ill patients enrolled in the Canadian multicentre Critical Care Cycling to Improve Lower Extremity Strength (CYCLE) pilot randomized controlled trial (RCT) of PR. Other objectives were to help contextualize current research and provide data for international comparison.

Methods: In this secondary analysis of the CYCLE pilot RCT, patients were randomized to in-bed cycling and usual-care PR or usual-care PR alone. Physiotherapists documented usual-care PR including therapy received, type of activity, duration, adverse events and consequences, reasons for no PR, and concurrent relevant medical interventions. We characterized usual care using descriptive statistics at the cohort and patient levels.

Results: Across seven Canadian centres, 30 patients were randomized to usual-care PR. The median [interquartile range (IQR)] ICU stay was 10 [9-24] days and patients received PR on a median [IQR] of 5 [3-9] days for 23 [17-30] min per day. Eighteen patients (60%) stood, marched, or walked during usual care. Transient adverse events occurred in three patients on 1.5% (3/198) of days and none prompted session termination.

Conclusions: In the usual-care arm of the CYCLE pilot RCT, PR was delivered on half of ICU days and over half of patients stood, marched, or walked. Adverse events during usual-care PR were uncommon.

Study registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02377830 ); first posted 4 March 2015.

Purpose: To determine the acceptability of the ClearSight™ system (Edwards Lifesciences Corp., Irvine, CA, USA) for continuous blood pressure monitoring during elective cardiac surgery compared with arterial catheterization.

Methods: We enrolled 30 patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery in a prospective observational study. Blood pressure measurements were recorded every 10 sec intraoperatively. We determined agreement based on the Association for the Advancement of Medical Instrumentation (AAMI) recommendations. Statistical analysis included fixed bias (difference of measurements between methods), percentage error (accuracy between ClearSight measurement and expected measurement from arterial line), and interchangeability (ability to substitute ClearSight monitor without effecting overall outcome of analysis). We used a paired samples t test to compare the time required for placing each monitor.

Results: We found fixed bias in the differences between the ClearSight monitor and invasive arterial blood pressure measurement in systolic blood pressure (SBP; mean difference, 8.7; P < 0.001) and diastolic blood pressure (DBP; mean difference, -2.2; P < 0.001), but not in mean arterial pressure (MAP; mean difference, -0.5; P < 0.001). Bland-Altman plots showed that the means of the limits of agreement were greater than 5 mm Hg for SBP, DBP, and MAP. The percentage errors for SBP, DBP, and MAP were lower than the cutoff we calculated from the invasive arterial blood pressure measurements. Average interchangeability rates were 38% for SBP, 50% for DBP, and 50% for MAP. Placement of the ClearSight finger cuff was significantly faster compared with arterial catheterization (mean [standard deviation], 1.7 [0.6] min vs 5.6 [4.1] min; P < 0.001).

Conclusions: In this prospective observational study, we did not find the ClearSight system to be an acceptable substitute for invasive arterial blood pressure measurement in elective cardiac surgery patients according to AAMI guidelines. Nevertheless, based on statistical standards, there is evidence to suggest otherwise.

Study registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT05825937 ); first submitted 11 April 2023.

Background: Improving survivorship for patients with cancer and frailty is a priority. We aimed to estimate whether exercise prehabilitation improves disease-free survival and return to intended oncologic treatment for older adults with frailty undergoing cancer surgery.

Methods: We conducted a secondary analysis of the oncologic outcomes of a randomized trial of patients ≥ 60 yr of age with frailty undergoing elective cancer surgery. Participants were randomized either to a supported, home-based exercise program plus nutritional guidance or to usual care. Outcomes for this analysis were one-year disease-free survival and return to intended oncologic treatment. We estimated complier average causal effects to account for intervention adherence.

Results: We randomized 204 participants (102 per arm); 182 were included in our modified intention-to-treat population and, of these participants, 171/182 (94%) had complete one-year follow up. In the prehabilitation group, 18/94 (11%) died or experienced cancer recurrence, compared with 19/88 (11%) in the control group (hazard ratio [HR], 1.25; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.66 to 2.34; P = 0.49). Return to intended oncologic treatment occurred in 24/94 (29%) patients the prehabilitation group vs 20/88 (23%) in the usual care group (HR, 1.53; 95% CI, 0.84 to 2.77; P = 0.16). Complier average causal effects directionally diverged for disease-free survival (HR, 0.91; 95% CI, 0.20 to 4.08; P = 0.90) and increased the point estimate for return to treatment (HR, 2.04; 95% CI, 0.52 to 7.97; P = 0.30), but in both cases the CIs included 1.

Conclusions: Randomization to home-based exercise prehabilitation did not lead to significantly better disease-free survival or earlier return to intended oncologic treatment in older adults with frailty undergoing cancer surgery. Our results could inform future trials powered for more plausible effect sizes, especially for the return to intended oncologic treatment outcome.

Study registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ( NCT02934230 ); first submitted 22 August 2016.

Purpose: The COVID-19 pandemic has resulted in increased job vacancies in Canadian intensive care units (ICUs). We aimed to identify, explore, and describe factors contributing to the decisions of health care workers to leave, or strongly consider leaving their ICU positions during the peri-COVID-19 pandemic era.

Methods: We undertook a qualitative descriptive study between June and August 2022. We conducted semistructured interviews with 19 registered nurses and one respiratory therapist from a single ICU in Alberta, Canada who had left, or had strongly considered leaving their ICU position since the beginning of the pandemic. We used Braun and Clarke's thematic analysis to generate themes from these interviews.

Results: We identified five themes to describe the factors that contributed to participants' decisions to leave, or strongly consider leaving, their ICU positions. These were: 1) toxic workplace, 2) inadequate staffing, 3) distress from providing nonbeneficial care, 4) caring for patients with COVID-19 and their families, and 5) paradoxical responses to COVID-19 outside of the ICU. Some of these factors existed before the pandemic and were exacerbated by it, while others were novel to COVID-19.

Conclusions: Participants described as key factors in their decision or desire to leave their ICU positions the impacts of the COVID-19 pandemic on workplace culture, staffing, and patient interactions, as well as the discourse surrounding COVID-19 outside of work. Strategies that target workplace culture and ensure adequate staffing should be prioritized to promote staff retention following the pandemic.