Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica最新文献

Introduction: Hyperglycaemia is common in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Glycaemic monitoring and effective glycaemic control with insulin are crucial in the ICU to improve patient outcomes. However, glycaemic control and insulin use vary between ICU patients and hypo- and hyperglycaemia occurs. Therefore, we aim to provide contemporary data on glycaemic control and management, and associated outcomes, in adult ICU patients. We hypothesise that the occurrence of hypoglycaemia in acutely admitted ICU patients is lower than that of hyperglycaemia.

Methods: We will conduct a bi-centre cohort study of 300 acutely admitted adult ICU patients. Routine data will be collected retrospectively at baseline (ICU admission) and daily during ICU stay up to a maximum of 30 days. The primary outcome will be the number of patients with hypoglycaemia during their ICU stay. Secondary outcomes will be occurrence of severe hypoglycaemia, occurrence of hyperglycaemia, time below blood glucose target range, time above target range, all-cause mortality at Day 30, number of days alive without life support at Day 30 and number of days alive and out of hospital at Day 30. Process outcomes include the number of in-ICU days, glucose measurements (number of measurements and method) and use of insulin (including route of administration and dosage). All statistical analyses will be descriptive.

Conclusions: This cohort study will provide a contemporary overview of glucose evaluation and management practices in adult ICU patients and, thus, highlight potential areas for improvement through future clinical trials in this area.

Background: Enteral nutrition may affect risks of gastrointestinal bleeding, pneumonia and mortality in critically ill patients and may also modify the effects of pharmacological stress ulcer prophylaxis. We undertook post hoc analyses of the stress ulcer prophylaxis in the intensive care unit trial to assess for any associations and interactions between enteral nutrition and pantoprazole.

Methods: Extended Cox models with time-varying co-variates and competing events were used to assess potential associations, adjusted for baseline severity of illness. Potential interactions between daily enteral nutrition and allocation to pantoprazole on outcomes were similarly assessed.

Results: Enteral nutrition was associated with lower risk of clinically important gastrointestinal bleeding (cause-specific hazard ratio [HR]: 0.29, 95% confidence interval: [CI] 0.19-0.44, p < .001), higher risk of pneumonia (HR: 1.44, 95% CI: 1.14-1.82, p = .003), and lower risk of all-cause mortality (HR: 0.22, 95% CI: 0.18-0.27, p < .001). Enteral nutrition with allocation to pantoprazole was associated with a lower risk of mortality (HR: 0.27, 95% CI: 0.21-0.35, p < .001), similar to enteral nutrition with allocation to placebo (HR: 0.17, 95% CI: 0.13-0.23, p < .001). Allocation to pantoprazole with no enteral nutrition had little effect on mortality (HR: 0.83, 95% CI: 0.63-1.09, p = .179), whilst allocation to pantoprazole and receipt of enteral nutrition was mostly compatible with increased all-cause mortality (HR: 1.27, 95% CI: 0.99-1.64, p = .061). The test of interaction between enteral nutrition and pantoprazole treatment allocation for all-cause mortality was statistically significant (p = .024).

Conclusions: Enteral nutrition was associated with an increased risk of pneumonia and a reduced risk of gastrointestinal bleeding. The interaction between pantoprazole and enteral nutrition suggesting an increased risk of mortality requires further study.

Background: The Clinical Practice Committee of the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine endorses the clinical practice guideline "ESAIC focused guideline for the use of cardiac biomarkers in perioperative risk evaluation." The guideline can provide guidance to Nordic anaesthesiologists on the perioperative use of cardiac biomarkers in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.

Background: The Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach is used to assess the certainty of evidence in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

Methods: We describe how the GRADE approach is used in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, including key points and examples. This overview is aimed at clinicians and researchers who are, or plan to be, involved in the development or assessment of systematic reviews with meta-analyses using GRADE.

Results: We outline how the certainty of evidence is assessed, how the evidence is summarized using GRADE evidence profiles or summary of findings tables, how the results are communicated, and we discuss challenges, advantages, and disadvantages with using GRADE.

Conclusions: This overview aims to provide an overview of how GRADE is used in systematic reviews and meta-analyses, and may be used by systematic review developers, methodologists, and evidence end-users.

Background: Remifentanil may have a dose-dependent haemodynamic effect during the induction of general anaesthesia combined with propofol. Our objective was to investigate whether systolic arterial blood pressure (SAP) was reduced to a greater extent when the remifentanil dose was increased.

Methods: This randomised, double-blind, dose-controlled study was conducted at the Day Surgery Unit of Haugesund Hospital, Norway. Ninety-nine healthy women scheduled for gynaecological surgery were randomly allocated in a 1:1:1 ratio to receive remifentanil induction with a low, medium or high dose corresponding to maximum effect-site concentrations (Ce) of 2, 4 and 8 ng/mL. The induction dose of propofol was 1.8 mg/kg, with a Ce of 2.9 μg/mL. Anaesthesia was induced using target-controlled infusion. After 150 s of sedation, a bolus of remifentanil and propofol was administered. Baseline was defined as 55-5 s before the bolus dose, and the total observation time was 450 s. We used beat-to-beat haemodynamic monitoring with LiDCOplus. The primary outcome variable was the maximum decrease in SAP within 5 min after bolus administration of remifentanil and propofol. Absolute and relative changes from baseline to minimal values and the area under the curve (AUC) were used as effect measures. Comparisons of groups were performed using analysis of variance (ANOVA).

Results: Median remifentanil doses were 0.75, 1.5 and 3.0 μg/kg in the low-, medium- and high-dose groups, respectively. The absolute changes (mean ± standard deviation) in SAP in the low-, medium- and high-dose groups of remifentanil were -39 ± 9.6 versus -43 ± 9.1, and -41 ± 10 mmHg, respectively. No difference (95% confidence interval) in the absolute change in SAP was observed between the groups (ANOVA, p = .29); medium versus low dose 3.7 (-2.0, 9.4) mmHg, and high versus medium dose -2.2 (-8.0; 3.5) mmHg. The relative changes from baseline to minimum SAP values were -30% versus -32% versus -32% (p = .52). The between-group differences in the AUC were not statistically significant. Relative changes in heart rate (-20% vs. -21% vs. -21%), stroke volume (-19% vs. -16% vs. -16%), cardiac output (-32% vs. -32% vs. -32%), systemic vascular resistance (-24% vs. -27% vs. -28%), and AUC were not statistically significant.

Conclusion: This trial demonstrated major haemodynamic changes during the induction of anaesthesia with remifentanil and propofol. However, we did not observe any statistically significant differences between low, medium or high doses of remifentanil when using continuous invasive high-accuracy beat-to-beat monitoring.

Background: Pregnant patients with obesity may have compromised noninvasive blood pressure (NIBP) measurement. We assessed the accuracy and trending ability of the ClearSight™ finger cuff (FC) with invasive arterial monitoring (INV) and arm NIBP, in obese patients having cesarean delivery.

Methods: Participants were aged ≥18 years, ≥34 weeks gestation, and body mass index (BMI) ≥ 40 kg m^-2. FC, INV, and NIBP measurements were obtained across 5-min intervals. The primary outcome was agreement of FC measurements with those of the reference standard INV, using modified Bland-Altman plots. Secondary outcomes included comparisons between FC and NIBP and NIBP versus INV, with four-quadrant plots performed to report discordance rates and evaluate trending ability.

Results: Twenty-three participants had a median (IQR) BMI of 45 kg m^-2 (44-48). When comparing FC and INV the mean bias (SD, 95% limits of agreement) for systolic blood pressure (SBP) was 16 mmHg (17, -17.3 to 49.3 mmHg), for diastolic blood pressure (DBP) -0.2 mmHg (10.5, -20.7 to 20.3), and for mean arterial pressure (MAP) 5.2 mmHg (11.1, -16.6 to 27.0 mmHg). Discordance occurred in 54 (26%) pairs for SBP, 41 (23%) for DBP, and 41 (21.7%) for MAP. Error grid analysis showed 92.1% of SBP readings in Zone A (no-risk zone). When comparing NIBP and INV, the mean bias (95% limits of agreement) for SBP was 13.0 mmHg (16.7, -19.7 to 29.3), for DBP 5.9 mmHg (11.9, -17.4 to 42.0), and for MAP 8.2 mmHg (11.9, -15.2 to 31.6). Discordance occurred in SBP (84 of 209, 40.2%), DBP (74 of 187, 39.6%), and MAP (63 of 191, 33.0%).

Conclusions: The FC and NIBP techniques were not adequately in agreement with INV. Trending capability was better for FC than NIBP. Clinically important differences may occur in the setting of the perfusion-dependent fetus.