Acta Anaesthesiologica Scandinavica最新文献

Background: Non-shockable in-hospital cardiac arrest (IHCA) is a condition with diverse aetiology, predictive factors, and outcome. This study aimed to compare IHCA with initial asystole or pulseless electrical activity (PEA), focusing specifically on their aetiologies and the significance of predictive factors.

Methods: Using the Swedish Registry of Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation, adult non-shockable IHCA cases from 2018 to 2022 (n = 5788) were analysed. Exposure was initial rhythm, while survival to hospital discharge was the primary outcome. A random forest model with 28 variables was used to generate permutation-based variable importance for outcome prediction.

Results: Overall, 60% of patients (n = 3486) were male and the median age was 75 years (IQR 67-81). The most frequent arrest location (46%) was on general wards. Comorbidities were present in 79% of cases and the most prevalent comorbidity was heart failure (33%). Initial rhythm was PEA in 47% (n = 2702) of patients, and asystole in 53% (n = 3086). The most frequent aetiologies in both PEA and asystole were cardiac ischemia (24% vs. 19%, absolute difference [AD]: 5.4%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 3.0% to 7.7%), and respiratory failure (14% vs. 13%, no significant difference). Survival was higher in asystole (24%) than in PEA (17%) (AD: 7.3%; 95% CI 5.2% to 9.4%). Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) durations were longer in PEA, 18 vs 15 min (AD 4.9 min, 95% CI 4.0-5.9 min). The duration of CPR was the single most important predictor of survival across all subgroup and sensitivity analyses. Aetiology ranked as the second most important predictor in most analyses, except in the asystole subgroup where responsiveness at cardiac arrest team arrival took precedence.

Conclusions: In this nationwide registry study of non-shockable IHCA comparing asystole to PEA, cardiac ischemia and respiratory failure were the predominant aetiologies. Duration of CPR was the most important predictor of survival, followed by aetiology. Asystole was associated with higher survival compared to PEA, possibly due to shorter CPR durations and a larger proportion of reversible aetiologies.

Background: Pre-operative iron deficiency anaemia (IDA) is common in patients undergoing elective major abdominal surgery and is associated with increased risk of perioperative complications. However, widespread implementation of pre-operative anaemia management is lacking. Guidelines recommend investigation of anaemia preferably 4-6 weeks before surgery to allow time for correction. However, this is not always feasible in abdominal cancer surgery with short time to surgery and may be influenced by concomitant chemotherapy. The objective of this study was to assess the efficacy of implementing a pre-operative screening and treatment programme for IDA in elective abdominal cancer surgery patients, with short duration to surgery and concomitant use of chemotherapy.

Methods: All patients scheduled for elective abdominal cancer surgery with IDA were included. Anaemia was defined according to the World Health Organization-criteria and iron deficiency as a transferrin saturation <0.20. The primary outcome was change in haemoglobin (Hb) between iron infusion and surgery in patients receiving pre-operative intravenous iron infusion.

Results: Of 178 diagnosed IDA patients 134 (75%) received intravenous iron, 103 pre-operatively (58%) at median day 17 (interquartile range: 9-27) before surgery while 31 (17%) received post-operative intravenous iron treatment. The pre-operative Hb increased 0.89 g/dL (95% CI: 0.64-1.13, p < .001) compared to a decrease of 0.4 g/dL (95% CI: 0.19-0.58, p < .001) in 75 patients not treated pre-operatively. Patients diagnosed with severe anaemia had the largest pre-operative Hb increase. Iron infusion >2 weeks pre-operatively resulted in a greater Hb increment of 1.13 g/dL (95% CI: 0.81-1.45) compared to iron infusion ≤2 weeks before surgery 0.48 g/dL (95% CI: 0.16-0.81). Hb increased by 0.64 g/dL (95% CI 0.19-1.21) in patients receiving chemotherapy ≤31 days prior to surgery.

Conclusion: In patients scheduled for abdominal cancer surgery, including in patients with concomitant chemotherapy, pre-operative IDA management is feasible and results in a significant pre-operative Hb increase compared to patients not treated. On the day of surgery 25% patients treated pre-operatively were no longer anaemic.

Background: Nosocomial infections contribute significantly to mortality and morbidity in burn patients. Selective decontamination of the digestive tract is an infection prevention measure that has been shown to improve survival in mechanically ventilated intensive care unit (ICU) patients. It has been hypothesized that burn patients may benefit from selective decontamination of the digestive tract.

Methods/design: We will conduct a systematic review with meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis of randomized clinical trials (RCTs) assessing the patient-important effects of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in burn patients, as compared with placebo or no intervention/standard of care. The primary outcome will be 30-day mortality. Secondary outcomes include serious adverse events, anti-microbial resistance, pneumonia, blood stream infections, ICU- and hospital-free days and 90-day mortality. We will search the following databases: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, BIOSIS, Web of Science and CINAHL and follow the recommendations provided by the Cochrane Collaboration and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses guidelines. The certainty of evidence will be assessed according to the GRADE approach: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation.

Discussion: There is clinical equipoise about the use of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in burn patients. In the outlined systematic review and meta-analysis, we will assess the desirable and undesirable effects of selective decontamination of the digestive tract in burn patients.

Introduction: This study aimed to identify the blood transfusion rates for several surgical procedures in a single district general hospital and assess the value of preoperative blood type and antibody screen across all relevant surgical procedures. We hypothesized that there was an overuse of blood type and antibody screen in our general surgical population.

Methods: A database containing transfusions of patients who underwent elective- or emergency surgery from January 2015 to September 2020 was matched to a database of preoperative type-and-screen performed in the same period. Registered procedures where the incidence of transfusion is deemed low were excluded. The included procedures were assessed for the intraoperative usefulness of type- and-screen testing.

Results: In the included 68.892 surgeries, 36.134 (52.0%) blood samples were preoperatively tested for the blood type and screened for antibodies according to the hospital's routine. Overall 3.517 (5.1%) of surgeries had patients that received a transfusion in the perioperative period and 1.2% (n = 850) during the surgery.

Conclusion: Most surgeries had a very low incidence of transfusion. Despite this, type-and-screen tests were widely used. This suggests the need for a more focused pre-surgery type-and-screen approach, and a more data driven approach to local guidelines in collaboration with surgical specialties.

Background: Delirium is an acute and fluctuating disturbance in attention, awareness, and cognition, commonly observed in hospital settings, particularly among older adults, critically ill and surgical patients. Delirium poses significant challenges in patient care, leading to increased morbidity, mortality, prolonged hospital stays, and functional decline.

Aim: The aim of this review is to map existing evidence on delirium diagnostic tools suitable for use in patients treated surgically due to hip fracture, to inform clinical practice and enhance patient care protocols in the postoperative setting.

Method: We will conduct a scoping review on delirium diagnostic tools used for adult patients in the postoperative setting according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR). Eligibility criteria encompass all languages, publications dates, and study designs, with exception of case-reports. We will systematically search multiple databases and include unpublished trials, ensuring a comprehensive review based on a predefined protocol.

Results: Results will be presented descriptively, with supplementary tables and graphs. Studies will be grouped by design, surgical specialties, and diagnostic tools to identify potential variations.

Conclusion: This scoping review will provide an overview of existing delirium diagnostic tools used in the postoperative setting and highlight knowledge-gaps to support future research. Due to the large number of patients affected by postoperative delirium, evidence mapping is much needed to facilitate evidence-based practice.

Background: Prolonging effects of adjuncts to local anaesthetics in peripheral nerve blocks have been demonstrated in randomised clinical trials. The chosen primary outcome and anticipated effect size have major impact on the clinical relevance of results in these trials. This scoping review aims to provide an overview of frequently used outcomes and anticipated effect sizes in randomised trials on peripheral nerve block adjuncts.

Methods: For our scoping review, we searched MEDLINE, Embase and CENTRAL for trials assessing effects of adjuncts for peripheral nerve blocks published in 10 major anaesthesia journals. We included randomised clinical trials assessing adjuncts for single-shot ultrasound-guided peripheral nerve blocks, regardless of the type of interventional adjunct and control group, local anaesthetic used and anatomical localization. Our primary outcome was the choice of primary outcomes and corresponding anticipated effect size used for sample size estimation. Secondary outcomes were assessor of primary outcomes, the reporting of sample size calculations and statistically significant and non-significant results related to the anticipated effect sizes.

Results: Of 11,854 screened trials, we included 59. The most frequent primary outcome was duration of analgesia (35/59 trials, 59%) with absolute and relative median (interquartile range) anticipated effect sizes for adjunct versus placebo/no adjunct: 240 min (180-318) and 30% (25-40) and for adjunct versus active comparator: 210 min (180-308) and 17% (15-28). Adequate sample size calculations were reported in 78% of trials. Statistically significant results were reported for primary outcomes in 45/59 trials (76%), of which 22% did not reach the anticipated effect size.

Conclusion: The reported outcomes and associated anticipated effect sizes can be used in future trials on adjuncts for peripheral nerve blocks to increase methodological homogeneity.

Background: The average treatment effect (ATE) reported by most randomised clinical trials provides estimates of treatment effects for the theoretical, non-existent average patient. However, ATE may not accurately reflect the outcomes for all subsets of the trial population; some individuals may benefit from the intervention, while others experience worse outcomes or no effect at all. Heterogeneity of treatment effect (HTE) is the non-random and explainable variation in the magnitude or direction of a treatment effect among individuals within a population. Predictive approaches to HTE seek to provide estimates of which treatment of choice is better suited for the individual patient, using regression and/or machine learning techniques. This scoping review aims to investigate the extent to which such predictive approaches to HTE are applied to data from trials on sepsis or septic shock as well as the results of these analyses.

Methods: The planned review will be conducted in accordance with the PRISMA extension for scoping reviews. We will search Medline, EMBASE, Central, Cinahl and Google Scholar for studies on sepsis or septic shock in which HTE was analysed using predictive approaches. We plan to chart data regarding trial characteristics, patient demographics, disease severity, interventions, outcomes of interest and ATEs, type of predictive approach for the HTE analysis, results from HTE analysis and whether HTE analysis would change an ATE-based trial conclusion.

Results: Studies included in the scoping review will be presented as narrative summaries, supplemented with descriptive statistics of quantitative data.

Conclusion: The planned scoping review will systematically investigate, summarise and delineate the existing evidence of analysis of HTE in trials on sepsis or septic shock patients as well as their findings, when performed using predictive approaches.

Background: Perioperative hypotension is common and associated with adverse patient outcomes. Vasoactive agents are often used to manage hypotension, but the ideal drug, dose and duration of treatment has not been established. With this scoping review, we aim to provide an overview of the current body of evidence regarding the vasoactive agents used to treat perioperative hypotension in non-cardiac surgery.

Methods: We included all studies describing the use of vasoactive agents for the treatment of perioperative hypotension in non-cardiac surgery. We excluded literature reviews, case studies, and studies on animals and healthy subjects. We posed the following research questions: (1) in which surgical populations have vasoactive agents been studied? (2) which agents have been studied? (3) what doses have been assessed? (4) what is the duration of treatment? and (5) which desirable and undesirable outcomes have been assessed?

Results: We included 124 studies representing 10 surgical specialties. Eighteen different agents were evaluated, predominantly phenylephrine, ephedrine, and noradrenaline. The agents were administered through six different routes, and numerous comparisons between agents, dosages and routes were included. Then, 88 distinct outcome measures were assessed, of which 54 were judged to be non-patient-centred.

Conclusions: We found that studies concerning vasoactive agents for the treatment of perioperative hypotension varied considerably in all aspects. Populations were heterogeneous, interventions and exposures included multiple agents compared against themselves, each other, fluids or placebo, and studies reported primarily non-patient-centred outcomes.

Background: Hypernatremia is a common electrolyte disturbance in hospitalised patients associated with adverse outcomes. The aetiology is diverse but often related to fluid therapy and sodium-containing medicaments. We aim to outline the evidence base on hypernatremia in adult hospitalised patients.

Methods: We will conduct a scoping review and adhere to the preferred reporting items for systematic and meta-analysis extension for scoping reviews (PRISMA-ScR). We will systematically search the Cochrane Library, Medline, Pubmed, and Embase from inception with no limitations to language, and include all study designs. We will use the population, exposure, comparator, and outcome-based approach to define eligibility criteria. The population: adult hospitalised patients; exposure: hypernatremia; comparator: no hypernatremia or all types of treatments of hypernatremia; and outcomes: all reported outcomes. Two authors will independently screen and select studies followed by full-text assessment and data extraction in duplicate. All outcome measures will be reported, and descriptive analyses will be performed. The certainty of evidence will be assessed according to an adapted grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation (GRADE) approach.

Discussion: This scoping review will provide an overview of the current evidence regarding the incidence of hypernatremia, treatment modalities, and outcomes reported for hospitalised adult patients with hypernatremia.

Background: An Utstein style meeting of key stakeholders from the existing collaboration surrounding post-graduate training was arranged to set a direction for continuing professional development (CPD) of anesthesiologists in Denmark. A 2-day meeting was planned to guide discussions about competencies in anesthesiology, facilitate the development of a blueprint for a portfolio-based CPD program and provide examples of how a portfolio can be used in practice.

Methods: The meeting agenda was based on an adaptation of Kern's six-step approach to curriculum development. Twenty-four participants from the university hospitals in Denmark were invited. Prior to the meeting participants were informed of the objectives and the Utstein style process.

Results: Participants acknowledged a need for a more structured approach to CPD, preferably within the current organizational set up at the departmental level, and with a portfolio-based, individualized curriculum. It was recognized that CPD should contain an array of possibilities to accommodate needs and wants of both the individual and the department. It was emphasized that, while anesthesiologists are used to give feedback to trainees, many are less familiar in providing the same to peers, and psychological safety was identified as a prerequisite to support a culture where specialists can reflect openly on each other's performance.

Conclusion: The results provide an insight into the attitudes, opportunities, and challenges of anesthesiologists in relation to continuing professional development in Denmark. Generally, participant suggestions are in line with the shift in medical education toward workplace-based learning, feedback and lifelong learning.