Journal of Anesthesia, Analgesia and Critical Care (Online)最新文献

Background: In the last decades, several adjunctive treatments have been proposed to reduce mortality in septic shock patients. Unfortunately, mortality due to sepsis and septic shock remains elevated and NO trials evaluating adjunctive therapies were able to demonstrate any clear benefit. In light of the lack of evidence and conflicting results from previous studies, in this multidisciplinary consensus, the authors considered the rational, recent investigations and potential clinical benefits of targeted adjunctive therapies.

Methods: A panel of multidisciplinary experts defined clinical phenotypes, treatments and outcomes of greater interest in the field of adjunctive therapies for sepsis and septic shock. After an extensive systematic literature review, the appropriateness of each treatment for each clinical phenotype was determined using the modified RAND/UCLA appropriateness method.

Results: The consensus identified two distinct clinical phenotypes: patients with overwhelming shock and patients with immune paralysis. Six different adjunctive treatments were considered the most frequently used and promising: (i) corticosteroids, (ii) blood purification, (iii) immunoglobulins, (iv) granulocyte/monocyte colony-stimulating factor and (v) specific immune therapy (i.e. interferon-gamma, IL7 and AntiPD1). Agreement was achieved in 70% of the 25 clinical questions.

Conclusions: Although clinical evidence is lacking, adjunctive therapies are often employed in the treatment of sepsis. To address this gap in knowledge, a panel of national experts has provided a structured consensus on the appropriate use of these treatments in clinical practice.

Background: Preliminary studies suggest that moderate ARDS and acute renal failure might benefit from extracorporeal CO₂ removal (ECCO₂R) coupled with CRRT. However, evidence is limited and potential for this coupled treatment may need to be explored. The aim of the present study was to evaluate whether a protective driving pressure was obtained applying low-flow ECCO_2-R plus CRRT in patients affected by moderate ARDS with COVID-19 compared to an historical group without COVID-19.

Methods: A case-control study has been conducted comparing a group of consecutive moderate ARDS patients presenting AKI and affected by COVID-19, who needed low-flow ECCO_2-R plus CRRT to achieve an ultra-protective ventilatory strategy, with historical group without COVID-19 that matched for clinical presentation and underwent the same ultra-protective treatment. V_T was set at 6 mL/kg predicted body weight then ECCO₂R was assessed to facilitate ultra-protective low V_T ventilation to preserve safe Pplat and low driving pressure.

Results: ECCO₂R+CRRT reduced the driving pressure from 17 (14-18) to 11.5 (10-15) cmH₂O (p<0.0004) in the fourteen ARDS patients by decreasing V_T from 6.7 ml/kg PBW (6.1-6.9) to 5.1 (4.2-5.6) after 1 hour (p <0.0001). In the ARDS patients with COVID-19, the driving pressure reduction was more effective from baseline 18 (14-24) cmH₂O to 11 (10-15) cmH₂O (p<0.004), compared to the control group from 15 (13-17) to 12(10-16) cmH₂O (p< 0.03), after one hour. ECCO₂R+CRRT did not affected 28 days mortality in the two groups, while we observed a shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (19 {7-29} vs 24 {22-38} days; p=0.24) and ICU length of stay (19 {7-29} vs 24 {22-78} days; p=0.25) in moderate ARDS patients with COVID-19 compared to control group.

Conclusions: In moderate ARDS patients with or without COVID-19 disease, ECCO₂R+CRRT may be and effective supportive treatment to reach protective values of driving pressure unless severe oxygenation defects arise requiring ECMO therapy initiation.

Background: Propofol has been the gold standard for anesthesia induction and maintenance due to its rapid onset and favorable pharmacokinetic properties. However, the search for alternative agents with improved safety and efficacy has led to the emergence of ciprofol (HSK3486), a structural analog of propofol. This systematic review and meta-analysis aim to comprehensively assess the safety and efficacy of ciprofol compared to propofol for anesthesia induction and maintenance in adult patients undergoing surgical procedures.

Methods: This study included only double-arm RCTs in which participants were aged eighteen or older undergoing surgery. For the statistical analysis of the extracted data, we employed RevMan 5.4.1.

Results: Ciprofol demonstrated a promising trend of higher anesthesiologists' satisfaction during the induction phase (MD 0.14, 95%, CI - 0.28 to 0.56, p = 0.51), whereas Propofol was favored during maintenance. Propofol also exhibited advantages with a shorter time to successful anesthesia induction (MD 0.08 min, 95% CI 0.00 to 0.15, p = 0.04), and quicker attainment of full alertness (MD 0.11 min, 95% CI - 1.29 to 1.52, p = 0.87), suggesting its efficiency in clinical practice. Importantly, there were no significant disparities in the success rate of anesthesia.

Conclusion: Both ciprofol and propofol demonstrate comparable efficacy and safety for anesthesia induction and maintenance in adult patients undergoing surgery. While propofol provides a faster onset of induction, ciprofol exhibits advantages in terms of pain management. Clinicians should consider these findings when selecting anesthetic agents, and tailoring choices to individual patient needs and clinical scenarios.

Background: Propofol is the most commonly used hypnotic agent used during sedation and general anesthesia (GA) practice, offering faster recovery compared to benzodiazepines. However, cardiovascular impact of propofol and pain at injection are commonly encountered side effects. Ciprofol is a novel disubstituted phenol derivative, and there is growing evidence regarding its clinical use.

Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search (updated on 23 July 2023) to evaluate safety and efficacy of ciprofol in comparison to propofol in patients undergoing procedures under sedation or GA. We focused on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only, extrapolating data on onset and offset, and on the side effects and the pain at injection.

Results: The search revealed 14 RCTs, all conducted in China. Eight RCTs studied patients undergoing sedation, and six focused on GA. Bolus of ciprofol for sedation or induction of GA varied from 0.2 to 0.5 mg/kg. In four studies using ciprofol for maintenance of GA, it was 0.8-2.4 mg/kg/h. Ciprofol pharmacokinetics seemed characterized by slower onset and offset as compared to propofol. Pain during injection was less frequent in the ciprofol group in all the 13 studies reporting it. Eight studies reported "adverse events" as a pooled outcome, and in five cases, the incidence was higher in the propofol group, not different in the remaining ones. Occurrence of hypotension was the most commonly investigated side effects, and it seemed less frequent with ciprofol.

Conclusion: Ciprofol for sedation or GA may be safer than propofol, though its pharmacokinetics may be less advantageous.

Background: Sepsis-3 emphasizes the recognition of sepsis-induced cellular metabolic abnormalities, and utilizes serum lactate level as a biomarker of cellular metabolic abnormalities. Magnesium plays an important role as a cofactor in glucose metabolism, although it is not well known that magnesium deficiency causes elevated serum lactate levels. Additionally, it remains unclear how magnesium status affects the role of serum lactate levels as a marker of metabolic abnormalities in sepsis. Thus, this study aimed to investigate the association between serum magnesium and lactate levels in patients with sepsis and explore this relationship from the perspectives of time course and circulatory abnormalities.

Methods: This retrospective observational study of adult patients with sepsis was performed at the 16-bed intensive care unit of Jichi Medical University Hospital between June 2011 and December 2017. The relationship between serum magnesium and lactate levels for 5 days from intensive care unit admission was investigated along the time course. Multivariate logistic regression analysis was performed to evaluate the association between serum magnesium and lactate levels during intensive care unit admission.

Results: Among 759 patients included, 105 had hypomagnesemia (magnesium level < 1.6 mg/dL), 558 had normal serum magnesium levels (1.6-2.4 mg/dL), and 96 had hypermagnesemia (magnesium level > 2.4 mg/dL) at intensive care unit admission. From intensive care unit admission to day 5, the hypomagnesemia group had higher serum lactate levels and a higher frequency of lactic acidosis than the normal magnesium level and hypermagnesemia groups (70% vs. 51.6% vs. 50%; P < 0.001). Hypomagnesemia at intensive care unit admission was independently associated with lactic acidosis, i.e., lactic acid level > 2 mmol/L (odds ratio, 2.76; 95% confidence interval, 1.60-4.76; P < 0.001).

Conclusions: Hypomagnesemia was associated with serum lactate levels in the early and post-resuscitation phases of sepsis. Further studies are needed to elucidate whether the magnesium status is associated with sepsis-induced cellular and metabolic abnormalities.

The work described below explores the field of the effects of pulsed radiofrequency for pain relief purposes. While the effects of this technique on pain modulation (A-delta and C fibers) are relatively well-known, little has been written yet about the potential of pulsed radiofrequency interactions with other fibers. The proposed algorithm, specifically elaborated, investigates the effect of this technique on neuromuscular fatigue, through a surface electromyographic study of the femoral nerve of a patient with residual pain after knee arthroplasty surgery, before and after the treatment. This work yields a preliminary result that is encouraging for subsequent large-scale studies.

Background: Dissemination of medical practice and scientific information through social media (SoMe) by clinicians and researchers is increasing. Broad exposure of information can promote connectivity within the scientific community, overcome barriers to access to sources, increase debate, and reveal layperson perspectives and preferences. On the other hand, practices lacking scientific evidence may also be promoted, laypeople may misunderstand the professional message, and clinician may suffer erosion of professional status. The aim of this project was to enhance awareness and advise the anesthesia community and clinicians at large about the potential risks advocate for responsible use of SoMe to disseminate information related to medical practices and knowledge.

Methods: A modified Delphi process with prespecified consensus criteria was conducted among a multidisciplinary panel of experts, including anesthesiologists-intensivists, clinical psychologists, and forensic medicine specialists. Six items were identified: Ethics and deontological principles, the practice of sharing information via social media, legal aspects, psychological aspects, self-promotion, and criteria for appropriate dissemination. Statements and rationales were produced and subjected to blinded panelists' votes. After reaching consensus, a document was written which then underwent external review by experts uninvolved in the consensus process. The project was promoted by the Italian Society of Anesthesia Analgesia Resuscitation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI).

Results: Twelve statements were produced, and consensus was achieved for all. The panel concluded that the general principles guiding dissemination of professional information via SoMe must remain in line with the general principles of ethics, deontology, and scientific validity that guide the medical profession and science in general. Professional equity must be maintained while communicating via SoMe. Medical practices lacking support by scientific evidence should not be disseminated. Patients' informed consent must be obtained before dissemination of information, images, or data. Self-promotion must not be prioritized over any of these principles.

Conclusions: When sharing medical practices and scientific information on SoMe, healthcare professionals are advised to act conscientiously and ethically. Local regulations should be adhered to. Institutional training on the potential risks and proper of SoMe for such purpose may contribute to preservation of professional integrity.

In recent years, there has been a growing awareness of the limitations and risks associated with the overreliance on opioids in various surgical procedures, including cardiothoracic surgery.This shift on pain management toward reducing reliance on opioids, together with need to improve patient outcomes, alleviate suffering, gain early mobilization after surgery, reduce hospital stay, and improve patient satisfaction and functional recovery, has led to the development and widespread implementation of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols.In this context, fascial plane blocks are emerging as part of a multimodal analgesic in cardiac surgery and as alternatives to conventional neuraxial blocks for thoracic surgery, and there is a growing body of evidence suggesting their effectiveness and safety in providing pain relief for these procedures. In this review, we discuss the most common fascial plane block techniques used in the field of cardiothoracic surgery, offering a comprehensive overview of regional anesthesia techniques and presenting the latest evidence on the use of chest wall plane blocks specifically in this surgical setting.

Perioperative medicine is undergoing many changes with the introduction of new technologies. Wearable devices are among them. These novel tools are providing an additional possibility for perioperative monitoring. However, in order to ensure that the introduction of wearable device in surgical wards does not lead to additional challenges for healthcare professionals, a careful implementation plan should be drawn up by a multidisciplinary team. In addition, a chain of liability should also be established a priori to facilitate their use and avoid ambiguity in the occurrence of a critical event.