Revista espanola de anestesiologia y reanimacion最新文献

Background

Anaesthesiology training programs in Europe vary in duration, content, and requirements for completion. This survey-based study conducted by the Trainees Committee of the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care explores current anaesthesia training designs across Europe.

Methods

Between May and July 2018, we sent a 41-item online questionnaire to all National Trainee Representatives, members of the National Anaesthesiologists Societies Committee, and Council Representatives of the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) of all member countries. We cross-validated inconsistent data with different country representatives.

Results

Forty-three anaesthesiologists from all 39 associated ESAIC countries completed the questionnaire. Results showed considerable variability in teaching formats, frequency of teaching sessions during training, and differences in assessments made during and at the end of training. The reported duration of training was 60 months in 59% (n = 23) of participating countries, ranging from 24 months in Russia and Ukraine to 84 months in the UK.

Conclusion

This study shows the significant differences in anaesthesiology training formats across Europe, and highlights the importance of developing standardised training programs to ensure a consistent level of training and to improve patient safety. This study provides valuable insights into European anaesthesia training, and underlines the need for further research and collaboration to improve requirements.

Electrical impedance tomography (EIT) is a new method of monitoring non-invasive mechanical ventilation, at the bedside and useful in critically ill patients. It allows lung monitoring of ventilation and perfusion, obtaining images that provide information on lung function. It is based on the physical principle of impedanciometry or the body's ability to conduct an electrical current. Various studies have shown its usefulness both in adults and in pediatrics in respiratory distress syndrome, pneumonia and atelectasis in addition to pulmonary thromboembolism and pulmonary hypertension by also providing information on pulmonary perfusion, and may be very useful in perioperative medicine; especially in pediatrics avoiding repetitive imaging tests with ionizing radiation.

Mean airway pressure (MAP) is the mean pressure generated in the airway during a single breath (inspiration + expiration), and is displayed on most anaesthesia and intensive care ventilators. This parameter, however, is not usually monitored during mechanical ventilation because it is poorly understood and usually only used in research. One of the main determinants of MAP is PEEP. This is because in respiratory cycles with an I:E ratio of 1:2, expiration is twice as long as inspiration. Although MAP can be used as a surrogate for mean alveolar pressure, these parameters differ considerably in some situations. Recently, MAP has been shown to be a useful prognostic factor for respiratory morbidity and mortality in mechanically ventilated patients of various ages. Low MAP has been associated with a lower incidence of 90-day mortality, shorter ICU stay, and shorter mechanical ventilation time. MAP also affects haemodynamics: there is evidence of a causal relationship between high MAP and low perfusion index, both of which are associated with poor prognosis in mechanically ventilated patients. Elevated MAP values have also been associated with high central venous pressure and lactate, which are indicative of ventilator-associated right ventricular failure and tissue hypoperfusion, respectively. MAP, therefore, is an important parameter to measure in clinical practice. The aim of this review has been to identify the determinants of MAP, the pros and cons of using MAP instead of traditional protective ventilation parameters, and the evidence that supports the use of MAP in clinical practice.

Background

Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC) are the most frequent postoperative complications, with an estimated prevalence in elective surgery ranging from 20% in observational cohort studies to 40% in randomized clinical trials. However, the prevalence of PPCs in patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery is not well defined. Lung-protective ventilation aims to minimize ventilator-induced lung injury and reduce PPCs. The open lung approach (OLA), which combines recruitment manoeuvres (RM) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration, aims to minimize areas of atelectasis and the development of PPCs; however, there is no conclusive evidence in the literature that OLA can prevent PPCs. The purpose of this study is to compare an individualized perioperative OLA with conventional standardized lung-protective ventilation in patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery with clinical signs of intraoperative lung collapse.

Methods

Randomized international clinical trial to compare an individualized perioperative OLA (RM plus individualized PEEP and individualized postoperative respiratory support) with conventional lung-protective ventilation (standard PEEP of 5 cmH₂O and conventional postoperative oxygen therapy) in patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery with clinical signs of lung collapse. Patients will be randomised to open-label parallel groups. The primary outcome is any severe PPC during the first 7 postoperative days, including: acute respiratory failure, pneumothorax, weaning failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and pulmonary infection. The estimated sample size is 732 patients (366 per group). The final sample size will be readjusted during the interim analysis.

Discussion

The Individualized Perioperative Open-lung Ventilatory Strategy in emergency abdominal laparotomy (iPROVE-EAL) is the first multicentre, randomized, controlled trial to investigate whether an individualized perioperative approach prevents PPCs in patients undergoing emergency surgery.

Background

Life-sustaining treatment limitation (LSV) is the medical act of withdrawing or not initiating measures that are considered futile in a patient's specific situation. LSV in critically ill patients remains a difficult topic to study, due to the multitude of factors that condition it.

Objective

To determine factors related to LSV in ICU in cases of post-ICU in-hospital mortality, as well as factors associated with survival after discharge from ICU.

Design

Retrospective longitudinal study.

Ambit

Intensive care unit of a tertiary hospital.

Patients

People who died in the hospitalization ward after ICU treatment between January 2014 and December 2019.

Interventions

None. This is an observational study.

Variables of interest

Age, sex, probability of death, type of admission, LSV in ICU, oncological disease, dependence, invasive mechanical ventilation, emergency hemodialysis, transfusion of blood products, nosocomial infection (NI), pre-ICU, intra-ICU and post-ICU stays.

Results

Of 114 patients who died outside the ICU, 49 had LSV registered in the ICU (42.98%). Age and stay prior to ICU admission were positively associated with LSV (OR 1,03 and 1,08, respectively). Patients without LSV had a higher post-ICU stay, while it was lower for male patients.

Conclusions

Our results support that LSV established within the ICU can avoid complications commonly associated with unnecessary prolongation of stay, such as NI.