Canadian Journal of Anesthesia/Journal canadien d anesthésie

doi: 10.1007/s12630-023-02499-ypmid: 37266852

PurposeThe objective of this study was to describe some components of the perioperative practice in liver transplantation as reported by clinicians.MethodsWe conducted a cross-sectional clinical practice survey using an online instrument containing questions on selected themes related to the perioperative care of liver transplant recipients. We sent email invitations to Canadian anesthesiologists, Canadian surgeons, and French anesthesiologists specialized in liver transplantation. We used five-point Likert-type scales (from “never” to “always”) and numerical or categorical answers. Results are presented as medians or proportions.ResultsWe obtained answers from 130 participants (estimated response rate of 71% in Canada and 26% in France). Respondents reported rarely using transesophageal echocardiography routinely but often using it for hemodynamic instability, often using an intraoperative goal-directed hemodynamic management strategy, and never using a phlebotomy (medians from ordinal scales). Fifty-nine percent of respondents reported using a restrictive fluid management strategy to manage hemodynamic instability during the dissection phase. Forty-two percent and 15% of respondents reported using viscoelastic tests to guide intraoperative and postoperative transfusions, respectively. Fifty-four percent of respondents reported not pre-emptively treating preoperative coagulations disturbances, and 91% reported treating them intraoperatively only when bleeding was significant. Most respondents (48–64%) did not have an opinion on the maximal graft ischemic times. Forty-seven percent of respondents reported that a piggyback technique was the preferred vena cava anastomosis approach.ConclusionDifferent interventions were reported to be used regarding most components of perioperative care in liver transplantation. Our results suggest that significant equipoise exists on the optimal perioperative management of this population.

PurposeEndovascular treatment for stroke patients usually requires anesthesia care, with no current consensus on the best anesthetic management strategy. Several randomized controlled trials and meta-analyses have attempted to address this. In 2022, additional evidence from three new trials was published: the GASS trial, the CANVAS II trial, and preliminary results from the AMETIS trial, prompting the execution of this updated systematic review and meta-analysis. The primary objective of this study was to evaluate the effects of general anesthesia and conscious sedation on functional outcomes measured with the modified Rankin scale (mRS) at three months.MethodsWe performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials investigating conscious sedation and general anesthesia in endovascular treatment. The following databases were examined: PubMed, Scopus, Embase, and the Cochrane Database of Randomized Controlled Trials and Systematic Reviews. The Risk of Bias 2 tool was used to assess bias. In addition, trial sequence analysis was performed on the primary outcome to estimate if the cumulative effect is significant enough to be unaffected by further studies.ResultsNine randomized controlled trials were identified, including 1,342 patients undergoing endovascular treatment for stroke. No significant differences were detected between general anesthesia and conscious sedation with regards to mRS, functional independence (mRS, 0–2), procedure duration, onset to reperfusion, mortality, hospital length of stay, and intensive care unit length of stay. Patients treated under general anesthesia may have more frequent successful reperfusion, though the time from groin to reperfusion was slightly longer. Trial sequential analysis showed that additional trials are unlikely to show marked differences in mean mRS at three months.ConclusionsIn this updated systematic review and meta-analysis, the choice of anesthetic strategy for endovascular treatment of stroke patients did not significantly impact functional outcome as measured with the mRS at three months. Patients managed with general anesthesia may have more frequent successful reperfusion.Trial registrationPROSPERO (CRD42022319368); registered 19 April 2022.

doi: 10.1007/s12630-023-02495-2pmid: 37268802

PurposeThe efficacy of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) during procedures that require sedation and analgesia has not been established. We evaluated whether NIV reduces the incidence of respiratory events.MethodsIn this randomized controlled trial, we included 195 patients with an American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status of III or IV during electrophysiology laboratory procedures. We compared NIV with face mask oxygen therapy for patients under sedation. The primary outcome was the incidence of respiratory events determined by a computer-driven blinded analysis and defined by hypoxemia (peripheral oxygen saturation < 90%) or apnea/hypopnea (absence of breathing for 20 sec on capnography). Secondary outcomes included hemodynamic variables, sedation, patient safety (composite scores of major or minor adverse events), and adverse outcomes at day 7.ResultsA respiratory event occurred in 89/98 (95%) patients in the NIV group and in 69/97 (73%) patients with face masks (risk ratio [RR], 1.29; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.13 to 1.47; P < 0.001). Hypoxemia occurred in 40 (42%) patients in the NIV group and in 33 (34%) patients with face masks (RR, 1.21; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.74; P = 0.30). Apnea/hypopnea occurred in 83 patients (92%) in the NIV group vs 65 patients (70%) with face masks (RR, 1.32; 95% CI, 1.14 to 1.53; P < 0.001). Hemodynamic variables, sedation, major or minor safety events, and patient outcomes were not different between the groups.ConclusionsRespiratory events were more frequent among patients receiving NIV without any safety or outcome impairment. These results do not support the routine use of NIV intraoperatively.Study registrationClinicalTrials.gov (NCT02779998); registered 4 November 2015.

PurposeProtocol-driven oxytocin regimens can reduce oxytocin administration compared with a nonprotocol free-flow continuous infusion. Our aim was to compare secondary uterotonic use between a modified “rule of threes” oxytocin protocol and a free-flow continuous oxytocin infusion after Cesarean delivery.MethodsWe conducted a retrospective before-and-after study to compare patients who underwent Cesarean delivery between 1 January 2010 and 31 December 2013 (preprotocol) with patients who underwent Cesarean delivery between 1 January 2015 and 31 August 2017 (postprotocol). The preprotocol group received free-flow oxytocin administration and the postprotocol group received oxytocin according to a modified rule of threes algorithm. The primary outcome was secondary uterotonic use and the secondary outcomes included blood transfusion, hemoglobin value < 8 g·dL–1, and estimated blood loss.ResultsIn total, 4,010 Cesarean deliveries were performed in 3,637 patients (2,262 preprotocol and 1,748 postprotocol). The odds of receiving secondary uterotonic drugs were increased in the postprotocol group (odds ratio [OR], 1.33; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04 to 1.70; P = 0.02). Patients in the postprotocol group were less likely to receive a blood transfusion. Nevertheless, the two groups were similar for the composite end point of transfusion or hemoglobin < 8 g·dL–1 (OR, 0.86; 95% CI, 0.66 to 1.11; P = 0.25). The odds of an estimated blood loss greater than 1,000 mL were reduced in the postprotocol group (OR, 0.64; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.84; P = 0.001).ConclusionsPatients in the modified rule of threes oxytocin protocol group were more likely to receive a secondary uterotonic than those in the preprotocol group. Estimated blood loss and transfusion outcomes were similar.

doi: 10.1007/s12630-023-02480-9pmid: 37217736

PurposeWe sought to describe the processes undertaken for the systematic selection and consensus determination of the common data elements for inclusion in a national pediatric critical care database in Canada.MethodsWe conducted a multicentre Delphi consensus study of Canadian pediatric intensive care units (PICUs) participating in the creation of a national database. Participants were PICU health care professionals, allied health professionals, caregivers, and other stakeholders. A dedicated panel group created a baseline survey of data elements based on literature, current PICU databases, and expertise in the field. The survey was then used for a Delphi iterative consensus process over three rounds, conducted from March to June 2021.ResultsOf 86 invited participants, 68 (79%) engaged and agreed to participate as part of an expert panel. Panel participants were sent three rounds of the survey with response rates of 62 (91%), 61 (90%) and 55 (81%), respectively. After three rounds, 72 data elements were included from six domains, mostly reflecting clinical status and complex medical interventions received in the PICU. While race, gender, and home region were included by consensus, variables such as minority status, indigenous status, primary language, and ethnicity were not.ConclusionWe present the methodological framework used to select data elements by consensus for a national pediatric critical care database, with participation from a diverse stakeholder group of experts and caregivers from all PICUs in Canada. The selected core data elements will provide standardized and synthesized data for research, benchmarking, and quality improvement initiatives of critically ill children.

doi: 10.1007/s12630-023-02501-7pmid: 37280459

PurposeDescriptive information on referral patterns and short-term outcomes of patients with respiratory failure declined for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) is lacking.MethodsWe conducted a prospective single-centre observational cohort study of ECMO referrals to Toronto General Hospital (receiving hospital) for severe respiratory failure (COVID-19 and non-COVID-19), between 1 December 2019 and 30 November 2020. Data related to the referral, the referral decision, and reasons for refusal were collected. Reasons for refusal were grouped into three mutually exclusive categories selected a priori: “too sick now,” “too sick before,” and “not sick enough.” In declined referrals, referring physicians were surveyed to collect patient outcome on day 7 after the referral. The primary study endpoints were referral outcome (accepted/declined) and patient outcome (alive/deceased).ResultsA total of 193 referrals were included; 73% were declined for transfer. Referral outcome was influenced by age (odds ratio [OR], 0.97; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.95 to 0.96; P < 0.01) and involvement of other members of the ECMO team in the discussion (OR, 4.42; 95% CI, 1.28 to 15.2; P < 0.01). Patient outcomes were missing in 46 (24%) referrals (inability to locate the referring physician or the referring physician being unable to recall the outcome). Using available data (95 declined and 52 accepted referrals; n = 147), survival to day 7 was 49% for declined referrals (35% for patients deemed “too sick now,” 53% for “too sick before,” 100% for “not sick enough,” and 50% for reason for refusal not reported) and 98% for transferred patients. Sensitivity analysis setting missing outcomes to directional extreme values retained robustness of survival probabilities.ConclusionNearly half of the patients declined for ECMO consideration were alive on day 7. More information on patient trajectory and long-term outcomes in declined referrals is needed to refine selection criteria.