Airway management and pulmonary aspiration during surgical interventions in pregnant women in the 2nd/3rd trimester and immediate postpartum - a retrospective study in a tertiary care university hospital.

BACKGROUND: Pregnancy is associated with an increased risk of pulmonary aspiration during general anaesthesia, but the incidence of this complication is not well defined. METHODS: We performed a retrospective database review in a tertiary care university hospital to determine the incidence of pulmonary aspiration in pregnant patients undergoing endotracheal intubation, with and without Rapid Sequence Induction (RSI), as well as face-mask ventilation and supraglottic airway devices. We included Patients in the 2nd or 3rd trimester of pregnancy and immediate postpartum undergoing surgical procedures. The primary endpoint was the occurrence of pulmonary aspiration. RESULTS: Data from 2,390 patients undergoing general anaesthesia for cerclage of cervix uteri, manual removal of retained placenta, repair of obstetric laceration, or postpartum bleeding were retrospectively evaluated. A supraglottic airway device or face-mask ventilation was used in 1,425/2,390 (60%) of patients, while 638/2,390 (27%) were intubated. RSI was used in 522/638 (82%) of patients undergoing tracheal intubation, or 522/2,390 (22%) of the entire cohort. In-depth review of the charts, including 54 patients who had been initially classified as "possible pulmonary aspiration" by anaesthetists, revealed that this adverse event did not occur in the cohort. CONCLUSIONS: In conclusion, in this obstetric surgery patient population at risk for pulmonary aspiration, supraglottic airway devices were used in approximately 60% of cases. Yet, no aspiration event was detected with either a supraglottic airway or endotracheal intubation.

Pressure injury treatment by intermittent electrical stimulation (PROTECT-2): protocol for a multicenter randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Pressure ulcers account for a substantial fraction of hospital-acquired pathology, with consequent morbidity and economic cost. Treatments are largely focused on preventing further injury, whereas interventions that facilitate healing remain limited. Intermittent electrical stimulation (IES) increases local blood flow and redistributes pressure from muscle-bone interfaces, thus potentially reducing ulcer progression and facilitating healing. METHODS: The Pressure Injury Treatment by Intermittent Electrical Stimulation (PROTECT-2) trial will be a parallel-arm multicenter randomized trial to test the hypothesis that IES combined with routine care reduces sacral and ischial pressure injury over time compared to routine care alone. We plan to enroll 548 patients across various centers. Hospitalized patients with stage 1 or stage 2 sacral or ischial pressure injuries will be randomized to IES and routine care or routine care alone. Wound stage will be followed until death, discharge, or the development of an exclusion criteria for up to 3 months. The primary endpoint will be pressure injury score measured over time. DISCUSSION: Sacral and ischial pressure injuries present a burden to hospitalized patients with both clinical and economic consequences. The PROTECT-2 trial will evaluate whether IES is an effective intervention and thus reduces progression of stage 1 and stage 2 sacral and ischial pressure injuries. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05085288 Registered October 20, 2021.

Different ventilation intensities among various categories of patients ventilated for reasons other than ARDS--A pooled analysis of 4 observational studies.

PURPOSE: We investigated driving pressure (ΔP) and mechanical power (MP) and associations with clinical outcomes in critically ill patients ventilated for reasons other than ARDS. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Individual patient data analysis of a pooled database that included patients from four observational studies of ventilation. ΔP and MP were compared among invasively ventilated non-ARDS patients with sepsis, with pneumonia, and not having sepsis or pneumonia. The primary endpoint was ΔP; secondary endpoints included MP, ICU mortality and length of stay, and duration of ventilation. RESULTS: This analysis included 372 (11%) sepsis patients, 944 (28%) pneumonia patients, and 2040 (61%) patients ventilated for any other reason. On day 1, median ΔP was higher in sepsis (14 [11-18] cmH2O) and pneumonia patients (14 [11-18]cmH2O), as compared to patients not having sepsis or pneumonia (13 [10-16] cmH2O) (P < 0.001). Median MP was also higher in sepsis and pneumonia patients. ΔP, as opposed to MP, was associated with ICU mortality in sepsis and pneumonia patients. CONCLUSIONS: The intensity of ventilation differed between patients with sepsis or pneumonia and patients receiving ventilation for any other reason; ΔP was associated with higher mortality in sepsis and pneumonia patients. REGISTRATION: This post hoc analysis was not registered; the individual studies that were merged into the used database were registered at clinicaltrials.gov: NCT01268410 (ERICC), NCT02010073 (LUNG SAFE), NCT01868321 (PRoVENT), and NCT03188770 (PRoVENT-iMiC).