Ultrasound assessment of the gastric content among diabetic and non-diabetic patients before elective surgery: a prospective multicenter study.

BACKGROUND: Although diabetic gastroparesis could be responsible for delayed gastric emptying, there is conflicting evidence about the volume of gastric content in diabetic patients after preoperative fasting. We hypothesized that diabetic patients had an increased gastric content before anesthesia induction despite the following of fasting recommendations. We used ultrasound assessment of gastric content to evaluate this risk. METHODS: This multicenter prospective single-blinded case-control study was conducted in three teaching University hospital in France. Our primary outcome was the comparison of increased gastric content between the two groups and was defined either by a Perlas grade 2 antrum or an antral cross-sectional area (CSA)>340 mm2. Each diabetic patient was paired with three non-diabetic control patients. Forty-two diabetic and 126 control patients were included in the study. RESULTS: Eighteen (42.9%) diabetic patients reached the primary outcome versus 28 (22.2%) in the control group (P=0.009). Diabetic patients presented less frequently with an empty stomach. Indeed, ten (23.8%) diabetic patients had a grade 0 antrum versus 71 (56.3%) in the control group (P<0.001). Twenty-four (70.6%) diabetic patients had an antral CSA<340 mm2 versus 98 (86%) in the control group (P=0.039). Overall, diabetic patients and increased gastric content were associated with an Odds Ratio, 2.63; 95% confidence interval, 1.25-5.52, P=0.009. CONCLUSIONS: Our study documents that gastric content is increased among diabetic patients compared to control patients despite following appropriate fasting guidelines.

Influence of videolaryngoscopy using McGrath Mac on the need for a helper to perform intubation during general anaesthesia: a multicentre randomised video-no-video trial.

OBJECTIVE: We hypothesised that videolaryngoscopy modifies practice of tracheal intubation. DESIGN: Randomised single-blinded study (video and no-video groups). SETTING: Three institutions: one academic, one non-profit and one profit. PARTICIPANTS: Patients >18 years, requiring orotracheal intubation, without predicted difficult intubation. Non-inclusion criterion was patients requiring a rapid-sequence intubation. 300 patients were included, 271 randomised, 256 analysed: 123 in the no-video and 133 in the video groups. INTERVENTION: Tracheal intubation using a McGrath Mac videolaryngoscope, the sequence being video recorded. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the proportion of intubations where assistance is necessary on request of the operator. Secondary outcomes included intraoperative variables (intubation difficulty scale and its components, percentage of glottic opening score, oesophageal Intubation, duration of intubation, removal of the screen cover in the no-video group, global evaluation of the ease of intubation, bispectral index, heart rate and blood pressure), intraoperative and postoperative complications (hoarseness or sore throat) and cooperation of the anaesthesiology team. RESULTS: Requirement for assistance was not decreased in the Video group: 36.1% (95% CI 27.9 to 44.9) vs 45.5% (95% CI 36.5 to 54.7) in the no-video group, p=0.74; OR: 0.7 (95% CI 0.4 to 1.1) and absolute risk: 0.10 (95% CI -0.03 to 0.22). Intubation difficulty scale was similar in both groups (p=0.05). Percentage of glottic opening score was better in the Video group (median of 100 (95% CI (100 to 100) and 80 (95%CI (80 to 90) in the no-video group; p<0.001) as Cormack and Lehane grade (p=0001). Ease of intubation was considered better in the video group (p<0.001). Other secondary outcomes were similar between groups. Screen cover was removed in 7.3% (95% CI (2.7 to 11.9)) of the cases in the video group. No serious adverse event occurred. Communication and behaviour within the anaesthesia team were appropriate in all cases. CONCLUSION: In patients without predicted difficult intubation, videolaryngoscopy did not decrease the requirement for assistance to perform intubation. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT02926144; Results.

HELP-VDL: study protocol for a multicentre, open, randomised, controlled clinical trial comparing the use of the head-elevated laryngoscopy position and the use of a videolaryngoscope to facilitate orotracheal intubation in a patient population without predictable difficulty of intubation.

INTRODUCTION: Tracheal intubation remains an everyday challenge for anaesthesiologists, even in patients without suspected difficult airways. The ideal positioning of the patient's head (flat, raised a few centimetres on a cushion in the sniffing position (SP), or raised to achieve horizontal alignment between the external acoustic meatus and the sternal angle) and the use of videolaryngoscopy remain controversial. This trial aims to compare the efficacy for orotracheal intubation of the SP or the head-elevated laryngoscopy position (HELP), which has been shown to improve laryngeal visualization and the intubation condition particularly in obese patients, in combination with a McGrath Mac videolaryngoscope whose video screen is either on or off (Video or NoVideo). METHODS AND ANALYSIS: The HELP-VDL factorial trial is a prospective, randomised, parallel, multicentre, open study of 240 adult patients undergoing tracheal intubation under general anaesthesia. Patients will be allocated into four groups: SP-NoVideo, HELP-NoVideo, SP-Video and HELP-Video. The primary outcome is the proportion of orotracheal intubations that requires the assistance of a nurse anaesthetist. The secondary outcomes include the intubation duration, the first intubation success rate, the quality of visualisation of the glottis, the glottis visualisation score, adjunctive manoeuvres and alternative techniques used, the occurrence of oesophageal intubation, failure of tracheal intubation, the incidence of arterial oxygen desaturation, the perception of a difficult intubation, the score on the Intubation Difficulty Scale, cooperation among the members of the anaesthesia team, the evolution of vital signs and the frequency and severity of intubation complications. Data will be analysed on the intention-to-treat principle and a per-protocol basis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethics approval was obtained from the Ethical Committee Ile de France V (Paris, France). Participant recruitment began on 3 July 2019. The results will be submitted for publication in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration numberNCT03987009; Pre-results.

Disparity of the "screen-and-isolate" policy for multidrug-resistant organisms: A national survey in French adult ICUs.

BACKGROUND: The prevalence of multidrug-resistant organisms (MDROs) has dramatically increased. The aim of this survey was to describe and analyze the different screening and isolation policies regarding MDROs in French adult intensive care units (ICUs). MATERIALS AND METHODS: A multicenter online survey was performed among French ICUs, including 63 questions distributed into 4 parts: characteristics of the unit, MDRO screening policy, policy regarding contact precautions, and ecology of the unit. RESULTS: From April 2015 to June 2016, 73 of 301 ICUs (24%) participated in the survey. MDRO screening was performed on admission in 96% of ICUs, for at least 1 MDRO (78%). MDRO screening was performed weekly during ICU stay in 83% of ICUs. Preemptive isolation was initiated on admission in 82% of ICUs, mostly in a targeted way (71%). Imported and acquired MDRO rates >10% were reported in 44% and 27% of ICUs, respectively. An MDRO outbreak had occurred within the past 3 years in 48% of cases. CONCLUSION: French ICUs have variable screening and isolation approaches for MDROs, as up to 10 combinations were met. Discrepancies with the 2009 national guidelines were observed. Very few ICUs practice without some form of screening and isolation of patients upon admission.