Implementation of anesthesia quality indicators in Germany : A prospective, national, multicenter quality improvement study.

BACKGROUND: In 2016 the German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) and the Association of German Anesthetists (BDA) published 10 quality indicators (QI) to compare and improve the quality of anesthesia care in Germany. So far, there is no evidence for the feasibility of implementation of these QI in hospitals. OBJECTIVE: This study tested the hypothesis that the implementation of the 10 QI is feasible in German hospitals. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This prospective three-phase national multicenter quality improvement study was conducted in 15 German hospitals and 1 outpatient anesthesia center from March 2017 to February 2018. The trial consisted of an initial evaluation of pre-existing structures and processes by the heads of the participating anesthesia departments, followed by a 6-month implementation phase of the QI as well as a final re-evaluation phase. The implementation procedure was supported by web-based implementation aids ( www.qi-an.org ) and internal quality management programs. The primary endpoint was the difference in the number of implemented QI per center before and after implementation. Secondary endpoints were the number of newly implemented QI per center, the overall number of successful implementations of each QI, the identification of problems during the implementation as well as the kind of impediments preventing the QI implementation. RESULTS: The average number of implemented QI increased from 5.8 to 6.8 (mean of the differences 1.1 ± 1.3; P < 0.01). Most frequently the QI perioperative morbidity and mortality report (5 centers) and the QI temperature management (4 centers) could be implemented. After the implementation phase, the QI incidence management and patient blood management were implemented in all 16 centers. Implementation of other quality indicators failed mainly due to a lack of time and lack of structural resources. CONCLUSION: In this study the implementation of QI was proven to be mostly feasible in the participating German hospitals. Although several QI could be implemented with minor effort, more time, financial and structural resources would be required for some QI, such as the QI postoperative visit.

Treatment of intraoperative hypotension with cafedrine/theodrenaline versus ephedrine : A prospective, national, multicenter, non-interventional study-the HYPOTENS trial.

BACKGROUND: Sympathomimetic drugs are a therapeutic cornerstone for the management of hypotensive states like intraoperative hypotension (IOH). While cafedrine/theodrenaline (C/T) is widely used in Germany to restore blood pressure in patients with IOH, more research is required to compare its effectiveness with alternatives such as ephedrine (E) that are more commonly available internationally. METHODS: HYPOTENS (NCT02893241, DRKS00010740) was a prospective, national, multicenter, open-label, two-armed, non-interventional study that compared C/T with E for treatment of IOH. We describe a prospectively defined cohort of patients ≥50 years old with comorbidities undergoing general anesthesia induced with propofol and fentanyl. Primary objectives were to examine treatment precision, rapidity of onset and the ability to restore blood pressure without relevant increases in heart rate. Secondary endpoints were treatment satisfaction and the number of required additional boluses or other accompanying measures. RESULTS: A total of 1496 patients were included in the per protocol analysis. Overall, effective stabilization of blood pressure was achieved with both C/T and E. Post-hoc analysis showed that blood pressure increase from baseline was more pronounced with C/T. Fewer additional boluses or other accompanying measures were required in the C/T arm. The incidence of tachycardia was comparable between groups. Post-hoc analysis showed that E produced dose-dependent elevated heart rate values. By contrast, heart rate remained stable in patients treated with C/T. Physicians reported a higher level of treatment satisfaction with C/T, with a higher proportion of anesthetists rating treatment precision and rapidity of onset as good or very good when compared with E. CONCLUSION: Neither drug was superior in restoring blood pressure levels; however, post-hoc analyses suggested that treatment is more goal-orientated and easier to control with C/T. Heart rate was shown to be more stable with C/T and fewer additional interventions were required to restore blood pressure, which could have contributed to the increased treatment satisfaction reported by anesthetists using C/T.

[Implementation of anesthesia quality indicators in Germany : A prospective, national, multicenter quality improvement study]. / Implementierung anästhesiologischer Qualitätsindikatoren in Deutschland : Eine prospektive, nationale, multizentrische Qualitätssteigerungsstudie German version.

BACKGROUND: In 2016 the German Society of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (DGAI) and the Association of German Anesthetists (BDA) published 10 quality indicators (QI) to compare and improve the quality of anesthesia care in Germany. So far, there is no evidence for the feasibility of implementation of these QI in hospitals. OBJECTIVE: This study tested the hypothesis that the implementation of the 10 QI is feasible in German hospitals. MATERIAL AND METHODS: This prospective three-phase national multicenter quality improvement study was conducted in 15 German hospitals and 1 outpatient anesthesia center from March 2017 to February 2018. The trial consisted of an initial evaluation of pre-existing structures and processes by the heads of the participating anesthesia departments, followed by a 6-month implementation phase of the QI as well as a final re-evaluation phase. The implementation procedure was supported by web-based implementation aids ( www.qi-an.org ) and internal quality management programs. The primary endpoint was the difference in the number of implemented QI per center before and after implementation. Secondary endpoints were the number of newly implemented QI per center, the overall number of successful implementations of each QI, the identification of problems during the implementation as well as the kind of impediments preventing the QI implementation. RESULTS: The average number of implemented QI increased from 5.8 to 6.8 (mean of the differences 1.1 ± 1.3; P < 0.01). Most frequently the QI perioperative morbidity and mortality report (5 centers) and the QI temperature management (4 centers) could be implemented. After the implementation phase, the QI incidence management and patient blood management were implemented in all 16 centers. Implementation of other quality indicators failed mainly due to a lack of time and lack of structural resources. CONCLUSION: In this study the implementation of QI was proven to be mostly feasible in the participating German hospitals. Although several QI could be implemented with minor effort, more time, financial and structural resources would be required for some QI, such as the QI postoperative visit.

Efficacy of perioperative dexmedetomidine on postoperative delirium: systematic review and meta-analysis with trial sequential analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The influence of dexmedetomidine on postoperative delirium (POD) in adult surgical patients remains controversial. We aimed to analyse whether dexmedetomidine use could decrease POD incidence in this population and its relation to timing of dexmedetomidine administration and patient age. METHODS: We used random-effects modelled meta-analysis, trial sequential analysis, and followed Cochrane methodology with Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE). PubMed and Cochrane library were searched up to July 2017 for randomised controlled trials that analysed POD incidence of adult surgical patients (age ≥18 yr) after dexmedetomidine administration. RESULTS: Eighteen studies (comprising 3309 patients) were included. There was decreased risk of POD with dexmedetomidine use for the entire adult surgical population [odds ratio (OR) 0.35; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.24-0.51)], with firm evidence from trial sequential analysis. Pre-specified subgroup analyses confirmed this result with firm evidence for cardiac and non-cardiac surgical patients, (OR 0.41; 95% CI 0.26-0.63) and (OR 0.33; 95% CI 0.18-0.59), respectively. We also found firm evidence for reduction of POD if dexmedetomidine is administered during the postoperative period (OR 0.30; 95% CI 0.21-0.44), in patients aged <65 yr (OR 0.19; 95% CI 0.10-0.36) or ≥65 yr (OR 0.44; 95% CI 0.30-0.65). Evidence for dexmedetomidine's influence on secondary outcomes (in-hospital mortality, intensive care unit and hospital length of stay, bradycardia, and hypotension) is thus far insufficient to draw conclusions. CONCLUSION: Dexmedetomidine can reduce POD incidence for adult cardiac and non-cardiac surgical patients. The optimal dose and timing of dexmedetomidine and influence on other outcomes or particular patient populations with risk factors warrants further studies. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO: CRD42017072380.