Protective ventilation during anaesthesia reduces major postoperative complications after lung cancer surgery: A double-blind randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Thoracic surgery for lung resection is associated with a high incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications. Controlled ventilation with a large tidal volume has been documented to be a risk factor for postoperative respiratory complications after major abdominal surgery, whereas the use of low tidal volumes and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) has a protective effect. OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the effects of ventilation with low tidal volume and PEEP on major complications after thoracic surgery. DESIGN: A double-blind, randomised controlled study. SETTING: A multicentre trial from December 2008 to October 2011. PATIENTS: A total of 346 patients undergoing lobectomy or pneumonectomy for lung cancer. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was the occurrence of major postoperative complications (pneumonia, acute lung injury, acute respiratory distress syndrome, pulmonary embolism, shock, myocardial infarction or death) within 30 days after surgery. INTERVENTIONS: Patients were randomly assigned to receive either lung-protective ventilation (LPV group) [tidal volume 5 ml kg ideal body weight + PEEP between 5 and 8 cmH2O] or nonprotective ventilation (control group) (tidal volume 10 ml kg ideal body weight without PEEP) during anaesthesia. RESULTS: The trial was stopped prematurely because of an insufficient inclusion rate. Major postoperative complications occurred in 23/172 patients in the LPV group (13.4%) vs. 38/171 (22.2%) in the control group (odds ratio 0.54, 95% confidence interval, 0.31 to 0.95, P = 0.03). The incidence of other complications (supraventricular cardiac arrhythmia, bronchial obstruction, pulmonary atelectasis, hypercapnia, bronchial fistula and persistent air leak) was also lower in the LPV group (37.2 vs. 49.4%, odds ratio 0.60, 95% confidence interval, 0.39 to 0.92, P = 0.02).The duration of hospital stay was shorter in the LPV group, 11 [interquartile range, 9 to 15] days vs. 12 [9 to 16] days, P = 0.048. CONCLUSION: Compared with high tidal volume and no PEEP, LPV combining low tidal volume and PEEP during anaesthesia for lung cancer surgery seems to improve postoperative outcomes. TRIALS REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov number: NCT00805077.

A trial of intraoperative low-tidal-volume ventilation in abdominal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Lung-protective ventilation with the use of low tidal volumes and positive end-expiratory pressure is considered best practice in the care of many critically ill patients. However, its role in anesthetized patients undergoing major surgery is not known. METHODS: In this multicenter, double-blind, parallel-group trial, we randomly assigned 400 adults at intermediate to high risk of pulmonary complications after major abdominal surgery to either nonprotective mechanical ventilation or a strategy of lung-protective ventilation. The primary outcome was a composite of major pulmonary and extrapulmonary complications occurring within the first 7 days after surgery. RESULTS: The two intervention groups had similar characteristics at baseline. In the intention-to-treat analysis, the primary outcome occurred in 21 of 200 patients (10.5%) assigned to lung-protective ventilation, as compared with 55 of 200 (27.5%) assigned to nonprotective ventilation (relative risk, 0.40; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.24 to 0.68; P=0.001). Over the 7-day postoperative period, 10 patients (5.0%) assigned to lung-protective ventilation required noninvasive ventilation or intubation for acute respiratory failure, as compared with 34 (17.0%) assigned to nonprotective ventilation (relative risk, 0.29; 95% CI, 0.14 to 0.61; P=0.001). The length of the hospital stay was shorter among patients receiving lung-protective ventilation than among those receiving nonprotective ventilation (mean difference, -2.45 days; 95% CI, -4.17 to -0.72; P=0.006). CONCLUSIONS: As compared with a practice of nonprotective mechanical ventilation, the use of a lung-protective ventilation strategy in intermediate-risk and high-risk patients undergoing major abdominal surgery was associated with improved clinical outcomes and reduced health care utilization. (IMPROVE ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01282996.).

The effects of intraoperative lung protective ventilation with positive end-expiratory pressure on blood loss during hepatic resection surgery: A secondary analysis of data from a published randomised control trial (IMPROVE).

BACKGROUND: During high-risk abdominal surgery the use of a multi-faceted lung protective ventilation strategy composed of low tidal volumes, positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) and recruitment manoeuvres, has been shown to improve clinical outcomes. It has been speculated, however, that mechanical ventilation using PEEP might increase intraoperative bleeding during liver resection. OBJECTIVE: To study the impact of mechanical ventilation with PEEP on bleeding during hepatectomy. DESIGN: Post-hoc analysis of a randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Seven French university teaching hospitals from January 2011 to August 2012. PARTICIPANTS: Patients scheduled for liver resection surgery. INTERVENTION: In the Intraoperative Protective Ventilation trial, patients scheduled for major abdominal surgery were randomly assigned to mechanical ventilation using low tidal volume, PEEP between 6 and 8  cmH2O and recruitment manoeuvres (lung protective ventilation strategy) or higher tidal volume, zero PEEP and no recruitment manoeuvres (non-protective ventilation strategy). MAIN OUTCOME AND MEASURE: The primary endpoint was intraoperative blood loss volume. RESULTS: A total of 79 (19.8%) patients underwent liver resections (41 in the lung protective and 38 in the non-protective group). The median (interquartile range) amount of intraoperative blood loss was 500 (200 to 800)  ml and 275 (125 to 800)  ml in the non-protective and lung protective ventilation groups, respectively (P = 0.47). Fourteen (35.0%) and eight (21.5%) patients were transfused in the non-protective and lung protective groups, respectively (P = 0.17), without a statistically significant difference in the median (interquartile range) number of red blood cells units transfused [2.5 (2 to 4) units and 3 (2 to 6) units in the two groups, respectively; P = 0.54]. CONCLUSION: During hepatic surgery, mechanical ventilation using PEEP within a multi-faceted lung protective strategy was not associated with increased bleeding compared with non-protective ventilation using zero PEEP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The current study was not registered. The original Intraoperative Protective Ventilation study was registered on clinicaltrials.gov; number NCT01282996.

Pneumonia prevention to decrease mortality in intensive care unit: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: To determine the strategies of prevention of hospital-acquired pneumonia that reduce mortality in intensive care unit (ICU). METHODS: We followed PRISMA (Preferred Reported Items for Systemic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) guidelines. We searched MEDLINE and the Cochrane Controlled Trials Register (through 10 June 2014) as well as reference lists of articles. We included all randomized controlled trials conducted in critically ill adult patients hospitalized in ICUs and evaluating digestive prophylactic methods (selective digestive decontamination [SDD], acidification of gastric content, early enteral feeding, prevention of microinhalation); circuit prophylactic methods (closed suctioning systems, early tracheotomy, aerosolized antibiotics, humidification, lung secretion drainage, silver-coated endotracheal tubes) or oropharyngeal prophylactic methods (selective oropharyngeal decontamination, patient position, sinusitis prophylaxis, subglottic secretion drainage, tracheal cuff monitoring). One reviewer extracted data that were checked by 3 others. The primary outcome was the mortality rate in the ICU. RESULTS: We identified 157 randomized trials to pool in a meta-analysis. The primary outcome was available in 145 studies (n = 37 156). The risk ratio (RR) for death was 0.95 (95% confidence interval [CI], .92-.99; P = .02) in the intervention groups. In subgroup analysis, only SDD significantly decreased mortality compared with control (n = 10 227; RR, 0.84 [95% CI, .76-.92; P < .001]). The RR for in-ICU death was 0.78 (95% CI, .69-.89; P < .001; I(2) = 33%) in trials investigating SDD with systemic antimicrobial therapy and 1.00 (.84-1.21; P = .96; I(2) = 0%) without systemic antimicrobial therapy. CONCLUSIONS: Selective digestive decontamination with systemic antimicrobial therapy reduced mortality and should be considered in critically ill patients at high risk for death.

Combination of dexamethasone and local anaesthetic solution in peripheral nerve blocks: A meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: Dexamethasone decreases postoperative pain and prolongs the duration of local anaesthetic peripheral nerve blocks in studies including a limited number of patients. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to evaluate the effect of combining dexamethasone with local anaesthetic on sensory and motor peripheral nerve blockade in adults. DESIGN: A systematic review with meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. DATA SOURCES: We systematically searched in Medline, Embase, Google Scholar and Cochrane Controlled Trials Register up to December 2013. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Randomised trials testing dexamethasone combined with local anaesthetic. RESULTS: Twelve trials (1054 patients, 512 receiving perineural dexamethasone) were included. Ten studies evaluated dexamethasone for brachial plexus nerve block. Four to 10 mg dexamethasone-containing local anaesthetic solutions had a faster onset of action and resulted in a significant increase in the duration of analgesia [weighted mean difference (WMD) 351 min, 95% confidence interval (95% CI) 288 to 413, P < 0.001] and motor blockade (WMD 277 min, 95% CI 167 to 387, P < 0.001) compared with local anaesthetic solutions alone. Time to onset of sensory and motor blocks was significantly reduced with dexamethasone (WMD -78 s, 95% CI -112 to -44, and -90 s, 95% CI -131 to -48, respectively). Dexamethasone significantly decreased postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV, 9 vs. 27%, relative risk 0.36, 95% CI 0.19 to 0.70). Subgroup analyses showed that dexamethasone approximately doubled the duration of postoperative analgesia when it was combined with intermediate-acting (lidocaine, mepivacaine) or long-acting (bupivacaine, ropivacaine) local anaesthetics. CONCLUSION: Combining dexamethasone with local anaesthetics results in a prolongation of the duration of peripheral nerve block.

Impact of epidural analgesia on mortality and morbidity after surgery: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To quantify benefit and harm of epidural analgesia, compared with systemic opioid analgesia, in adults having surgery under general anesthesia. BACKGROUND: It remains controversial whether adding epidural analgesia to general anesthesia decreases postoperative morbidity and mortality. METHODS: We searched CENTRAL, EMBASE, PubMed, CINAHL, and BIOSIS till July 2012. We included randomized controlled trials comparing epidural analgesia (with local anesthetics, lasting for ≥ 24 hours postoperatively) with systemic analgesia in adults having surgery under general anesthesia, and reporting on mortality or any morbidity endpoint. RESULTS: A total of 125 trials (9044 patients, 4525 received epidural analgesia) were eligible. In 10 trials (2201 patients; 87 deaths), reporting on mortality as a primary or secondary endpoint, the risk of death was decreased with epidural analgesia (3.1% vs 4.9%; odds ratio, 0.60; 95% confidence interval, 0.39-0.93). Epidural analgesia significantly decreased the risk of atrial fibrillation, supraventricular tachycardia, deep vein thrombosis, respiratory depression, atelectasis, pneumonia, ileus, and postoperative nausea and vomiting, and also improved recovery of bowel function, but significantly increased the risk of arterial hypotension, pruritus, urinary retention, and motor blockade. Technical failures occurred in 6.1% of patients. CONCLUSIONS: In adults having surgery under general anesthesia, concomitant epidural analgesia reduces postoperative mortality and improves a multitude of cardiovascular, respiratory, and gastrointestinal morbidity endpoints compared with patients receiving systemic analgesia. Because adverse effects and technical failures cannot be ruled out, individual risk-benefit analyses and professional care are recommended.

Hypnosis versus diazepam for embryo transfer: a randomized controlled study.

Levitas et al. (2006) showed in a cohort study that hypnosis during embryo transfer (ET) increased pregnancy ratio by 76%. In order to evaluate hypnosis during ET in a general population, the authors performed a randomized prospective controlled study comparing diazepam (usual premedication) administered before ET plus muscle relaxation versus hypnosis plus placebo in 94 patients. Additionally, the authors studied anxiety pre and post ET. Anxiety scores were not different in the two groups before and after ET. No difference in pregnancy and birth ratio was found in the two groups. Hypnosis during ET is as effective as diazepam in terms of pregnancy ratio and anxiolytic effects, but with fewer side effects and should be routinely available.

Vasopressin and epinephrine vs. epinephrine alone in cardiopulmonary resuscitation.

BACKGROUND: During the administration of advanced cardiac life support for resuscitation from cardiac arrest, a combination of vasopressin and epinephrine may be more effective than epinephrine or vasopressin alone, but evidence is insufficient to make clinical recommendations. METHODS: In a multicenter study, we randomly assigned adults with out-of-hospital cardiac arrest to receive successive injections of either 1 mg of epinephrine and 40 IU of vasopressin or 1 mg of epinephrine and saline placebo, followed by administration of the same combination of study drugs if spontaneous circulation was not restored and subsequently by additional epinephrine if needed. The primary end point was survival to hospital admission; the secondary end points were return of spontaneous circulation, survival to hospital discharge, good neurologic recovery, and 1-year survival. RESULTS: A total of 1442 patients were assigned to receive a combination of epinephrine and vasopressin, and 1452 to receive epinephrine alone. The treatment groups had similar baseline characteristics except that there were more men in the group receiving combination therapy than in the group receiving epinephrine alone (P=0.03). There were no significant differences between the combination-therapy and the epinephrine-only groups in survival to hospital admission (20.7% vs. 21.3%; relative risk of death, 1.01; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.97 to 1.05), return of spontaneous circulation (28.6% vs. 29.5%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 0.97 to 1.06), survival to hospital discharge (1.7% vs. 2.3%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.02), 1-year survival (1.3% vs. 2.1%; relative risk, 1.01; 95% CI, 1.00 to 1.02), or good neurologic recovery at hospital discharge (37.5% vs. 51.5%; relative risk, 1.29; 95% CI, 0.81 to 2.06). CONCLUSIONS: As compared with epinephrine alone, the combination of vasopressin and epinephrine during advanced cardiac life support for out-of-hospital cardiac arrest does not improve outcome. (ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00127907.)

A double blind randomized trial of wound infiltration with ropivacaine after breast cancer surgery with axillary nodes dissection.

BACKGROUND: The effect of local infiltration after breast surgery is controversial. This prospective double blind randomized study sought to document the analgesic effect of local anaesthetic infiltration after breast cancer surgery. METHODS: Patients scheduled for mastectomy or tumorectomy and axillary nodes dissection had immediate postoperative infiltration of the surgical wound with 20 ml of ropivacaine 7.5 mg.ml-1 or isotonic saline. Pain was assessed on a visual analogue scale at H2, H4, H6, H12, H24, H72, and at 2 month, at rest and on mobilization of the arm. Patient'comfort was evaluated with numerical 0-3 scales for fatigue, quality of sleep, state of mood, social function and activity. RESULTS: Twenty-two and 24 patients were included in the ropivacaine and saline groups respectively. Postoperative pain was lower at rest and on mobilization at 2, 4 and 6 hour after surgery in the ropivacaine group. No other difference in pain intensity and patient 'comfort scoring was documented during the first 3 postoperative days. Patients did not differ at 2 month for pain and comfort scores. CONCLUSION: Single shot infiltration with ropivacaine transiently improves postoperative pain control after breast cancer surgery. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT01404377.

American Society of Anesthesiologists' physical status system: a multicentre Francophone study to analyse reasons for classification disagreement.

CONTEXT: Variability of American Society of Anesthesiologists' (ASA) physical status scores attributed to the same patient by multiple physicians has been reported in several studies. In these studies, the population was limited and diseases that induced disagreement were not analysed. OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the reproducibility of ASA physical status assessment on a large population, as used in current practice before scheduled surgery. DESIGN: Multicentre, randomised, blinded cross-over observational study. METHODS: During a 2-week period in nine institutions, ASA physical status and details of assessment performed routinely by anaesthesiologists for patients who underwent elective surgery were recorded. Records were blinded (including ASA physical status) by an independent statistical division and returned randomly to one of the nine centres for reassessment by accredited specialist anaesthesiologists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The level of agreement between the two measurements of the ASA physical status was calculated by using the weighted Kappa coefficient. RESULTS: During the study period, 1554 anaesthesia records were collected and 197 were excluded from analysis because of missing data. After the initial evaluation, the distribution of ASA physical status grades was as follows: ASA 1, 571; ASA 2, 591; ASA 3, 177; and ASA 4, 18. After the final evaluation, the distribution of ASA grades was as follows: ASA 1, 583; ASA 2, 520; ASA 3, 223; and ASA 4, 31. Two per cent of the patients had an underestimation of their physical status. The degree of agreement between the two measures evaluated by the weighted Kappa coefficient was 0.53 (0.49-0.56). No difference was observed between public and private institutions. Patients with co-existing diseases, obesity, allergy, sleep apnoea, obstructive lung disease, renal insufficiency and hypertension were least likely to have been graded correctly. CONCLUSION: The degree of agreement between two measures of the ASA physical status grade is moderate and influenced by staff characteristics and the complexity of diseases.

Clonidine as an adjuvant to local anesthetics for peripheral nerve and plexus blocks: a meta-analysis of randomized trials.

The effect of adding clonidine to local anesthetics for nerve or plexus blocks remains unclear. The authors searched for randomized placebo-controlled trials testing the impact of adding clonidine to local anesthetics for peripheral single-injection nerve or plexus blocks in adults undergoing any surgery (except eye) without general anesthesia. Twenty trials (1,054 patients, 573 received clonidine) published 1992-2006 tested plexus (14 brachial, 1 cervical) and nerve blocks (2 sciatic/femoral, 1 midhumeral, 1 ilioinguinal/iliohypogastric, 1 ankle). Clonidine doses ranged from 30 to 300 microg; most patients received 150 microg. Clonidine prolonged the duration of postoperative analgesia (weighted mean difference 122 min; 95% confidence interval [CI] 74-169), sensory block (weighted mean difference 74 min; 95% CI 37-111), and motor block (weighted mean difference 141 min; 95% CI 82-199). In a subgroup of patients receiving an axillary plexus block, these effects were independent of whether clonidine was added to an intermediate or a long-acting local anesthetic. Clonidine increased the risk of arterial hypotension (odds ratio 3.61; 95% CI 1.52-8.55; number-needed-to-harm 11), orthostatic hypotension or fainting (odds ratio 5.07; 95% CI 1.20-21.4; number-needed-to-harm 10), bradycardia (odds ratio 3.09; 95% CI 1.10-8.64; number-needed-to-harm 13), and sedation (odds ratio 2.28; 95% CI 1.15-4.51; number-needed-to-harm 5). There was a lack of evidence of dose-responsiveness for beneficial or harmful effects. Clonidine added to intermediate or long-acting local anesthetics for single-shot peripheral nerve or plexus blocks prolongs duration of analgesia and motor block by about 2 h. The increased risk of hypotension, fainting, and sedation may limit its usefulness. Dose-responsiveness remains unclear.

Susceptibility to fraud in systematic reviews: lessons from the Reuben case.

BACKGROUND: Dr. Scott Reuben allegedly fabricated data. The authors of the current article examined the impact of Reuben reports on conclusions of systematic reviews. METHODS: The authors searched in ISI Web of Knowledge systematic reviews citing Reuben reports. Systematic reviews were grouped into one of three categories: I, only cited but did not include Reuben reports; II, retrieved and considered, but eventually excluded Reuben reports; III, included Reuben reports. For quantitative systematic reviews (i.e., meta-analyses), a relevant difference was defined as a significant result becoming nonsignificant (or vice versa) by excluding Reuben reports. For qualitative systematic reviews, each author decided independently whether noninclusion of Reuben reports would have changed conclusions. RESULTS: Twenty-five systematic reviews (5 category I, 6 category II, 14 category III) cited 27 Reuben reports (published 1994-2007). Most tested analgesics in surgical patients. One of 6 quantitative category III reviews would have reached different conclusions without Reuben reports. In all 6 (30 subgroup analyses involving Reuben reports), exclusion of Reuben reports never made any difference when the number of patients from Reuben reports was less than 30% of all patients included in the analysis. Of 8 qualitative category III reviews, all authors agreed that one would certainly have reached different conclusions without Reuben reports. For another 4, the authors' judgment was not unanimous. CONCLUSIONS: Carefully performed systematic reviews proved robust against the impact of Reuben reports. Quantitative systematic reviews were vulnerable if the fraudulent data were more than 30% of the total. Qualitative systematic reviews seemed at greater risk than quantitative.

Effects of steroids on reintubation and post-extubation stridor in adults: meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

INTRODUCTION: The efficacy of steroid administration before planned tracheal extubation in critical care patients remains controversial with respect to the selection of patients most likely to benefit from this treatment. METHODS: We performed an extensive literature search for adult trials testing steroids versus placebo to prevent reintubation or laryngeal dyspnoea. Studies were evaluated on a five-point scale based on randomisation, double-blinding and follow-up. Our analysis included trials having a score three or higher with patients mechanically ventilated for at least 24 hours and treated with steroids before extubation, taking into account the time of their administration (early vs late) and if the population selected was at risk or not. RESULTS: Seven prospective, randomised, double-blinded trials, including 1846 patients, (949 of which received steroids) were selected. Overall, steroids significantly decreased the risk of reintubation (relative risk (RR) = 0.58, 95% confidence interval (CI) = 0.41 to 0.81; number-needed-to-treat (NNT) = 28, 95% CI = 20 to 61) and stridor (RR = 0.48, 95% CI = 0.26 to 0.87; NNT = 11, 95% CI = 8 to 42). The effect of steroids on reintubation and stridor was more pronounced for selected high-risk patients, as determined by a reduced cuff leak volume (RR = 0.38, 95% CI = 0.21 to 0.72; NNT = 9, 95% CI = 7 to 19; and RR = 0.40, 95% CI = 0.25 to 0.63; NNT = 5, 95% CI = 4 to 8, respectively). In contrast, steroid benefit was unclear when trials did not select patients for their risk of reintubation (RR = 0.67, 95% CI = 0.45 to 1.00; NNT = 44, 95% CI >/= 26 to infinity) or stridor (RR = 0.56, 95% CI = 0.20 to 1.55). CONCLUSIONS: The efficacy of steroids to prevent stridor and reintubation was only observed in a high-risk population, as identified by the cuff-leak test and when it was administered at least four hours before extubation. The benefit of steroids remains unclear when patients at high risk are not selected.

Revision of expert panel's guidelines on postoperative pain management.

The French Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine (SFAR) published experts' guidelines on the care of postoperative pain. This was an update of the 2008 guidelines. Fourteen experts analysed the literature (PubMed™, Cochrane™) on questions that had not been treated in the previous guidelines, or to modify the guidelines following new data in the published literature. The used method is invariably the GRADE© method, which guarantees a rigorous work. Seventeen recommendations were formalised on the assessment of perioperative pain, and most particularly in non-communicating patients, on opioid and non-opioid analgesics and on anti-hyperalgesic drugs, such as ketamine and gabapentinoids, as well as on local and regional anaesthesia. The concept of vulnerability and therefore the identification of the most fragile patients in terms of analgesics requirements were specified. Because of the absence of sufficient data or new information, no recommendation was made about analgesia monitoring, the procedures for the surveillance of patients in conventional care structures, or perinervous or epidural catheterism.

Perioperative use of gabapentinoids in France. Mismatch between clinical practice and scientific evidence.

BACKGROUND: Gabapentinoids have governmental health agency approval for "chronic neuropathic pain." Over the last decade, however, the perioperative prescription of gabapentinoids has become more popular among anaesthesiologists due to their anxiolytic and antihyperalgesic proprieties, despite weak scientific evidence supporting the risk/benefit ratio for this indication. METHODS: Our aim was to extensively describe the use of perioperative gabapentinoids by French anaesthesiologists. An online questionnaire was sent to the French Society of Anaesthesiology members. The questionnaire, focusing on gabapentinoid prescriptions, included questions on demographic data, patient conditions and types of surgeries, mode of prescription, motives and presumed side effects (dizziness, confusion, desaturation and visual disorders). RESULTS: Five hundred and eight questionnaires were analysed, among which 70% reported gabapentinoid use. Twenty-five percent of prescribers stated using gabapentinoids in all types of surgeries, 30% in outpatient surgeries and 46% in combination with regional anaesthesia. In 66% of the cases, preoperative and postoperative prescriptions were combined. Sedation, dizziness and visual disturbance were expected side effects according to 68%, 45% and 20% of anaesthesiologists, respectively. Reported reasons in favor of gabapentinoid prescription were prevention of chronic pain (93%), expected high postoperative acute pain, i.e. painful surgeries (91%), a history of chronic pain (72%) and patient opioid dependence (72%). DISCUSSION: French anaesthesiologists have recently included gabapentinoids in the multimodal management of postoperative pain but they are unaware of certain frequent side effects. Moreover, their expectations about the prevention of chronic pain are not validated. Our survey is a call to moderate the systematic prescription of these drugs in the perioperative period.

Management of bleeding and emergency invasive procedures in patients on dabigatran: Updated guidelines from the French Working Group on Perioperative Haemostasis (GIHP) - September 2016.

In 2013, the GIHP published guidelines for the management of severe haemorrhages and emergency surgery. This update applies to patients treated with dabigatran, with a bleeding complication or undergoing an urgent invasive procedure. It includes how to handle the available specific antidote (idarucizumab), when to measure dabigatran plasmatic concentration and when to use non-specific measures in these situations. It also includes guidelines on how to perform regional anaesthesia and analgesia procedures.

Management of direct oral anticoagulants in patients undergoing elective surgeries and invasive procedures: Updated guidelines from the French Working Group on Perioperative Hemostasis (GIHP) - September 2015.

Since 2011, data on patients exposed to direct oral anticoagulants (DOAs) while undergoing invasive procedures have accumulated. At the same time, an increased hemorrhagic risk during perioperative bridging anticoagulation without thrombotic risk reduction has been demonstrated. This has led the GIHP to update their guidelines published in 2011. For scheduled procedures at low bleeding risk, it is suggested that patients interrupt DOAs the night before irrespective of type of drug and to resume therapy six hours or more after the end of the invasive procedure. For invasive procedures at high bleeding risk, it is suggested to interrupt rivaroxaban, apixaban and edoxaban three days before. Dabigatran should be interrupted according to the renal function, four days and five days if creatinine clearance is higher than 50mL/min and between 30 and 50mL/min, respectively. For invasive procedures at very high bleeding risk such as intracranial neurosurgery or neuraxial anesthesia, longer interruption times are suggested. Finally, bridging with parenteral anticoagulation and measurement of DOA concentrations can no longer routinely be used.