Noise in the operating room during induction of anesthesia: impact of a quality improvement initiative.

PURPOSE: Noise in the operating room (OR) is common and associated with negative effects on anesthesiologists, surgeons, and patient outcomes. Induction of anesthesia is among the loudest perioperative periods. Despite its critical nature, there is little data on noise levels during induction, associated patient and anesthesiologist satisfaction, and the effects of noise reduction strategies. METHODS: We conducted a two-part prospective interventional quality improvement project on the care of adult patients receiving general anesthesia for elective noncardiac surgery. For part A, we measured average and peak noise (dB[A]) levels during anesthesia induction in N = 100 cases and administered a satisfaction questionnaire to anesthesiologists. We then applied a multidisciplinary educational program to OR personnel on active noise reduction strategies and subsequently collected data during N = 109 cases in a post-intervention phase. For part B, we administered satisfaction questionnaires to N = 100 patients pre- vs postintervention, respectively. RESULTS: Median [interquartile range] noise levels throughout induction were 66.0 [62.5-68.6] dB(A) preintervention vs 63.5 [60.1-65.4] dB[A] post-intervention (Hodges-Lehmann estimator of the difference, - 2.7 dB[A]; 95% confidence interval [CI], - 4.0 to - 1.5; P < 0.001). Peak noise levels during induction were 87.3 [84.0-90.5] dB(A) preintervention and 86.2 [81.8-89.3] dB(A) postintervention (Hodges-Lehmann estimator of the difference, - 1.8 dB[A]; 95% CI, - 3.3 to - 0.3; P = 0.02). Noise-related anesthesiologist satisfaction postintervention was significantly improved in multiple domains, including assessment of noise having distracted anesthesiologists. Patient satisfaction was high pre-intervention and did not significantly improve further. CONCLUSION: In this quality improvement project, average noise levels during induction of anesthesia, anesthesiologist satisfaction, and anesthesiologists' perceived ability to perform were improved following a multidisciplinary educational program on noise reduction in the OR. STUDY REGISTRATION: www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov (NCT04204785); registered 19 December 2019.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Le bruit en salle d'opération (SOP) est fréquent et associé à des effets négatifs sur les anesthésiologistes, les chirurgiens et les issues des patients. L'induction de l'anesthésie est l'une des périodes périopératoires les plus bruyantes. Malgré sa nature critique, il existe peu de données sur les niveaux sonores pendant l'induction, la satisfaction des patients et des anesthésiologistes qui y est reliée, et les effets des stratégies de réduction du bruit. MéTHODE: Nous avons mené un projet prospectif et interventionnel, en deux parties, d'amélioration de la qualité sur les soins aux patients adultes recevant une anesthésie générale pour une chirurgie non cardiaque non urgente. Dans le cadre de la première partie A, nous avons mesuré les niveaux de bruit moyen et maximaux (dB[A]) pendant l'induction de l'anesthésie dans n = 100 cas et administré un questionnaire de satisfaction aux anesthésiologistes. Nous avons ensuite appliqué un programme de formation multidisciplinaire au personnel de la salle d'opération sur les stratégies de réduction active du bruit et avons ensuite recueilli des données pour n = 109 cas dans une phase post-intervention. Pour la deuxième partie B, nous avons administré des questionnaires de satisfaction à n = 100 patients pré- vs post-intervention, respectivement. RéSULTATS: Les niveaux de bruit médians [écart interquartile] tout au long de l'induction étaient de 66,0 [62,5­68,6] dB(A) avant l'intervention vs 63,5 [60,1­65,4] dB[A] après l'intervention (estimateur de Hodges-Lehmann, − 2,7 dB[A]; intervalle de confiance [IC] 95 %, − 4,0 à − 1,5; P < 0,001). Les niveaux maximaux de bruit pendant l'induction étaient de 87,3 [84,0­90,5] dB(A) avant l'intervention et de 86,2 [81,8­89,3] dB(A) après l'intervention (estimateur de Hodges-Lehmann, − 1,8 dB[A]; IC 95 %, − 3,3 à − 0,3; P = 0,02). La satisfaction des anesthésiologistes par rapport au bruit après l'intervention a été considérablement améliorée dans de nombreux domaines, y compris l'évaluation du bruit ayant distrait les anesthésiologistes. La satisfaction des patients était élevée avant l'intervention et ne s'est pas améliorée de manière significative. CONCLUSION: Dans ce projet d'amélioration de la qualité, les niveaux de bruit moyens lors de l'induction de l'anesthésie, la satisfaction des anesthésiologistes et la capacité perçue des anesthésiologistes à réaliser leurs tâches ont été améliorés à la suite d'un programme de formation multidisciplinaire sur la réduction du bruit en salle d'opération. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: www.ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04204785); enregistrée le 19 décembre 2019.

First- and second-line chemotherapy with docetaxel or mitoxantrone in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer: does sequence matter?

BACKGROUND: Docetaxel and mitoxantrone are considered first-line chemotherapeutic options in patients with hormone-refractory prostate cancer (HRPC), but their clinical effectiveness in a second-line setting is unknown. Therefore, the authors conducted a population-based retrospective study to establish activity and tolerability of second-line docetaxel or mitoxantrone in HRPC. METHODS: The study included 68 patients who had failed androgen ablation therapy and who received docetaxel and mitoxantrone in either sequence. Clinical efficacy in terms of median overall survival (OS), progression-free survival (PFS), posttreatment prostate-specific antigen (PSA) decline of > or = 50% and treatment-related toxicity were evaluated. RESULTS: Of 68 patients, 35 received docetaxel followed by mitoxantrone, and 33 received mitoxantrone followed by docetaxel. Both groups were comparable for recognized pretreatment prognostic factors. Patients who received docetaxel first-line had a trend toward longer median OS compared with patients treated with second-line docetaxel after mitoxantrone failure (22 mos, 95% confidence interval [CI], 17.2-26.8 mos vs. 15 mos, 95% CI, 10.4-19.6 mos). Median number of second-line chemotherapy cycles was 3 and median PFS survival was 2-3 months in both groups. Second-line docetaxel produced a higher PSA response compared with mitoxantrone (38% vs. 12%, P = 0.012), but this did not translate to a survival benefit. Both second-line docetaxel and mitoxantrone were associated with a high frequency of treatment-related adverse events that resulted in dose reduction, delay, or discontinuation (64% and 46% of patients, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Study results favored docetaxel given up-front for patients with HRPC considered suitable for further chemotherapy. Second-line docetaxel or mitoxantrone had limited efficacy and tolerability. Patients who are candidates for second-line chemotherapy, should be enrolled into clinical trials.