Inhaled Amikacin to Prevent Ventilator-Associated Pneumonia.

BACKGROUND: Whether preventive inhaled antibiotics may reduce the incidence of ventilator-associated pneumonia is unclear. METHODS: In this investigator-initiated, multicenter, double-blind, randomized, controlled, superiority trial, we assigned critically ill adults who had been undergoing invasive mechanical ventilation for at least 72 hours to receive inhaled amikacin at a dose of 20 mg per kilogram of ideal body weight once daily or to receive placebo for 3 days. The primary outcome was a first episode of ventilator-associated pneumonia during 28 days of follow-up. Safety was assessed. RESULTS: A total of 850 patients underwent randomization, and 847 were included in the analyses (417 assigned to the amikacin group and 430 to the placebo group). All three daily nebulizations were received by 337 patients (81%) in the amikacin group and 355 patients (83%) in the placebo group. At 28 days, ventilator-associated pneumonia had developed in 62 patients (15%) in the amikacin group and in 95 patients (22%) in the placebo group (difference in restricted mean survival time to ventilator-associated pneumonia, 1.5 days; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.6 to 2.5; P = 0.004). An infection-related ventilator-associated complication occurred in 74 patients (18%) in the amikacin group and in 111 patients (26%) in the placebo group (hazard ratio, 0.66; 95% CI, 0.50 to 0.89). Trial-related serious adverse effects were seen in 7 patients (1.7%) in the amikacin group and in 4 patients (0.9%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients who had undergone mechanical ventilation for at least 3 days, a subsequent 3-day course of inhaled amikacin reduced the burden of ventilator-associated pneumonia during 28 days of follow-up. (Funded by the French Ministry of Health; AMIKINHAL ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03149640; EUDRA Clinical Trials number, 2016-001054-17.).

Effects of Losartan on Patients Hospitalized for Acute COVID-19: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) down-regulates angiotensin-converting enzyme 2, potentially increasing angiotensin II. We hypothesized that losartan compared to usual care decreases mortality and is safe in patients hospitalized with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to evaluate the effect of losartan versus usual care on 28-day mortality in patients hospitalized for acute COVID-19. METHODS: Eligibility criteria included adults admitted for acute COVID-19. Exclusion criteria were hypotension, hyperkalemia, acute kidney injury, and use of angiotensin receptor blockers (ARBs) or angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors within 7 days. Participants were randomized to losartan 25-100 mg/day orally for the hospital duration or 3 months or the control arm (usual care) in 29 hospitals in Canada and France. The primary outcome was 28-day mortality. Secondary outcomes were hospital mortality, organ support, and serious adverse events (SAEs). RESULTS: The trial was stopped early because of a serious safety concern with losartan. In 341 patients, any SAE and hypotension were significantly higher in the losartan versus usual care groups (any SAE: 39.8% vs 27.2%, respectively, P = .01; hypotension: 30.4% vs 15.3%, respectively, P < .001) in both ward and intensive care patients. The 28-day mortality did not differ between losartan (6.5%) versus usual care (5.9%) (odds ratio, 1.11 [95% confidence interval, .47-2.64]; P = .81), nor did organ dysfunction or secondary outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: Caution is needed in deciding which patients to start or continue using ARBs in patients hospitalized with pneumonia to mitigate risk of hypotension, acute kidney injury, and other side effects. ARBs should not be added to care of patients hospitalized for acute COVID-19. CLINICAL TRIALS REGISTRATION: NCT04606563.

Opioid-free Anesthesia Protocol on the Early Quality of Recovery after Major Surgery (SOFA Trial): A Randomized Clinical Trial.

BACKGROUND: Opioid-free anesthesia is increasingly being adopted to reduce opioid consumption, but its impact on early postoperative recovery after major surgery has not been evaluated in comparative trials. The hypothesis was that an opioid-free anesthesia protocol would enhance the early quality of recovery for patients undergoing scheduled major surgery under general anesthesia. METHODS: The SOFA study was a monocentric, randomized, controlled, assessor- and patient-blinded clinical trial conducted from July 10, 2021, to February 12, 2022. The eligible population included male and female patients undergoing scheduled major surgery, excluding bone procedures, that typically require opioids for postoperative pain management. Patients in the intervention group received a combination of at least two drugs among ketamine, lidocaine, clonidine, and magnesium sulfate, without opioids for anesthesia. The standard group received opioids. The primary outcome was early postoperative quality of recovery, assessed by Quality of Recovery-15 score at 24 h after surgery. Secondary outcomes were Quality of Recovery-15 at 48 and 72 h after surgery, incidence of chronic pain, and quality of life at 3 months. RESULTS: Of the 136 randomized patients, 135 were included in the primary analysis (mean age, 45.9 ± 15.7 yr; 116 females [87.2%]; 85 underwent major plastic surgery [63.9%]), with 67 patients in the opioid-free anesthesia group and 68 in the standard group. The mean Quality of Recovery-15 at 24 h was 114.9 ± 15.2 in the opioid-free anesthesia group versus 108.7 ± 18.1 in the standard group (difference, 6.2; 95% CI, 0.4 to 12.0; P = 0.026). Quality of Recovery-15 scores also differed significantly at 48 h (difference, 8.7; 95% CI, 2.9 to 14.5; P = 0.004) and at 72 h (difference, 7.3; 95% CI, 1.6 to 13.0; P = 0.013). There were no differences in other secondary outcomes. No major adverse events were noticed. CONCLUSIONS: The opioid-free anesthesia protocol improved quality of recovery after major elective surgery in a statistically but not clinically significant manner when compared to standard anesthesia.

Prevention of post-operative delirium using an overnight infusion of dexmedetomidine in patients undergoing cardiac surgery: a pragmatic, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: After cardiac surgery, post-operative delirium (PoD) is acknowledged to have a significant negative impact on patient outcome. To date, there is no valuable and specific treatment for PoD. Critically ill patients often suffer from poor sleep condition. There is an association between delirium and sleep quality after cardiac surgery. This study aimed to establish whether promoting sleep using an overnight infusion of dexmedetomidine reduces the incidence of delirium after cardiac surgery. METHODS: Randomized, pragmatic, multicentre, double-blind, placebo controlled trial from January 2019 to July 2021. All adult patients aged 65 years or older requiring elective cardiac surgery were randomly assigned 1:1 either to the dexmedetomidine group or the placebo group on the day of surgery. Dexmedetomidine or matched placebo infusion was started the night after surgery from 8 pm to 8 am and administered every night while the patient remained in ICU, or for a maximum of 7 days. Primary outcome was the occurrence of postoperative delirium (PoD) within the 7 days after surgery. RESULTS: A total of 348 patients provided informed consent, of whom 333 were randomized: 331 patients underwent surgery and were analysed (165 assigned to dexmedetomidine and 166 assigned to placebo). The incidence of PoD was not significantly different between the two groups (12.6% vs. 12.4%, p = 0.97). Patients treated with dexmedetomidine had significantly more hypotensive events (7.3% vs 0.6%; p < 0.01). At 3 months, functional outcomes (Short-form 36, Cognitive failure questionnaire, PCL-5) were comparable between the two groups. CONCLUSION: In patients recovering from an elective cardiac surgery, an overnight infusion of dexmedetomidine did not decrease postoperative delirium. Trial registration This trial was registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (number: NCT03477344; date: 26th March 2018).

Impact of COVID-19 on posttraumatic stress disorder in ICU survivors: a prospective observational comparative cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) after a stay in the intensive care unit (ICU) can affect one in five ICU survivors. At the beginning of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, admission to the ICU for COVID-19 was stressful due to the severity of this disease. This study assessed whether admission to the ICU for COVID-19 was associated with a higher prevalence of PTSD compared with other causes of ICU admission after adjustment for pre-ICU psychological factors. METHODS: This prospective observational comparative cohort study included 31 ICUs. Eligible patients were adult ICU survivors hospitalized during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic in France, regardless of the reason for admission. The prevalence of presumptive diagnosis of PTSD at 6 months was assessed using the PTSD Checklist for DSM-5 (PCL-5). Sociodemographics, clinical data, history of childhood trauma (Childhood Trauma Questionnaire [CTQ]), and exposure to potentially traumatic events (Life Events Checklist for DSM-5 [LEC-5]) were assessed. RESULTS: Of the 778 ICU survivors included during the first wave of COVID-19 pandemic in France, 417 and 361 were assigned to the COVID-19 and non-COVID-19 cohorts, respectively. Fourteen (4.9%) and 11 (4.9%), respectively, presented with presumptive diagnosis of PTSD at 6 months (p = 0.976). After adjusting for age, sex, severity score at admission, use of invasive mechanical ventilation, ICU duration, CTQ and LEC-5, COVID-19 status was not associated with presumptive diagnosis of PTSD using the PCL-5. Only female sex was associated with presumptive diagnosis of PTSD. However, COVID-19 patients reported significantly more intrusion and avoidance symptoms than non-COVID patients (39% vs. 29%, p = 0.015 and 27% vs. 19%, p = 0.030), respectively. The median PCL-5 score was higher in the COVID-19 than non-COVID-19 cohort (9 [3, 20] vs. 4 [2, 16], p = 0.034). CONCLUSION: Admission to the ICU for COVID-19 was not associated with a higher prevalence of PTSD compared with admission for another cause during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic in France. However, intrusion and avoidance symptoms were more frequent in COVID-19 patients than in non-COVID-19 patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Clinicaltrials.gov Identifier NCT03991611, registered on June 19, 2019.

Effect of a comfort scale compared with a pain numerical rate scale on opioids consumption in postanaesthesia care unit: the COMFORT study.

BACKGROUND: The way that pain is assessed in the PACU could impact on postoperative pain and analgesic consumption. However, there is currently no evidence to support this speculation. The authors hypothesised that using a comfort scale reduces postoperative opioid consumption when compared with a standard numerical rating scale (NRS) to evaluate pain in the PACU. METHODS: In this cluster-randomised trial, patients were assessed using either a comfort scale (comfort group) or a pain NRS (NRS group). The primary outcome was the opioid consumption in the PACU. The main secondary outcomes were postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting, length of stay in the PACU, and satisfaction. RESULTS: Of 885 randomised patients, 860 were included in the analysis. Opioid consumption in the PACU was comparable in the comfort and NRS groups (median [interquartile range [IQR] 0 (0-5) vs 0 (0-6); P=0.2436), irrespective of the type of surgical procedure. The majority of patients did not need any postoperative opioid (59% in the comfort group and 56% in the NRS group, P=0.2260). There was no difference in postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting, time to reach an Aldrete score ≥9 after extubation, and global satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: Using a comfort scale to assess pain in the PACU did not spare any opioid compared with use of a standard NRS. Further studies focusing on patients at risk of increased postoperative opioid consumption are necessary. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT05234216.

Changes in Practices After Implementation of a Patient Blood Management Program in French Surgical Departments: The National Multicenter Observational PERIOPES Study.

BACKGROUND: Patient blood management (PBM) is an evidence-based approach recommended to improve patient outcomes. Change in practices is often challenging. We report here data from French surgical departments before and after a standardized implementation of a PBM program. METHODS: This was a national, multicenter, observational study in surgical centers ("expert" centers with an already established protocol for preoperative anemia or "pilot" centers). Data from consecutive surgical patients of different specialties were retrieved before and after the implementation of a PBM program. Primary outcome variables (preoperative anemia treatment rates, transfusion rates, and length of hospital stay) before and after the implementation of a PBM program were analyzed with segmented regression adjusted on confounders (American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] scores and centers). RESULTS: A total of 1618 patients (ASA physical status III and IV, 38% in the first period and 45% in the second period) were included in expert (N = 454) or pilot (N = 1164) centers during the first period (January 2017-August 2022) and 1542 (N = 440 and N = 1102, respectively) during the second period (January 2020-February 2023). After implementation of the PBM program, the rate of preoperative anemia treatment increased (odds ratio, 2.37; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.20-4.74; P = .0136) and length of hospital stay in days decreased (estimate, -0.11; 95% CI, -0.21 to -0.02; P = .0186). Transfusion rate significantly decreased only in expert centers (odds ratio, 0.17; 95% CI, 0.03-0.88; P = .0354). CONCLUSIONS: PBM practices in various surgical specialties improved significantly after the implementation of a PBM program. However, too many patients with preoperative anemia remained untreated.

Validation of the postoperative Quality of Recovery-15 questionnaire after emergency surgery and association with quality of life at three months.

PURPOSE: The Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) tool, validated for measuring postoperative recovery following scheduled surgeries, has not been psychometrically assessed in emergency contexts. Moreover, the QoR-15's associations with long-term outcomes remain underexplored. This study aimed to confirm the validity and reliability of the QoR-15 following emergency surgery and assess its association with three-month postoperative quality of life. METHODS: We conducted a prospective cohort study (August 2021-April 2022) on adult patients who underwent emergency surgery. The QoR-15 questionnaire was administered before surgery (H0) and at 24 hr (H24) and 48 hr (H48) after surgery. We examined the H24 score's associations with both the three-month quality of life, as assessed by the EQ-5D scale, and the number of days spent at home at 30 (DAH30) and 90 (DAH90) days. RESULTS: Of the 375 included patients, 352 (94%) completed the QoR-15 at H24 and 338 (90%) were followed up at three months. The population represented the following diverse surgical specialties: orthopedic (51%), gastrointestinal (27%), urologic (13%), and others (9%). The QoR-15 questionnaire confirmed all psychometric qualities (internal consistency, reproducibility, responsiveness, acceptability, construct, and convergent validities) in the emergency context. The average minimum clinical difference was 8.0 at H24. There was an association between QoR-15 at H24 and the three-month quality of life (r = 0.24; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.14 to 0.34; P < 0.001), DAH30 (r = 0.33; 95% CI, 0.23 to 0.41; P < 0.001), and DAH90 (r = 0.31; 95% CI, 0.22 to 0.40; P < 0.001). CONCLUSION: The QoR-15 score is valid for measuring early postoperative recovery after emergency surgery. The H24 score significantly correlated with both the three-month quality of life and the number of days at home. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04845763); first submitted 11 April 2021.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: L'outil Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15), validé pour mesurer la récupération postopératoire après des chirurgies programmées, n'a pas fait l'objet d'une évaluation psychométrique dans des contextes d'urgence. De plus, l'association entre les réponses au QoR-15 et les devenirs à long terme demeure peu explorée. Cette étude visait à confirmer la validité et la fiabilité du QoR-15 après une chirurgie d'urgence et à évaluer son association avec la qualité de vie postopératoire à trois mois. MéTHODE: Nous avons mené une étude de cohorte prospective (août 2021-avril 2022) auprès de patient·es adultes ayant bénéficié d'une intervention chirurgicale d'urgence. Le questionnaire QoR-15 a été administré avant la chirurgie (H0), ainsi que 24 (H24) et 48 heures (H48) après la chirurgie. Nous avons examiné les associations du score à H24 avec la qualité de vie à trois mois, telle qu'évaluée par l'échelle EQ-5D, et le nombre de jours passés à la maison à 30 (DAH30) et 90 (DAH90) jours. RéSULTATS: Sur les 375 patient·es inclus·es, 352 (94 %) ont complété le QoR-15 à H24 et 338 (90 %) ont bénéficié d'un suivi à trois mois. La population représentait les diverses spécialités chirurgicales suivantes : orthopédique (51 %), gastro-intestinale (27 %), urologique (13 %) et autres (9 %). Le questionnaire QoR-15 a confirmé toutes les qualités psychométriques (cohérence interne, reproductibilité, réactivité, acceptabilité, construit et validités convergentes) dans le contexte de l'urgence. La différence clinique minimale moyenne était de 8,0 à H24. Il y avait une association entre le QoR-15 à H24 et la qualité de vie à trois mois (r = 0,24; intervalle de confiance à 95 % [IC], 0,14 à 0,34; P < 0,001), le DAH30 (r = 0,33; IC 95 %, 0,23 à 0,41; P < 0,001) et le DAH90 (r = 0,31; IC 95 %, 0,22 à 0,40; P < 0,001). CONCLUSION: Le score QoR-15 est valable pour mesurer la récupération postopératoire précoce après une intervention chirurgicale d'urgence. Le score à H24 était significativement corrélé à la fois à la qualité de vie à trois mois et au nombre de jours passés à la maison. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT04845763); soumis pour la première fois le 11 avril 2021.

Continuation vs Discontinuation of Renin-Angiotensin System Inhibitors Before Major Noncardiac Surgery: The Stop-or-Not Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Before surgery, the best strategy for managing patients who are taking renin-angiotensin system inhibitors (RASIs) (angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers) is unknown. The lack of evidence leads to conflicting guidelines. Objective: To evaluate whether a continuation strategy vs a discontinuation strategy of RASIs before major noncardiac surgery results in decreased complications at 28 days after surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: Randomized clinical trial that included patients who were being treated with a RASI for at least 3 months and were scheduled to undergo a major noncardiac surgery between January 2018 and April 2023 at 40 hospitals in France. Intervention: Patients were randomized to continue use of RASIs (n = 1107) until the day of surgery or to discontinue use of RASIs 48 hours prior to surgery (ie, they would take the last dose 3 days before surgery) (n = 1115). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause mortality and major postoperative complications within 28 days after surgery. The key secondary outcomes were episodes of hypotension during surgery, acute kidney injury, postoperative organ failure, and length of stay in the hospital and intensive care unit during the 28 days after surgery. Results: Of the 2222 patients (mean age, 67 years [SD, 10 years]; 65% were male), 46% were being treated with angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors at baseline and 54% were being treated with angiotensin receptor blockers. The rate of all-cause mortality and major postoperative complications was 22% (245 of 1115 patients) in the RASI discontinuation group and 22% (247 of 1107 patients) in the RASI continuation group (risk ratio, 1.02 [95% CI, 0.87-1.19]; P = .85). Episodes of hypotension during surgery occurred in 41% of the patients in the RASI discontinuation group and in 54% of the patients in the RASI continuation group (risk ratio, 1.31 [95% CI, 1.19-1.44]). There were no other differences in the trial outcomes. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients who underwent major noncardiac surgery, a continuation strategy of RASIs before surgery was not associated with a higher rate of postoperative complications than a discontinuation strategy. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03374449.

Arterial hypotension "magnitude" and neurological outcome during mechanical thrombectomy under general anesthesia.

INTRODUCTION: Mechanical thrombectomy (MT) is the standard of care for the treatment of acute ischemic stroke (AIS) with large vessel occlusion (LVO), but unfavorable outcomes remain common. Procedural arterial hypotension is associated with poor patient outcome. This study aimed to assess the impact of arterial hypotension "magnitude" (a combination of the depth, defined as the percentage relative to baseline arterial blood pressure, and the duration of hypotensive episodes)" during MT on neurological outcome. METHODS: This is a monocentric retrospective study. Charts were reviewed between January 2018 and June 2021. "Patients were eligible if they were 18 years or older, anterior LVO was diagnosed on cerebral imaging" and MT performed under general anesthesia. Mean arterial pressure (MAP) was recorded every 5 min throughout the procedure, and the arterial hypotension "magnitude" was estimated by the area under the curve (AUC) for different thresholds of MAP drops. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The modified Rankin Scale (mRS) at 90 days. MAIN RESULTS: Among the 117 patients analyzed, 46% had poor neurological outcome. Our study showed correlations between poor outcome and a greater procedural AUC of arterial hypotension for the different thresholds: 5% (k 0.18; 95% CI 0.06-0.30; P = 0.007), 10% (k 0.18; 95% CI 0.05-0.30; P = 0.008), 15% (k 0.18; 95% CI 0.04-0.30; P = 0.011), 20% (k 0.18; 95% CI 0.05-0.30; P = 0.010) and 30% (k 0.19; 95% CI 0.05-0.31; P = 0.010). This association persisted after controlling for age, baseline NIHSS score, and ASPECT score. CONCLUSION: The magnitude of hypotension during MT under general anesthesia for AIS is an independent factor of poor outcome at 90 days. These associations have been observed in patients with mild and severe hypotensive episodes.

Management of perioperative iron deficiency anemia as part of patient blood management in France: A budget impact model-based analysis based on real world data.

OBJECTIVES: Patient Blood Management (PBM) is defined as a patient-centered, systematic, evidence-based approach to improve patient outcomes by managing and preserving a patient's own blood, while promoting patient safety and empowerment. As a corollary, it also reduces the utilization of allogeneic blood components. However, demonstrating cost-effectiveness depends on the health insurance system considered. This analysis aims to estimate the one-year budget impact of PBM in four elective surgical areas, from French National Health Insurance and hospital perspectives. METHODS: A budget impact model was developed to estimate the difference in the cost of care between scenarios with and without PBM. The impact of hematopoiesis optimization (first pillar of PBM) was studied throughout the management of preoperative anemia and iron deficiency in four types of surgeries: orthopedic, cardiac & cardiovascular, vascular & thoracic, and urologic & visceral surgery. Estimation of model's parameters was based on data collected in 10 French hospitals, literature, and on data from the French national medico-administrative database. RESULTS: A total of 980,125 patients were modeled for all four therapeutic areas. Results shows that implementation of a PBM program could generate annual savings up to €1079 M from the French National Health Insurance perspective (€1018 M from the hospital perspective), and the sparing of 181,451 red blood cells units per year. The deterministic sensitivity analysis showed that PBM generates savings for both perspectives in most parameters tested. CONCLUSION: Implementing PBM programs could result in important savings for the health care system in France.

Postoperative transfusion hemoglobin threshold and functional recovery after high-risk oncologic surgery: A randomized controlled pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Robust evidence to inform best transfusion management after major oncologic surgery, where postoperative recovery might impact treatment regimens for cancer, is lacking. We conducted a study to validate the feasibility of a larger trial comparing liberal versus restrictive red blood cells (RBC) transfusion strategies after major oncologic surgery. STUDY DESIGN AND METHODS: This was a two-center, randomized, controlled, study of patients admitted to the intensive care unit after major oncologic surgery. Patients whose hemoglobin level dropped below 9.5 g/dL, were randomly assigned to immediately receive a 1-unit RBC transfusion (liberal) or delayed until the hemoglobin level dropped below 7.5 g/dL (restrictive). The primary outcome was the median hemoglobin level between randomization to day 30 post-surgery. Disability-free survival was evaluated by the WHODAS 2.0 questionnaire. RESULTS: 30 patients were randomized (15 patients/group) in 15 months with a mean recruitment rate of 1.8 patients per month. The median hemoglobin level was significantly higher in the liberal group than in the restrictive group: 10.1 g/dL (IQR 9.6-10.5) versus 8.8 g/dL (IQR 8.3-9.4), p < .001, and RBC transfusion rates were 100% versus 66.7%, p = .04. The disability-free survival was similar between groups: 26.7% versus 20%, p = 1. DISCUSSION: Our results support the feasibility of a phase 3 randomized controlled trial comparing the impact of liberal versus restrictive transfusion strategies on the functional recovery of critically ill patients following major oncologic surgery.

Impact of continuous hypertonic (NaCl 20%) saline solution on renal outcomes after traumatic brain injury (TBI): a post hoc analysis of the COBI trial.

BACKGROUND: To evaluate if the increase in chloride intake during a continuous infusion of 20% hypertonic saline solution (HSS) is associated with an increase in the incidence of acute kidney injury (AKI) compared to standard of care in traumatic brain injury patients. METHODS: In this post hoc analysis of the COBI trial, 370 patients admitted for a moderate-to-severe TBI in the 9 participating ICUs were enrolled. The intervention consisted in a continuous infusion of HSS to maintain a blood sodium level between 150 and 155 mmol/L for at least 48 h. Patients enrolled in the control arm were treated as recommended by the latest Brain Trauma foundation guidelines. The primary outcome of this study was the occurrence of AKI within 28 days after enrollment. AKI was defined by stages 2 or 3 according to KDIGO criteria. RESULTS: After exclusion of missing data, 322 patients were included in this post hoc analysis. The patients randomized in the intervention arm received a significantly higher amount of chloride during the first 4 days (intervention group: 97.3 ± 31.6 g vs. control group: 61.3 ± 38.1 g; p < 0.001) and had higher blood chloride levels at day 4 (117.9 ± 10.7 mmol/L vs. 111.6 ± 9 mmol/L, respectively, p < 0.001). The incidence of AKI was not statistically different between the intervention and the control group (24.5% vs. 28.9%, respectively; p = 0.45). CONCLUSIONS: Despite a significant increase in chloride intake, a continuous infusion of HSS was not associated with AKI in moderate-to-severe TBI patients. Our study does not confirm the potentially detrimental effect of chloride load on kidney function in ICU patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The COBI trial was registered on clinicaltrial.gov (Trial registration number: NCT03143751, date of registration: 8 May 2017).

Prevalence and risk factors of significant persistent pain symptoms after critical care illness: a prospective multicentric study.

BACKGROUND: Prevalence, risk factors and medical management of persistent pain symptoms after critical care illness have not been thoroughly investigated. METHODS: We performed a prospective multicentric study in patients with an intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay ≥ 48 h. The primary outcome was the prevalence of significant persistent pain, defined as a numeric rating scale (NRS) ≥ 3, 3 months after admission. Secondary outcomes were the prevalence of symptoms compatible with neuropathic pain (ID-pain score > 3) and the risk factors of persistent pain. RESULTS: Eight hundred fourteen patients were included over a 10-month period in 26 centers. Patients had a mean age of 57 (± 17) years with a SAPS 2 score of 32 (± 16) (mean ± SD). The median ICU length of stay was 6 [4-12] days (median [interquartile]). At 3 months, the median intensity of pain symptoms was 2 [1-5] in the entire population, and 388 (47.7%) patients had significant pain. In this group, 34 (8.7%) patients had symptoms compatible with neuropathic pain. Female (Odds Ratio 1.5 95% CI [1.1-2.1]), prior use of anti-depressive agents (OR 2.2 95% CI [1.3-4]), prone positioning (OR 3 95% CI [1.4-6.4]) and the presence of pain symptoms on ICU discharge (NRS ≥ 3) (OR 2.4 95% CI [1.7-3.4]) were risk factors of persistent pain. Compared with sepsis, patients admitted for trauma (non neuro) (OR 3.5 95% CI [2.1-6]) were particularly at risk of persistent pain. Only 35 (11.3%) patients had specialist pain management by 3 months. CONCLUSIONS: Persistent pain symptoms were frequent in critical illness survivors and specialized management remained infrequent. Innovative approaches must be developed in the ICU to minimize the consequences of pain. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04817696. Registered March 26, 2021.

Spin and fragility in randomised controlled trials in the anaesthesia literature: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Given variable frequency of misleading reports and the potential for spin (a way of describing results that can mislead readers) to influence interpretation of randomised controlled trials (RCTs), we have undertaken a spin reassessment. We evaluated the quality of recent literature in anaesthesia journals by assessing the presence of spin and calculating the fragility index. METHODS: This systematic review of randomised trials was performed according to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. We searched via PubMed® from January 1, 2019 to January 1, 2021 to identify all RCTs published in one of the 20 anaesthesia journals with the highest journal impact factors during this time. Four pairs of reviewers assessed articles independently for eligibility using a piloted electronic data extraction form. They assessed the presence of spin in statistically negative RCTs and calculated the fragility index for statistically positive RCTs. RESULTS: Of the 802 screened records, 162 (20%) articles were analysed for spin, and 65 (8%) trials were analysed for fragility index. For the statistically negative studies, 66 articles (40%) presented spin; 89% of these occurrences of spin were described in the conclusion of the abstract. The primary type of spin was the highlight of secondary outcomes (67%). For statistically positive trials, the median fragility index was 4 [1-8]. CONCLUSIONS: This systematic review showed that 40% of statistically negative trials in high-impact anaesthesia journals could mislead readers. For statistically positive RCTs, the results relied on few subjects, with a median fragility index of 4 [1-8]. Efforts must be continued to reduce spin and fragility in the medical literature.

Postoperative prophylactic intermittent noninvasive ventilation versus usual postoperative care for patients at high risk of pulmonary complications: a multicentre randomised trial.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary complications are an important cause of morbidity and mortality after surgery. We evaluated the clinical effectiveness of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) in preventing postoperative acute respiratory failure. METHODS: This is an open, multicentre randomised trial that included patients at high risk of postoperative pulmonary complications after elective or semi-urgent surgery with an Assess Respiratory Risk in Surgical Patients in Catalonia (ARISCAT) score ≥45. Patients were randomly assigned to intermittent prophylactic face-mask NIV for 6-8 h day-1 or usual postoperative care. The primary outcome was in-hospital acute respiratory failure within 7 days after surgery. Patients who underwent surgery and postoperative extubation were included in the modified intended-to-treat analysis. Results are presented as n (%) and odds ratios (ORs) with 95% confidence intervals. RESULTS: Between November 2017 and October 2019, 266 patients were randomised and 253 included in the main analysis. Of these, 203 (80.2%) were male with a mean age of 68 (11) yr and an ARISCAT score of 53 (6); 237 subjects (93.7%) underwent cardiac or thoracic surgery. There were 125 patients allocated to prophylactic NIV and 128 to usual care. Unplanned treatment termination occurred in 58 subjects in the NIV group, which was linked to NIV discomfort for 36 subjects. There was no difference in the incidence of the primary outcome of postoperative acute respiratory failure between treatment groups (NIV: 30 of 125 subjects [24.0%] vs usual care: 35 of 128 subjects [27.3%]; OR 0.97 [0.90-1.04]; P=0.54). CONCLUSIONS: Prophylactic NIV was difficult to implement after high-risk surgery because of low patient compliance. Prophylactic NIV did not prevent acute respiratory failure. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT03629431 and EudraCT 2017-001011-36.

Penny-wise and pound-foolish: the challenges of preoperative anaemia management.

The timely correction of anaemia before major surgery is important for optimising perioperative patient outcomes. However, multiple barriers have precluded the global expansion of preoperative anaemia treatment programmes, including misconceptions about the true cost/benefit ratio for patient care and health system economics. Institutional investment and buy-in from stakeholders could lead to significant cost savings through avoided complications of anaemia and red blood cell transfusions, and through containment of direct and variable costs of blood bank laboratories. In some health systems, billing for iron infusions could generate revenue and promote growth of treatment programmes. The aim of this work is to galvanise integrated health systems worldwide to diagnose and treat anaemia before major surgery.

Evaluation of Anemia and Iron Deficiency in French Surgical Departments: The National Multicenter Observational PERIOPES Study.

BACKGROUND: Assessment of anemia and iron deficiency before surgery is pivotal for patient blood management (PBM), but few data on current practices are available in the French context. The objective of this study was to describe anemia and iron deficiency management and blood transfusion use in surgical departments in France. METHODS: This was a national multicenter cross-sectional study in 13 public hospitals and 3 private ones (all with an interest for PBM). Data of consecutive surgical patients from different specialties were retrieved from their chart between July 30, 2019, and December 31, 2021. Data included hemoglobin, iron workup, treatment with oral/intravenous iron or erythropoiesis-stimulating agent, and transfusions. RESULTS: Data from 2345 patients (median age, 68 years; women, 50.9%; American Society of Anesthesiologists [ASA] physical status III-IV, 35.4%) were obtained. Only 5 centers had a formalized PBM program. At preoperative anesthesia visit, hemoglobin (Hb) level was assessed in 2112 (90.1%) patients and anemia diagnosed in 722 of them (34.2%). Complete iron workup was performed in 715 (30.5%) of the 2345 patients. Iron deficiency anemia was present in 219 (30.3%) of the 722 anemic patients. Among patients with anemia, only 217 (30.1%) of them were treated. A total of 479 perioperative blood transfusions were reported in 315 patients. Restrictive transfusion was not applied in 50% of transfusion episodes, and the single-unit red blood cell transfusion was also not frequent (37.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Our observational study showed that preoperative anemia was frequent, but iron deficiency was often not assessed and few patients were treated. There is an urgent need for PBM implementation in these centers.

Perioperative Iron Deficiency in Patients Scheduled for Major Elective Surgeries: A French Prospective Multicenter Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: The management of perioperative iron deficiency is a component of the concept of patient blood management. The objective of this study was to update French data on the prevalence of iron deficiency in patients scheduled for major surgery. METHODS: The CARENFER PBM study was a prospective cross-sectional study in 46 centers specialized in orthopedic, cardiac, urologic/abdominal, or gynecological surgery. The primary end point was the prevalence of iron deficiency at the time of surgery (D-1/D0) defined as serum ferritin <100 µg/L and/or transferrin saturation (TSAT) <20%. RESULTS: A total of 1494 patients (mean age, 65.7 years; women, 49.3%) were included from July 20, 2021 to January 3, 2022. The prevalence of iron deficiency in the 1494 patients at D-1/D0 was 47.0% (95% confidence interval [CI], 44.5-49.5). At 30 days after surgery, the prevalence of iron deficiency was 45.0% (95% CI, 42.0-48.0) in the 1085 patients with available data. The percentage of patients with anemia and/or iron deficiency increased from 53.6% at D-1/D0 to 71.3% at D30 ( P < .0001), mainly due to the increase of patients with both anemia and iron deficiency (from 12.2% at D-1/D0 to 32.4% at D30; P < .0001). However, a treatment of anemia and/or iron deficiency was administered preoperatively to only 7.7% of patients and postoperatively to 21.7% (intravenous iron, 14.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Iron deficiency was present in half of patients scheduled for major surgery. However, few treatments to correct iron deficiency were implemented preoperatively or postoperatively. There is an urgent need for action to improve these outcomes, including better patient blood management.

Effect of Remifentanil vs Neuromuscular Blockers During Rapid Sequence Intubation on Successful Intubation Without Major Complications Among Patients at Risk of Aspiration: A Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: It is uncertain whether a rapid-onset opioid is noninferior to a rapid-onset neuromuscular blocker during rapid sequence intubation when used in conjunction with a hypnotic agent. Objective: To determine whether remifentanil is noninferior to rapid-onset neuromuscular blockers for rapid sequence intubation. Design, Setting, and Participants: Multicenter, randomized, open-label, noninferiority trial among 1150 adults at risk of aspiration (fasting for <6 hours, bowel occlusion, recent trauma, or severe gastroesophageal reflux) who underwent tracheal intubation in the operating room at 15 hospitals in France from October 2019 to April 2021. Follow-up was completed on May 15, 2021. Interventions: Patients were randomized to receive neuromuscular blockers (1 mg/kg of succinylcholine or rocuronium; n = 575) or remifentanil (3 to 4 µg/kg; n = 575) immediately after injection of a hypnotic. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was assessed in all randomized patients (as-randomized population) and in all eligible patients who received assigned treatment (per-protocol population). The primary outcome was successful tracheal intubation on the first attempt without major complications, defined as lung aspiration of digestive content, oxygen desaturation, major hemodynamic instability, sustained arrhythmia, cardiac arrest, and severe anaphylactic reaction. The prespecified noninferiority margin was 7.0%. Results: Among 1150 randomized patients (mean age, 50.7 [SD, 17.4] years; 573 [50%] women), 1130 (98.3%) completed the trial. In the as-randomized population, tracheal intubation on the first attempt without major complications occurred in 374 of 575 patients (66.1%) in the remifentanil group and 408 of 575 (71.6%) in the neuromuscular blocker group (between-group difference adjusted for randomization strata and center, -6.1%; 95% CI, -11.6% to -0.5%; P = .37 for noninferiority), demonstrating inferiority. In the per-protocol population, 374 of 565 patients (66.2%) in the remifentanil group and 403 of 565 (71.3%) in the neuromuscular blocker group had successful intubation without major complications (adjusted difference, -5.7%; 2-sided 95% CI, -11.3% to -0.1%; P = .32 for noninferiority). An adverse event of hemodynamic instability was recorded in 19 of 575 patients (3.3%) with remifentanil and 3 of 575 (0.5%) with neuromuscular blockers (adjusted difference, 2.8%; 95% CI, 1.2%-4.4%). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults at risk of aspiration during rapid sequence intubation in the operating room, remifentanil, compared with neuromuscular blockers, did not meet the criterion for noninferiority with regard to successful intubation on first attempt without major complications. Although remifentanil was statistically inferior to neuromuscular blockers, the wide confidence interval around the effect estimate remains compatible with noninferiority and limits conclusions about the clinical relevance of the difference. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03960801.