Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome in the Perioperative Period of Cardiac Surgery: Predictors, Diagnosis, Prognosis, Management Options, and Future Directions.

Acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) after cardiac surgery is reported with a widely variable incidence (from 0.4%-8.1%). Cardiac surgery patients usually are affected by several comorbidities, and the development of ARDS significantly affects their prognosis. Herein, evidence regarding the current knowledge in the field of ARDS in cardiac surgery is summarized and is followed by a discussion on therapeutic strategies, with consideration of the peculiar aspects of ARDS after cardiac surgery. Prevention of lung injury during and after cardiac surgery remains pivotal. Blood product transfusions should be limited to minimize the risk, among others, of lung injury. Open lung ventilation strategy (ventilation during cardiopulmonary bypass, recruitment maneuvers, and the use of moderate positive end-expiratory pressure) has not shown clear benefits on clinical outcomes. Clinicians in the intraoperative and postoperative ventilatory settings carefully should consider the effect of mechanical ventilation on cardiac function (in particular the right ventricle). Driving pressure should be kept as low as possible, with low tidal volumes (on predicted body weight) and optimal positive end-expiratory pressure. Regarding the therapeutic options, management of ARDS after cardiac surgery challenges the common approach. For instance, prone positioning may not be easily applicable after cardiac surgery. In patients who develop ARDS after cardiac surgery, extracorporeal techniques may be a valid choice in experienced hands. The use of neuromuscular blockade and inhaled nitric oxide can be considered on a case-by-case basis, whereas the use of aggressive lung recruitment and oscillatory ventilation should be discouraged.

Burnout in Cardiac Anesthesiologists: Results From a National Survey in Italy.

OBJECTIVE: There is increasing burnout incidence among medical disciplines, and physicians working in emergency settings seem at higher risk. Cardiac anesthesiology is a stressful anesthesiology subspecialty dealing with high-risk patients. The authors hypothesized a high risk of burnout in cardiac anesthesiologists. DESIGN: National survey conducted on burnout. SETTING: Italian cardiac centers. PARTICIPANTS: Cardiac anesthesiologists. INTERVENTIONS: The authors administered via email an anonymous questionnaire divided into 3 parts. The first 2 parts evaluated workload and private life. The third part consisted of the Maslach Burnout Inventory test with its 3 constituents: high emotional exhaustion, high depersonalization, and low personal accomplishment. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The authors measured the prevalence and risk of burnout through the Maslach Burnout Inventory questionnaire and analyzed factors influencing burnout. Among 670 contacts from 71 centers, 382 cardiac anesthesiologists completed the survey (57%). The authors found the following mean Maslach Burnout Inventory values: 14.5 ± 9.7 (emotional exhaustion), 9.1 ± 7.1 (depersonalization), and 33.7 ± 8.9 (personal accomplishment). A rate of 34%, 54%, and 66% of respondents scored in "high" or "moderate-high" risk of burnout (emotional exhaustion, depersonalization, and personal accomplishment, respectively). The authors found that, if offered to change subspecialty, 76% of respondents would prefer to remain in cardiac anesthesiology. This preference and parenthood were the only 2 investigated factors with a protective effect against all components of burnout. Significantly lower burnout scores were found in more experienced anesthesiologists. CONCLUSION: A relatively high incidence of burnout was found in cardiac anesthesiologists, especially regarding high depersonalization and low personal accomplishment. Nonetheless, most of the respondents would choose to remain in cardiac anesthesiology.

Incidence and Factors Associated with Burnout in Anesthesiology: A Systematic Review.

BACKGROUND: Burnout syndrome has reached epidemic levels among physicians (reported around 50%). Anesthesiology is among the most stressful medical disciplines but there is paucity of literature as compared with others. Analysis of burnout is essential because it is associated with safety and quality of care. We summarize evidence on burnout in anesthesiology. METHODS: We conducted a systematic review (MEDLINE up to 30.06.2017). We included studies reporting burnout in anesthesiology with no restriction on role or screening test used. RESULTS: Fifteen surveys/studies described burnout in anesthesiology, including different workers profiles (nurses, residents, consultants, and directors). All studies used the Maslach Burnout Inventory test but with significant differences for risk stratification. Burnout prevalence greatly varied across studies (10%-41% high risk, up to 59% at least moderate risk). Factors most consistently associated with burnout were strained working pattern, working as younger consultant, and having children. There was no consistent relationship between burnout and hospital characteristics, gender, or marital status. CONCLUSIONS: Burnout prevalence among anesthesiologists is relatively high across career stages, and some risk factors are reported frequently. However, the small number of studies as well as the large differences in their methodology and in reporting approach warrants further research in this field.