Risk factors for ventilator-associated lower respiratory tract infection in COVID-19, a retrospective multicenter cohort study in Sweden.

BACKGROUND: Ventilator-associated lower respiratory tract infections (VA-LRTI) increase morbidity and mortality in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. Higher incidences of VA-LRTI have been reported among COVID-19 patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV). The primary objectives of this study were to describe clinical characteristics, incidence, and risk factors comparing patients who developed VA-LRTI to patients who did not, in a cohort of Swedish ICU patients with acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19. Secondary objectives were to decipher changes over the three initial pandemic waves, common microbiology and the effect of VA-LTRI on morbidity and mortality. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, retrospective cohort study of all patients admitted to 10 ICUs in southeast Sweden between March 1, 2020 and May 31, 2021 because of acute hypoxemic respiratory failure due to COVID-19 and were mechanically ventilated for at least 48 h. The primary outcome was culture verified VA-LRTI. Patient characteristics, ICU management, clinical course, treatments, microbiological findings, and mortality were registered. Logistic regression analysis was conducted to determine risk factors for first VA-LRTI. RESULTS: Of a total of 536 included patients, 153 (28.5%) developed VA-LRTI. Incidence rate of first VA-LRTI was 20.8 per 1000 days of IMV. Comparing patients with VA-LRTI to those without, no differences in mortality, age, sex, or number of comorbidities were found. Patients with VA-LRTI had fewer ventilator-free days, longer ICU stay, were more frequently ventilated in prone position, received corticosteroids more often and were more frequently on antibiotics at intubation. Regression analysis revealed increased adjusted odds-ratio (aOR) for first VA-LRTI in patients treated with corticosteroids (aOR 2.64 [95% confidence interval [CI]] [1.31-5.74]), antibiotics at intubation (aOR 2.01 95% CI [1.14-3.66]), and days of IMV (aOR 1.05 per day of IMV, 95% CI [1.03-1.07]). Few multidrug-resistant pathogens were identified. Incidence of VA-LRTI increased from 14.5 per 1000 days of IMV during the first wave to 24.8 per 1000 days of IMV during the subsequent waves. CONCLUSION: We report a high incidence of culture-verified VA-LRTI in a cohort of critically ill COVID-19 patients from the first three pandemic waves. VA-LRTI was associated with increased morbidity but not 30-, 60-, or 90-day mortality. Corticosteroid treatment, antibiotics at intubation and time on IMV were associated with increased aOR of first VA-LRTI.

Impact of general anaesthesia on breast cancer survival: a 5-year follow up of a pragmatic, randomised, controlled trial, the CAN-study, comparing propofol and sevoflurane.

Background: Anaesthesia may impact long-term cancer survival. In the Cancer and Anaesthesia study, we hypothesised that the hypnotic drug propofol will have an advantage of at least five percentage points in five-year survival over the inhalational anaesthetic sevoflurane for breast cancer surgery. Methods: From 2118 eligible breast cancer patients scheduled for primary curable, invasive breast cancer surgery, 1764 were recruited after ethical approval and individual informed consent to this open label, single-blind, randomised trial at four county- and three university hospitals in Sweden and one Chinese university hospital. Of surveyed patients, 354 were excluded, mainly due to refusal to participate. Patients were randomised by computer at the monitoring organisation to general anaesthesia maintenance with either intravenous propofol or inhaled sevoflurane in a 1:1 ratio in permuted blocks. Data related to anaesthesia, surgery, oncology, and demographics were registered. The primary endpoint was five-year overall survival. Data are presented as Kaplan-Meier survival curves and Hazard Ratios based on Cox univariable regression analyses by both intention-to-treat and per-protocol. EudraCT, 2013-002380-25 and ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT01975064. Findings: Of 1764 patients, included from December 3, 2013, to September 29, 2017, 1670 remained for analysis. The numbers who survived at least five years were 773/841 (91.9% (95% CI 90.1-93.8)) in the propofol group and 764/829 (92.2% (90.3-94.0)) in the sevoflurane group, (HR 1.03 (0.73-1.44); P = 0.875); the corresponding results in the per-protocol-analysis were: 733/798 (91.9% (90.0-93.8)) and 653/710 (92.0% (90.0-94.0)) (HR = 1.01 (0.71-1.44); P = 0.955). Survival after a median follow-up of 76.7 months did not indicate any difference between the groups (HR 0.97, 0.72-1.29; P = 0.829, log rank test). Interpretation: No difference in overall survival was found between general anaesthesia with propofol or sevoflurane for breast cancer surgery. Funding: Swedish Research Council; Uppsala-Örebro Regional Research Council; Västmanland Regional Research Fund; Västmanland Cancer Foundation; Stig and Ragna Gohrton Foundation; Birgit and Henry Knutsson Foundation.

Survival after primary breast cancer surgery following propofol or sevoflurane general anesthesia-A retrospective, multicenter, database analysis of 6305 Swedish patients.

BACKGROUND: Retrospective studies indicate that the choice of anesthetic can affect long-term cancer survival. Propofol seems to have an advantage over sevoflurane. However, this is questioned for breast cancer. We gathered a large cohort of breast cancer surgery patients from seven Swedish hospitals and hypothesized that general anesthesia with propofol would be superior to sevoflurane anesthesia regarding long-term breast cancer survival. METHODS: We identified all patients who were anaesthetized for breast cancer surgery between 2006 and 2012. The patients were matched to the Swedish Breast Cancer Quality Register, to retrieve tumor characteristics, prognostic factors, and adjuvant treatment as well as date of death. Overall survival between patients undergoing sevoflurane and propofol anesthesia was analyzed with different statistical approaches: (a) multiple Cox regression models adjusted for demographic, oncological, and multiple control variables, (b) propensity score matching on the same variables, but also including the participating centers as a cofactor in a separate analysis. RESULTS: The database analysis identified 6305 patients. The 5-year survival rates were 91.0% and 81.8% for the propofol and sevoflurane group, respectively, in the final model (P = .126). Depending on the statistical adjustment method used, different results were obtained, from a non-significant to a "proposed" and even a "determined" difference in survival that favored propofol, with a maximum of 9.2 percentage points higher survival rate at 5 years (hazard ratio 1.46, 95% CI 1.10-1.95). CONCLUSIONS: It seems that propofol may have a survival advantage compared with sevoflurane among breast cancer patients, but the inherent weaknesses of retrospective analyses were made apparent.

Neuromuscular block and the electroencephalogram during sevoflurane anaesthesia.

The effect of neuromuscular block on the anaesthetic depth of hypnosis is an elusive question. We simultaneously investigated the influence of neuromuscular block on the bispectral index, a measure of hypnosis during general anaesthesia, and on the electroencephalogram. Patients were anaesthetized with sevoflurane. Noxious tetanic electrical stimulation was applied on two occasions: before and after profound neuromuscular block achieved with rocuronium. Neuromuscular block significantly attenuated the effect from noxious stimulation on electroencephalogram power and synchrony in the gamma band (P<0.05), and the corresponding effect on bispectral index (P<0.02). These findings are probably due to the reduced arousing afferent input from paralysed muscles, and not to changes in the frontal electromyogram.

The effect of neuromuscular block and noxious stimulation on hypnosis monitoring during sevoflurane anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: There are conflicting results on the influence of neuromuscular block (NMB) on the bispectral index (BIS). We investigated the influence of two degrees of NMB on BIS, Alaris auditory-evoked potential index (AAI), and the electromyogram (EMG) obtained with needle electrodes from the frontal and temporal muscles, immediately adjacent to the BIS-sensor. METHODS: Twenty patients were anesthetized with sevoflurane, titrated for 30 min to an end-tidal concentration of 1.2% (baseline). Rocuronium was infused to 50% (partial) and 95% (profound) depression of the first twitch in a train-of-four response, the order being randomly chosen. Noxious tetanic electrical stimulation was applied at four occasions: 1) at baseline (control measurement), 2 and 3) at each degree of NMB, and 4) after neostigmine reversal. BIS, AAI, and EMG were obtained 2 min before and 2 min after each noxious stimulation. RESULTS: Median BIS and AAI at baseline were 44 (39-50) and 15 (14-16), respectively. The two degrees of NMB did not affect BIS, AAI, and EMG before noxious stimulation. In contrast, profound NMB altered the BIS and AAI responses to noxious stimulation when compared with partial NMB, (BIS P = 0.01, AAI P < 0.01), after neostigmine reversal (BIS P < 0.01, AAI P = 0.01) and compared with baseline (BIS P = 0.08, AAI P = 0.02). No significant increase in EMG was found. CONCLUSION: BIS and AAI responses to noxious tetanic electrical stimulation are affected by the degree of NMB during sevoflurane anesthesia whereas NMB does not affect BIS or AAI in the absence of noxious stimulation.