Scoring Systems May be Effective in Predicting Mortality Associated with Palliative Emergency Gastrointestinal Surgery: A Retrospective Observational Study.

BACKGROUND: Palliative emergency gastrointestinal surgery is associated with significant morbidity and mortality and weighing up the benefits and harms during the decision-making may be challenging. There are very few studies on surgery in palliative patient population. The aim of this retrospective study was to evaluate morbidity and mortality after palliative emergency gastrointestinal surgery and the usability of scoring systems in predicting the outcome. METHODS: Consecutive adult patients undergoing palliative emergency surgery at a tertiary hospital during the period 2015 to 2016 were included. Pre- and post-operative functional status, morbidity and mortality of patients were assessed. The predictive value of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification, the American College of Surgeons National Surgical Quality Improvement Program Surgical Risk Calculator (ACS NSQIP SRC) and Palliative index (PI) in estimating morbidity and mortality were determined. RESULTS: A total of 93 patients (age 69 [28-92] years, 51% female) were included. Typical indications for surgery were bowel obstruction (52%) and securing food intake (30%). Pre-operatively two patients (2.2%) were totally dependent in daily activities, while post-operatively the respective share was 34% at discharge from hospital. The incidence of post-operative complications was 37% and 14% died during the hospital stay. One-, three-month and one-year mortality rates were 41%, 63% and 87%, respectively. While ASA score, PI score and ACS NSQIP did not predict post-operative morbidity, both ASA score and ACS NSQIP SRC predicted post-operative mortality. CONCLUSIONS: Palliative emergency laparotomy is associated with significant post-operative mortality and morbidity. Scorings, such as ASA score and ACS NSQIP SRC predict mortality in this patient population.

Scandinavian SSAI clinical practice guideline on choice of inotropic agent for patients with acute circulatory failure.

BACKGROUND: Adult critically ill patients often suffer from acute circulatory failure and those with low cardiac output may be treated with inotropic agents. The aim of this Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine guideline was to present patient-important treatment recommendations on this topic. METHODS: This guideline was developed according to GRADE. We assessed the following subpopulations of patients with shock: (1) shock in general, (2) septic shock, (3) cardiogenic shock, (4) hypovolemic shock, (5) shock after cardiac surgery, and (6) other types of shock, including vasodilatory shock. We assessed patient-important outcome measures, including mortality and serious adverse reactions. RESULTS: For all patients, we suggest against the routine use of any inotropic agent, including dobutamine, as compared to placebo/no treatment (very low quality of evidence). For patients with shock in general, and in those with septic and other types of shock, we suggest using dobutamine rather than levosimendan or epinephrine (very low quality of evidence). For patients with cardiogenic shock and in those with shock after cardiac surgery, we suggest using dobutamine rather than milrinone (very low quality of evidence). For the other clinical questions, we refrained from giving any recommendations or suggestions. CONCLUSIONS: We suggest against the routine use of any inotropic agent in adult patients with shock. If used, we suggest using dobutamine rather than other inotropic agents for the majority of patients, however, the quality of evidence was very low, implying high uncertainty on the balance between the benefits and harms of inotropic agents.

Hypophosphatemia after nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: The aim of this study was to assess the incidence and contributing factors of hypophosphatemia and the association with poor long-term outcome after nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational study of patients with nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage (i.e., aneurysmal or perimesencephalic subarachnoid hemorrhage, or spontaneous intracerebral or intraventricular hemorrhage) treated in the intensive care unit (ICU) at our university hospital. Plasma phosphate concentrations were measured serially in 2-day sections during the 6 day study period. The ICU mortality was recorded, 3-month and 1-year outcomes were assessed using the Glasgow Outcome Scale. RESULTS: One hundred patients were enrolled. The frequency of hypophosphatemia (Pi ≤ 0.65 mmol/l) was 70%. Chronic hypertension, acute hydrocephalus, and diffuse brain edema were more common in patients with hypophosphatemia compared with normophosphatemics (44% vs. 21%, P = 0.021; 59% vs. 33%, P = 0.021; and 43% vs. 13%, P = 0.004, respectively). Hypophosphatemic patients had higher maximum SOFA scores [10 (7-11) vs. 7.5 (5.75-10), P = 0.024]. Initial phosphate concentration correlated inversely with APACHE II score on admission (ρ = -0.304, P = 0.002) and SOFA score on the first ICU day (ρ = -0.269, P = 0.008). There was no difference in outcome between hypophosphatemic and normophosphatemic patients. In all five patients with severe hypophosphatemia (Pi < 0.32 mmol/l) the functional outcome was good. CONCLUSION: Hypophosphatemia was common in this patient population. The outcome was similar between hypophosphatemic and normophosphatemic patients. Chronic hypertension, acute hydrocephalus, diffuse brain edema and higher SOFA scores were more common in patients with hypophosphatemia.

Scandinavian SSAI clinical practice guideline on choice of first-line vasopressor for patients with acute circulatory failure.

BACKGROUND: Adult critically ill patients often suffer from acute circulatory failure, necessitating use of vasopressor therapy. The aim of the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine (SSAI) task force for Acute Circulatory Failure was to present clinically relevant, evidence-based treatment recommendations on this topic. METHODS: This guideline was developed according to standards for trustworthy guidelines, including a systematic review of the literature and use of the GRADE methodology for assessment of the quality of evidence and for moving from evidence to recommendations. We assessed the following subpopulations of patients with acute circulatory failure: 1) shock in general, 2) septic shock, 3) cardiogenic shock, 4) hypovolemic shock and 5) other types of shock, including vasodilatory shock. We assessed patient-important outcome measures, including mortality, serious adverse reactions and quality-of-life. RESULTS: For patients with shock in general and those with septic shock, we recommend using norepinephrine rather than dopamine, and we suggest using norepinephrine rather than epinephrine, vasopressin analogues, and phenylephrine. For patients with cardiogenic shock and those with hypovolemic shock, we suggest using norepinephrine rather than dopamine, and we provide no recommendations/suggestions of norepinephrine vs. epinephrine, vasopressin analogues, and phenylephrine. For patients with other types of shock, including vasodilatory shock, we suggest using norepinephrine rather than dopamine, epinephrine, vasopressin analogues, and phenylephrine. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend using norepinephrine rather than other vasopressors as first-line treatment for the majority of adult critically ill patients with acute circulatory failure.

Scandinavian clinical practice guideline on choice of fluid in resuscitation of critically ill patients with acute circulatory failure.

BACKGROUND: The task force on Acute Circulatory Failure of the Scandinavian Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine produced this guideline with recommendations concerning the use of crystalloid vs. colloid solutions in adult critically ill patients with acute circulatory failure. METHODS: Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology was used to grade the quality of evidence and to determine the strengths of the recommendations. As efficacy and harm may vary in different subpopulations of patients with acute circulatory failure, we produced recommendations for general intensive care unit (ICU) patients and those with sepsis, trauma and burn injury. RESULTS: For general ICU patients and those with sepsis, we recommend using crystalloids for resuscitation rather than hydroxyethyl starch and we suggest using crystalloids rather than gelatin and albumin. For patients with trauma we recommend to use crystalloids for resuscitation rather than colloid solutions. For patients with burn injury we provide no recommendations as there are very limited data from randomised trials on fluid resuscitation in this patient population. CONCLUSIONS: We recommend using crystalloid solutions rather than colloid solutions for resuscitation in the majority of critically ill patients with acute circulatory failure.

Risk factors for 1-year mortality in patients with nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage requiring intensive care.

BACKGROUND: Mortality in patients with intracranial hemorrhage remains high. The aim of this study was to determine the 1-year survival and potential risk factors for 1-year mortality in patients with nontraumatic intracranial hemorrhage requiring intensive care. METHODS: This was a 3-year (2005-2007) retrospective study in a university-level intensive care unit (ICU). Patient characteristics, level of consciousness, and radiological findings of the primary head computed tomography were recorded on admission. Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were recorded during the ICU stay. Patients were divided into two groups: subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) group and intracerebral hemorrhage (ICH) group. Kaplan-Meier survival curves were constructed, and independent risk factors were determined using Cox proportional hazards regression analyses. RESULTS: Two hundred twenty-nine patients were analyzed. The 1-year mortality rate was 32% in patients with SAH and 44% in patients with ICH. The risk factors for 1-year mortality in both groups were unconsciousness on admission [SAH: hazard ratio (HR) 6.2, P = 0.017 and ICH: HR 3.0, P = 0.004] and renal failure during the ICU stay (SAH: HR 2.5, P = 0.021 and ICH: HR 3.6, P = 0.021). Risk factors specific to the type of hemorrhage were the presence of ICH (HR 2.0, P = 0.033) and diffuse cerebral edema (HR 2.3, P = 0.017) in the SAH group and a prior use of warfarin (HR 5.1, P = 0.016) in the ICH group. CONCLUSIONS: In addition to decreased level of consciousness on admission, renal failure during the ICU stay is an independent risk factor for 1-year mortality in nontraumatic SAH as well as ICH.

Uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis for cardiac output monitoring is biased by low peripheral resistance in patients with intracranial haemorrhage.

BACKGROUND: Cardiac output (CO) monitoring by uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis (APCO) using the FloTrac/Vigileo™ is feasible in patients with intracranial haemorrhage, but the results of validation studies are contradictory. The aim of the present study was to analyse the clinical agreement between the intermittent bolus thermodilution technique (TDCO) and APCO in patients with non-traumatic intracranial haemorrhage. METHODS: This was a prospective observational clinical study in a university level intensive care unit. We studied patients who underwent CO monitoring according to clinical indications using TDCO. Simultaneously, APCO was applied using the radial arterial pressure curve. The difference in CO values measured by APCO with a mid-chest calibration level was compared with a calibration level at the angle of the eye. RESULTS: A total of 407 data pairs from 16 patients were obtained. The mean CO(TDCO) was 7.6 litre min(-1) and CO(APCO) was 6.0 litre min(-1), with a bias corrected for repeated measures of 1.5 litre min(-1) and 95% limits of agreement of -2.4 to 5.4 litre min(-1). The percentage error was 58%. The increasing bias correlated with low peripheral resistance (ρ=-0.53, P=0.036). The calibration level at the patient's eye angle did not affect CO values (median bias 0 litre min(-1) with 25th-75th percentile -0.1 to 0.2 litre min(-1)). CONCLUSIONS: The second generation of FloTrac(®)/Vigileo(®) monitoring system underestimates the TDCO in patients with non-traumatic intracranial haemorrhage. The bias correlates with measured systemic vascular resistance. The upper calibration level does not affect the results.

A comparison of paracervical block with single-shot spinal for labour analgesia in multiparous women: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Epidural and spinal analgesia may be contraindicated or unavailable in labour. This randomised controlled study examined the suitability of paracervical block as an alternative method of labour analgesia. METHODS: Multiparous women in labour were randomised to receive either paracervical block or single-shot spinal analgesia. Pain was quantified using a numerical rating scale. Subsequent analgesia, progress of labour, and mode of delivery were noted. Fetal heart rate patterns were reviewed. Apgar scores and umbilical artery pH measurements were collected. Parturients' satisfaction and willingness to have the same method of labour analgesia again were recorded. RESULTS: 122 parturients were randomised with data available on 104. Median pain scores decreased significantly in both groups; this was greater with single-shot spinal analgesia (difference between means 2.7; 95% CI 1.9-3.5; P(g)<0.001). Parturients receiving paracervical block received subsequent analgesia more often (23/56 vs. 3/48, P<0.001). Progress of labour, instrumental delivery rates, detected abnormal decelerations in cardiotocography and neonatal outcome were similar between groups. Shivering (P<0.04) and pruritus (P<0.001) were more common with single-shot spinal analgesia. Parturients in the paracervical block group were less satisfied (median 7.0, IQR 3.0-8.0 vs. median 9.0, IQR 8.0-10.0; P<0.001) and less willing (28/55 vs. 39/48, P=0.002) to have the same labour analgesia again. CONCLUSIONS: Paracervical block was less effective than single-shot spinal analgesia. Both methods were associated with a low incidence of fetal bradycardia but maternal side effects were more common with single-shot spinal analgesia.