Executive Summary of the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology, Reanimation and Pain Therapy (SEDAR) Spanish Society of Emergency and Emergency Medicine (SEMES) and Spanish Society of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (SEORL-CCC) Guideline for difficult airway management.

The Airway section of the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology, Reanimation and Pain Therapy (SEDAR), Spanish Society of Emergency and Emergency Medicine (SEMES) and Spanish Society of Otolaryngology, Head and Neck Surgery (SEORL-CCC) present the Guidelines for the integral management of difficult airway in adult patients. This document provides recommendations based on current scientific evidence, theoretical-educational tools and implementation tools, mainly cognitive aids, applicable to the treatment of the airway in the field of anesthesiology, critical care, emergencies and prehospital medicine. Its principles are focused on the human factors, cognitive processes for decision-making in critical situations and optimization in the progression of the application of strategies to preserve adequate alveolar oxygenation in order to improve safety and quality of care.

A new score for airway assessment using clinical and ultrasound parameters.

Background: Over the last few years, ultrasonography has been introduced as the fifth pillar to patient's bedside physical examination. Clinical assessments aim to screen and look for airway difficulties to predict difficult intubations, but none have demonstrated a significant predictive capacity. Recent systematic reviews have established a correlation between ultrasound imaging and difficult direct laryngoscopy. The primary objective of this study was to determine whether the utilization of ultrasonography to examine the upper airway could accurately predict difficult direct laryngoscopy. Methods: This is a prospective observational study including 102 adult patients that required general anesthesia for elective surgery. Preoperatively, clinical airway assessments were performed. Data such as Mallampati-Samsoon grade (MS), upper lip bite test (ULBT), thyromental (TMD) and sternomental distance (SMD), cervical circumference (CC) and the Arné risk index were collected. Ultrasound evaluation was taken at five different levels in two planes, parasagittal and transverse. Therefore, the following measurements were registered: distance from skin to hyoid bone (DSHB), distance from skin to thyrohyoid membrane (DSTHM), distance from skin to epiglottis (DSE), distance from skin to thyroid cartilage (DSTC) and distance from hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage (DHBTC). Patients were divided into two groups based on the difficulty to perform direct laryngoscopy, according to Cormack-Lehane (C-L) classification. Grades I and II were classified as easy laryngoscopy and grades III or IV as difficult. Logistic regression models and the Receiver Operating Characteristic (ROC) curve was employed to determine the diagnostic precision of ultrasound measurements to distinguish difficult laryngoscopy (DL). Results: The following risk score for DL was obtained, DSTHM ≥ 1.60 cm (2 points), DSTC ≥ 0.78 cm (3 points) and gender (2 points for males). The score can range from 0 to 7 points, and showed and AUC (95% CI) of 0.84 (0.74-0.95). A score of 5 points or higher indicates a 34-fold increase in the risk of finding DL (p = 0.0010), sensitivity of 91.67, specificity of 75.56, positive predictive value of 33.33, and negative predictive value of 98.55. Conclusion: The use of ultrasonography combined with classic clinical screening tests are useful tools to predict difficult direct laryngoscopy.

Emergency Airway Management in Patients with COVID-19: A Prospective International Multicenter Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Tracheal intubation for patients with COVID-19 is required for invasive mechanical ventilation. The authors sought to describe practice for emergency intubation, estimate success rates and complications, and determine variation in practice and outcomes between high-income and low- and middle-income countries. The authors hypothesized that successful emergency airway management in patients with COVID-19 is associated with geographical and procedural factors. METHODS: The authors performed a prospective observational cohort study between March 23, 2020, and October 24, 2020, which included 4,476 episodes of emergency tracheal intubation performed by 1,722 clinicians from 607 institutions across 32 countries in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 requiring mechanical ventilation. The authors investigated associations between intubation and operator characteristics, and the primary outcome of first-attempt success. RESULTS: Successful first-attempt tracheal intubation was achieved in 4,017/4,476 (89.7%) episodes, while 23 of 4,476 (0.5%) episodes required four or more attempts. Ten emergency surgical airways were reported-an approximate incidence of 1 in 450 (10 of 4,476). Failed intubation (defined as emergency surgical airway, four or more attempts, or a supraglottic airway as the final device) occurred in approximately 1 of 120 episodes (36 of 4,476). Successful first attempt was more likely during rapid sequence induction versus non-rapid sequence induction (adjusted odds ratio, 1.89 [95% CI, 1.49 to 2.39]; P < 0.001), when operators used powered air-purifying respirators versus nonpowered respirators (adjusted odds ratio, 1.60 [95% CI, 1.16 to 2.20]; P = 0.006), and when performed by operators with more COVID-19 intubations recorded (adjusted odds ratio, 1.03 for each additional previous intubation [95% CI, 1.01 to 1.06]; P = 0.015). Intubations performed in low- or middle-income countries were less likely to be successful at first attempt than in high-income countries (adjusted odds ratio, 0.57 [95% CI, 0.41 to 0.79]; P = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: The authors report rates of failed tracheal intubation and emergency surgical airway in patients with COVID-19 requiring emergency airway management, and identified factors associated with increased success. Risks of tracheal intubation failure and success should be considered when managing COVID-19.

Enhanced recovery after surgery protocol versus conventional perioperative care in colorectal surgery: a single center cohort study / Aceleração da recuperação após protocolo cirúrgico versus cuidados perioperatórios convencionais em cirurgia colorretal: um estudo de coorte em centro único

Abstract Background Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols consist of a set of perioperative measures aimed at improving patient recovery and decreasing length of stay and postoperative complications. We assess the implementation and outcomes of an ERAS program for colorectal surgery. Methods Single center observational study. Data were collected from consecutive patients undergoing open or laparoscopic colorectal surgery during 2 time periods, 3 years before (Pre-ERAS) and 2 years after (Post-ERAS) the implementation of an ERAS protocol. Baseline characteristics of both groups were compared. The primary outcome was the number of patients with 180 days follow-up with moderate or severe complications; secondary outcomes were postoperative length of stay, and specific complications. Data were extracted from patient records. Results There were 360 patients in the Pre-ERAS group and 319 patients in the Post-ERAS Group. 214 (59.8%) patients developed at least one complication in the pre ERAS group, versus 163 patients in the Post-ERAS group (51.10%). More patients in the Pre-ERAS group developed moderate or severe complications (31.9% vs. 22.26%, p = 0.009); and severe complications (15.5% vs. 5.3%; p < 0.0001). The median length of stay was 13 (17) days in Pre-ERAS Group and 11 (10) days in the Post-ERAS Group (p = 0.034). No differences were found on mortality rates (4.7% vs. 2.5%; p = 0.154), or readmission (6.39% vs. 4.39%; p = 0.31). Overall ERAS protocol compliance in the Post-ERAS cohort was 88%. Conclusions The implementation of ERAS protocol for colorectal surgery was associated with a significantly reduction of postoperative complications and length of stay.

Resumo Justificativa O protocolo ERAS - do Inglês Enhanced Recovery After Surgery - consiste em um conjunto de medidas perioperatórias destinadas a melhorar a recuperação do paciente e diminuir o tempo de internação e as complicações pós-operatórias. Avaliamos a implantação e os resultados de um protocolo ERAS para cirurgia colorretal. Métodos Estudo observacional em centro único. Os dados foram coletados de pacientes consecutivos submetidos à cirurgia colorretal aberta ou laparoscópica durante dois períodos: três anos antes (pré-ERAS) e dois anos após (pós-ERAS) a implantação de um protocolo ERAS. As características basais de ambos os grupos foram comparadas. O desfecho primário foi o número de pacientes com 180 dias de acompanhamento com complicações moderadas ou graves. Os desfechos secundários foram tempo de internação pós-cirurgia e complicações específicas. Os dados foram extraídos de prontuários dos pacientes. Resultados O grupo pré-ERAS foi composto por 360 pacientes e o grupo pós-ERAS por 319. No grupo pré ERAS, 214 pacientes (59,8%) desenvolveram pelo menos uma complicação versus 163 (51,10%) no grupo pós-ERAS. Um número maior de pacientes do grupo pré-ERAS desenvolveu complicações moderadas ou graves (31,9% vs. 22,26%, p = 0,009); e complicações graves (15,5% vs. 5,3%; p < 0,0001). A mediana do tempo de internação foi de 13 (17) dias no grupo pré-ERAS e de 11 (10) dias no grupo pós-ERAS (p = 0,034). Não houve diferença nas taxas de mortalidade (4,7% vs. 2,5%; p = 0,1554) ou de reinternação (6,39% vs. 4,39%; p = 0,31). A conformidade geral do protocolo ERAS na coorte pós-ERAS foi de 88%. Conclusões A implantação do protocolo ERAS para cirurgia colorretal foi associada a uma redução significativa das complicações pós-operatórias e do tempo de internação.

[Enhanced recovery after surgery protocol versus conventional perioperative care in colorectal surgery. A single center cohort study]. / Aceleração da recuperação após protocolo cirúrgico versus cuidados perioperatórios convencionais em cirurgia colorretal. Um estudo de coorte em centro único.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols consist of a set of perioperative measures aimed at improving patient recovery and decreasing length of stay and postoperative complications. We assess the implementation and outcomes of an ERAS program for colorectal surgery. METHODS: Single center observational study. Data were collected from consecutive patients undergoing open or laparoscopic colorectal surgery during 2 time periods, 3 years before (Pre-ERAS) and 2 years after (Post-ERAS) the implementation of an ERAS protocol. Baseline characteristics of both groups were compared. The primary outcome was the number of patients with 180 days follow-up with moderate or severe complications; secondary outcomes were postoperative length of stay, and specific complications. Data were extracted from patient records. RESULTS: There were 360 patients in the Pre-ERAS group and 319 patients in the Post-ERAS Group. 214 (59.8%) patients developed at least one complication in the pre ERAS group, versus 163 patients in the Post-ERAS group (51.10%). More patients in the Pre-ERAS group developed moderate or severe complications (31.9% vs. 22.26%, p=0.009); and severe complications (15.5% vs. 5.3%; p<0.0001). The median length of stay was 13 (17) days in Pre-ERAS Group and 11 (10) days in the Post-ERAS Group (p=0.034). No differences were found on mortality rates (4.7% vs. 2.5%; p=0.154), or readmission (6.39% vs. 4.39%; p=0.31). Overall ERAS protocol compliance in the Post-ERAS cohort was 88%. CONCLUSIONS: The implementation of ERAS protocol for colorectal surgery was associated with a significantly reduction of postoperative complications and length of stay.

Intraoperative goal directed hemodynamic therapy in noncardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis / Terapia hemodinâmica alvo-dirigida no intraoperatório de cirurgia não cardíaca: revisão sistemática e meta-análise

Abstract Background: The goal directed hemodynamic therapy is an approach focused on the use of cardiac output and related parameters as end-points for fluids and drugs to optimize tissue perfusion and oxygen delivery. Primary aim: To determine the effects of intraoperative goal directed hemodynamic therapy on postoperative complications rates. Methods: A meta-analysis was carried out of the effects of goal directed hemodynamic therapy in adult noncardiac surgery on postoperative complications and mortality using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses methodology. A systematic search was performed in Medline PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (last update, October 2014). Inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials in which intraoperative goal directed hemodynamic therapy was compared to conventional fluid management in noncardiac surgery. Exclusion criteria were trauma and pediatric surgery studies and that using pulmonary artery catheter. End-points were postoperative complications (primary) and mortality (secondary). Those studies that fulfilled the entry criteria were examined in full and subjected to quantifiable analysis, predefined subgroup analysis (stratified by type of monitor, therapy, and hemodynamic goal), and predefined sensitivity analysis. Results: 51 RCTs were initially identified, 24 fulfilling the inclusion criteria. 5 randomized clinical trials were added by manual search, resulting in 29 randomized clinical trials in the final analysis, including 2654 patients. A significant reduction in complications for goal directed hemodynamic therapy was observed (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.62-0.79, p < 0.001). No significant decrease in mortality was achieved (RR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.45-1.28, p = 0.30). Quality sensitive analyses confirmed the main overall results. Conclusions: Intraoperative goal directed hemodynamic therapy with minimally invasive monitoring decreases postoperative complications in noncardiac surgery, although it was not able to show a significant decrease in mortality rate.

Resumo Justificativa: A terapia hemodinâmica alvo-dirigida (THAD) é uma abordagem focada no uso do débito cardíaco (DC) e parâmetros relacionados, como desfechos para fluidos e medicamentos para aprimorar a perfusão tecidual e o fornecimento de oxigênio. Objetivo primário: determinar os efeitos da THAD sobre as taxas de complicações no pós-operatório. Métodos: Metanálise dos efeitos da THAD em cirurgias não cardíacas de adultos sobre as complicações pós-operatórias e mortalidade, com a metodologia PRISMA. Uma busca sistemática foi feita no Medline PubMed, Embase e Biblioteca Cochrane (última atualização, outubro de 2014). Os critérios de inclusão foram estudos clínicos randômicos (ECRs) nos quais a THAD no intraoperatório foi comparada com a terapia convencional de reposição de líquidos em cirurgia não cardíaca. Os critérios de exclusão foram traumatismo e estudos de cirurgia pediátrica e aqueles que usaram cateter de artéria pulmonar. Os desfechos, primário e secundário, foram complicações pós-operatórias e mortalidade, respectivamente. Os estudos que atenderam aos critérios de inclusão foram examinados na íntegra e submetidos à análise quantitativa, análise de subgrupo pré-definido (estratificada por tipo de monitor, terapia e objetivo hemodinâmico) e análise de sensibilidade pré-definida. Resultados: 51 ECRs foram identificados inicialmente, 24 atenderam aos critérios de inclusão. Cinco ECRs foram adicionados por busca manual, resultando em 29 ECRs para análise final, incluindo 2.654 pacientes. Uma redução significativa das complicações para a THAD (RR: 0,70, IC de 95%: 0,62-0,79, p < 0,001). Nenhuma diminuição significativa na mortalidade foi observada (RR: 0,76, IC de 95%: 0,45-1,28, p = 0,30). Análises de sensibilidade qualitativa confirmaram os principais resultados gerais. Conclusões: THAD no intraoperatório com monitoração minimamente invasiva diminui as complicações no pós-operatório de cirurgia não cardíaca, embora não tenha mostrado uma redução significativa da taxa de mortalidade.

Intraoperative goal directed hemodynamic therapy in noncardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The goal directed hemodynamic therapy is an approach focused on the use of cardiac output and related parameters as end-points for fluids and drugs to optimize tissue perfusion and oxygen delivery. Primary aim: To determine the effects of intraoperative goal directed hemodynamic therapy on postoperative complications rates. METHODS: A meta-analysis was carried out of the effects of goal directed hemodynamic therapy in adult noncardiac surgery on postoperative complications and mortality using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses methodology. A systematic search was performed in Medline PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (last update, October 2014). Inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials in which intraoperative goal directed hemodynamic therapy was compared to conventional fluid management in noncardiac surgery. Exclusion criteria were trauma and pediatric surgery studies and that using pulmonary artery catheter. End-points were postoperative complications (primary) and mortality (secondary). Those studies that fulfilled the entry criteria were examined in full and subjected to quantifiable analysis, predefined subgroup analysis (stratified by type of monitor, therapy, and hemodynamic goal), and predefined sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: 51 RCTs were initially identified, 24 fulfilling the inclusion criteria. 5 randomized clinical trials were added by manual search, resulting in 29 randomized clinical trials in the final analysis, including 2654 patients. A significant reduction in complications for goal directed hemodynamic therapy was observed (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.62-0.79, p<0.001). No significant decrease in mortality was achieved (RR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.45-1.28, p=0.30). Quality sensitive analyses confirmed the main overall results. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative goal directed hemodynamic therapy with minimally invasive monitoring decreases postoperative complications in noncardiac surgery, although it was not able to show a significant decrease in mortality rate.

[Intraoperative goal directed hemodynamic therapy in noncardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis]. / Terapia hemodinâmica alvo-dirigida no intraoperatório de cirurgia não cardíaca: revisão sistemática e meta-análise.

BACKGROUND: The goal directed hemodynamic therapy is an approach focused on the use of cardiac output and related parameters as end-points for fluids and drugs to optimize tissue perfusion and oxygen delivery. Primary aim: To determine the effects of intraoperative goal directed hemodynamic therapy on postoperative complications rates. METHODS: A meta-analysis was carried out of the effects of goal directed hemodynamic therapy in adult noncardiac surgery on postoperative complications and mortality using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses methodology. A systematic search was performed in Medline PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (last update, October 2014). Inclusion criteria were randomized clinical trials in which intraoperative goal directed hemodynamic therapy was compared to conventional fluid management in noncardiac surgery. Exclusion criteria were trauma and pediatric surgery studies and that using pulmonary artery catheter. End-points were postoperative complications (primary) and mortality (secondary). Those studies that fulfilled the entry criteria were examined in full and subjected to quantifiable analysis, predefined subgroup analysis (stratified by type of monitor, therapy, and hemodynamic goal), and predefined sensitivity analysis. RESULTS: 51 RCTs were initially identified, 24 fulfilling the inclusion criteria. 5 randomized clinical trials were added by manual search, resulting in 29 randomized clinical trials in the final analysis, including 2654 patients. A significant reduction in complications for goal directed hemodynamic therapy was observed (RR: 0.70, 95% CI: 0.62-0.79, p<0.001). No significant decrease in mortality was achieved (RR: 0.76, 95% CI: 0.45-1.28, p=0.30). Quality sensitive analyses confirmed the main overall results. CONCLUSIONS: Intraoperative goal directed hemodynamic therapy with minimally invasive monitoring decreases postoperative complications in noncardiac surgery, although it was not able to show a significant decrease in mortality rate.

Perioperative goal-directed hemodynamic therapy in noncardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDHT) has been proposed as a method to reduce complications and mortality. DESIGN: Meta-analysis of the effects of perioperative GDHT in adult noncardiac surgery on mortality and postoperative complications was performed using the PRISMA methodology. A systematic search was performed in MEDLINE, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Library (last update, October 2014). Inclusion criteria were as follows: randomized clinical trials (RCTs) in which perioperative GDHT was compared with conventional fluid management in noncardiac surgery. Exclusion criteria were as follows: trauma and pediatric surgery studies. End points were mortality and number of patients with complications. SETTING: District general hospital. PATIENTS: Thirty-nine RCTs were initially identified, with 8 fulfilling the inclusion criteria. Two RCTs were added by manual search, resulting in 10 RCTs in the final analysis, including 1527 patients. MEASUREMENTS: Those studies that fulfilled the entry criteria were examined in full and subjected to quantifiable analysis, predefined subgroup analysis (stratified by supraphysiological or physiological hemodynamic goal and by time the intervention was carried out, perioperative or postoperative), and predefined sensitivity analysis. MAIN RESULTS: A significant reduction was observed in mortality associated with GDHT compared with conventional fluid therapy (risk ratio, 0.63; 95% confidence interval, 0.42-0.94; P = .02). However, no differences were found in the number of patients with complications (risk ratio, 0.75; 95% confidence interval, 0.50-1.17; P = .21), and the sensitivity analysis did not confirm the results. CONCLUSIONS: This meta-analysis, with its limitations, shows that the use of perioperative GDHT may reduce postoperative mortality, but it is unable to show a reduction in the number of patients with complications.

Restrictive versus liberal transfusion strategy for red blood cell transfusion in critically ill patients and in patients with acute coronary syndrome: a systematic review, meta-analysis and trial sequential analysis.

INTRODUCTION: The risks and benefits of transfusing critically ill patients continue to evoke controversy. Specifically, the critically ill patients with active ischemic cardiac disease continue to represent a "gray area" in the literature. EVIDENCE ACQUISITION: Meta-analysis of the effects of lower versus higher hemoglobin thresholds on mortality in critically ill patients was carried out using PRISMA methodology. A systematic research was performed in PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library (last update, December 2014). INCLUSION CRITERIA: Anemic critically ill adult patients admitted to intensive care units and/or anemic patients with acute coronary syndrome in which a restrictive vs. liberal transfusion therapy was compared. PRIMARY ENDPOINT: mortality. Included studies were subjected to quantifiable analysis, predefined subgroup analysis, trial sequential analysis and predefined sensitivity analysis. EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS: Thirty RCT's were initially identified; 6 fulfilled the inclusion criteria, including 2156. There were no differences in mortality between the restrictive and liberal groups (RR: 0.86, 95% CI 0.70-1.05 P=0.14), neither in patients with chronic cardiovascular disease subgroup (RR: 1.13, 95% IC 0.88-1.46 P=0.34). However, there is a trend towards decreased mortality in the subgroup critically ill (RR: 0.86, 95% CI 0.73-1.01 P=0.06); while in the subgroup of patients with acute myocardial infarct seems like it might be a non-significant trend towards increased mortality (RR: 3.85, 95% CI 0.82-18.0 P=0.09). CONCLUSIONS: Restrictive strategy is at least as effective to liberal strategy in critically ill patients. Nevertheless, there is insufficient evidence to recommend a restrictive strategy for patients with acute coronary syndrome.