Intraoperative protective ventilation in patients undergoing major neurosurgical interventions: a randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Post-operative pulmonary complications (PPC) can develop in up to 13% of patients undergoing neurosurgical procedures and may adversely affect clinical outcome. The use of intraoperative lung protective ventilation (LPV) strategies, usually including the use of a low Vt, low PEEP and low plateau pressure, seem to reduce the risk of PPC and are strongly recommended in almost all surgical procedures. Nonetheless, feasibility of LPV strategies in neurosurgical patients are still debated because the use of low Vt during LPV might result in hypercapnia with detrimental effects on cerebrovascular physiology. Aim of our study was to determine whether LPV strategies would be feasible compared with a control group in adult patients undergoing cranial or spinal surgery. METHODS: This single-centre, pilot randomized clinical trial was conducted at the University Hospital "Maggiore della Carità" (Novara, Italy). Adult patients undergoing major cerebral or spinal neurosurgical interventions with risk index for pulmonary post-operative complications > 2 and not expected to need post-operative intensive care unit (ICU) admission were considered eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to either LPV (Vt = 6 ml/kg of ideal body weight (IBW), respiratory rate initially set at 16 breaths/min, PEEP at 5 cmH2O and application of a recruitment manoeuvre (RM) immediately after intubation and at every disconnection from the ventilator) or control treatment (Vt = 10 ml/kg of IBW, respiratory rate initially set at 6-8 breaths/min, no PEEP and no RM). Primary outcomes of the study were intraoperative adverse events, the level of cerebral tension at dura opening and the intraoperative control of PaCO2. Secondary outcomes were the rate of pulmonary and extrapulmonary complications, the number of unplanned ICU admissions, ICU and hospital lengths of stay and mortality. RESULTS: A total of 60 patients, 30 for each group, were randomized. During brain surgery, the number of episodes of intraoperative hypercapnia and grade of cerebral tension were similar between patients randomized to receive control or LPV strategies. No difference in the rate of intraoperative adverse events was found between groups. The rate of postoperative pulmonary and extrapulmonary complications and major clinical outcomes were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: LPV strategies in patients undergoing major neurosurgical intervention are feasible. Larger clinical trials are needed to assess their role in postoperative clinical outcome improvements. TRIAL REGISTRATION: registered on the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trial Registry ( www.anzctr.org.au ), registration number ACTRN12615000707561.

Assessing anaesthesiology and intensive care specialty physicians: An Italian language multisource feedback system.

BACKGROUND: Physician professionalism, including anaesthesiologists and intensive care doctors, should be continuously assessed during training and subsequent clinical practice. Multi-source feedback (MSF) is an assessment system in which healthcare professionals are assessed on several constructs (e.g., communication, professionalism, etc.) by multiple people (medical colleagues, coworkers, patients, self) in their sphere of influence. MSF has gained widespread acceptance for both formative and summative assessment of professionalism for reflecting on how to improve clinical practice. METHODS: Instrument development and psychometric analysis (feasibility, reliability, construct validity via exploratory factor analysis) for MSF questionnaires in a postgraduate specialty training in Anaesthesiology and intensive care in Italy. Sixty-four residents at the Università del Piemonte Orientale (Italy) Anesthesiology Residency Program. Main outcomes assessed were: development and psychometric testing of 4 questionnaires: self, medical colleague, coworker and patient assessment. RESULTS: Overall 605 medical colleague questionnaires (mean of 9.3 ±1.9) and 543 coworker surveys (mean 8.4 ±1.4) were collected providing high mean ratings for all items (> 4.0 /5.0). The self-assessment item mean score ranged from 3.1 to 4.3. Patient questionnaires (n = 308) were returned from 31 residents (40%; mean 9.9 ± 6.2). Three items had high percentages of "unable to assess" (> 15%) in coworker questionnaires. Factor analyses resulted in a two-factor solution: clinical management with leadership and accountability accounting for at least 75% of the total variance for the medical colleague and coworker's survey with high internal consistency reliability (Cronbach's α > 0.9). Patient's questionnaires had a low return rate, a limited exploratory analysis was performed. CONCLUSIONS: We provide a feasible and reliable Italian language MSF instrument with evidence of construct validity for the self, coworkers and medical colleague. Patient feedback was difficult to collect in our setting.

Outcomes of COVID-19 patients treated with continuous positive airway pressure outside the intensive care unit.

AIM: We aimed to characterise a large population of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients with moderate-to-severe hypoxaemic acute respiratory failure (ARF) receiving continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) outside the intensive care unit (ICU), and to ascertain whether the duration of CPAP application increased the risk of mortality for patients requiring intubation. METHODS: In this retrospective, multicentre cohort study, we included adult COVID-19 patients, treated with CPAP outside ICU for hypoxaemic ARF from 1 March to 15 April, 2020. We collected demographic and clinical data, including CPAP therapeutic goal, hospital length of stay and 60-day in-hospital mortality. RESULTS: The study included 537 patients with a median (interquartile range (IQR) age of 69 (60-76) years. 391 (73%) were male. According to the pre-defined CPAP therapeutic goal, 397 (74%) patients were included in the full treatment subgroup, and 140 (26%) in the do not intubate (DNI) subgroup. Median (IQR) CPAP duration was 4 (1-8) days, while hospital length of stay was 16 (9-27) days. 60-day in-hospital mortality was 34% (95% CI 0.304-0.384%) overall, and 21% (95% CI 0.169-0.249%) and 73% (95% CI 0.648-0.787%) for full treatment and DNI subgroups, respectively. In the full treatment subgroup, in-hospital mortality was 42% (95% CI 0.345-0.488%) for 180 (45%) CPAP failures requiring intubation, and 2% (95% CI 0.008-0.035%) for the remaining 217 (55%) patients who succeeded. Delaying intubation was associated with increased mortality (hazard ratio 1.093, 95% CI 1.010-1.184). CONCLUSIONS: We described a large population of COVID-19 patients treated with CPAP outside ICU. Intubation delay represents a risk factor for mortality. Further investigation is needed for early identification of CPAP failures.

Evaluation of a systematic approach to weaning of tracheotomized neurological patients: an early interrupted randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: While a systematic approach to weaning reduces the rate of extubation failure in intubated brain-injured patients, no data are available on the weaning outcome of these patients after tracheotomy. We aimed to assess whether a systematic approach to disconnect tracheotomized neurological and neurosurgical patients off the ventilator (intervention) is superior to the sole physician's judgment (control). Based on previous work in intubated patients, we hypothesized a reduction of the rate of failure within 48 h from 15 to 5 %. Secondary endpoints were duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU length of stay and mortality. METHODS: We designed a single center randomized controlled study. Since no data are available on tracheotomized patients, we based our a priori power analysis on results derived from intubated patients and calculated an overall sample size of 280 patients. RESULTS: After inclusion of 168 consecutive patients, the trial was interrupted because the attending physicians judged the observed rate of reconnection to be much greater than expected. The overall rate of failure was 29 %, confirming the physicians' judgment. Twenty-one patients (24 %) in the intervention group and 27 (33 %) controls were reconnected to the ventilator within 48 h (p = 0.222). The main reasons for failure were respiratory distress (80 and 88 % in the treatment and control group, respectively), hemodynamic impairment (15 and 4 % in the treatment and control group, respectively), neurological deterioration (4 % in the control group only). The duration of mechanical ventilation was of 412 ± 202 h and 402 ± 189 h, in the control and intervention group, respectively. ICU length of stay was on average of 23 days for both groups. ICU mortality was 6 % in the control and 2 % in the intervention group without significant differences. CONCLUSION: We found no difference between the two groups under evaluation, with a rate of failure much higher than expected. Consequent to the early interruption, our study results to be underpowered. Based on the results of the present study, a further trial should overall enroll 790 patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12612000372886.