Inferior vena cava ultrasound to predict hypotension after general anesthesia induction: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

PURPOSE: Hypotension after induction of general anesthesia is common and is associated with significant adverse events. Identification of patients at high risk can inform the use of preoperative mitigation strategies. We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the diagnostic accuracy of the inferior vena cava collapsibility index (IVC-CI) and maximal diameter (dIVCmax) in predicting postinduction hypotension and to identify their predictive performance across different threshold ranges. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, PubMed®, and Embase from inception to March 2023 for prospective observational studies exploring the performance of IVC-CI and dIVCmax in predicting postinduction hypotension in adults presenting for elective surgery under general anesthesia. We excluded studies reporting on IVC parameters predicting postinduction hypotension in the obstetric patient population or exclusively in patients with obesity. Trials screening and data extraction were conducted independently. We performed meta-analyses to identify the performance of IVC parameters in predicting postinduction hypotension, followed by subgroup analyses that sought the IVC-CI range with the highest hierarchical summary receiver-operating characteristic area under the curve (HSROC-AUC). We used a bivariate random effects model to calculate summary estimates. We evaluated study quality using Newcastle-Ottawa scores and certainty of evidence using the GRADE framework. RESULTS: We included 14 studies involving 1,166 patients. Pooled sensitivity and specificity of the IVC-CI to predict postinduction hypotension was 0.68 (95% confidence interval [CI], 0.55 to 0.79; coverage probability, 0.91) and 0.78 (95% CI, 0.69 to 0.85; coverage probability, 0.9), respectively, with an HSROC-AUC of 0.80 (95% CI, 0.68 to 0.85, high quality of evidence). An IVC-CI threshold range of 40-45% had an HSROC-AUC of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.69 to 0.93, high quality of evidence). CONCLUSIONS: Preoperative IVC-CI is a strong predictor of postinduction hypotension. We recommend that future studies use an IVC-CI threshold of 40-45% (low certainty of evidence). Future studies are needed to establish whether ultrasound-guided preoperative optimization improves outcomes in high-risk patients. STUDY REGISTRATION: PROSPERO ( CRD42022316140 ); first submitted 10 March 2022.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: L'hypotension après l'induction de l'anesthésie générale est fréquente et est associée à des effets indésirables importants. L'identification des patient•es à haut risque peut éclairer l'utilisation de stratégies préopératoires d'atténuation. Nous avons réalisé une revue systématique et une méta-analyse pour évaluer la précision diagnostique de l'indice de collapsibilité de la veine cave inférieure (IC-VCI) et du diamètre maximal (dVCImax) pour prédire l'hypotension post-induction et identifier leurs performances prédictives dans différentes plages de seuils. MéTHODE: Nous avons fait des recherches dans les bases de données MEDLINE, PubMed® et Embase de leur création jusqu'en mars 2023 pour en extraire les études observationnelles prospectives explorant les performances de l'IC-VCI et du dVCImax pour la prédiction de l'hypotension post-induction chez des adultes se présentant pour une chirurgie non urgente sous anesthésie générale. Nous avons exclu les études rapportant des paramètres de VCI prédisant l'hypotension post-induction dans la population obstétricale ou exclusivement chez des personnes obèses. Le tri des études et l'extraction des données ont été menés indépendamment. Nous avons réalisé des méta-analyses pour identifier la performance des paramètres de VCI dans la prédiction de l'hypotension post-induction, suivies d'analyses de sous-groupes qui ont recherché la plage d'IC-VCI avec le plus haut niveau de hiérarchie de l'aire sous la courbe de la courbe ROC (HSROC-AUC). Nous avons utilisé un modèle bivarié à effets aléatoires pour calculer des estimations sommaires. Nous avons évalué la qualité des études à l'aide des scores de Newcastle-Ottawa et la certitude des données probantes à l'aide de l'outil GRADE. RéSULTATS: Quatorze études portant sur 1166 patient·es ont été incluses. La sensibilité et la spécificité combinées de l'IC-VCI pour prédire l'hypotension post-induction étaient de 0,68 (intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 %, 0,55 à 0,79; probabilité de couverture, 0,91) et 0,78 (IC 95 %, 0,69 à 0,85; probabilité de couverture, 0,9), respectivement, avec une HSROC-AUC de 0,80 (IC 95 %, 0,68 à 0,85, données probantes de haute qualité). Une plage de seuils d'IC-VCI de 40 à 45 % avait une HSROC-AUC de 0,86 (IC 95 %, 0,69 à 0,93, haute qualité des données probantes). CONCLUSION: L'IC-VCI préopératoire est un bon prédicteur de l'hypotension post-induction. Nous recommandons que les études futures utilisent un seuil d'IC-VCI de 40 à 45 % (faible certitude des données probantes). De futures études sont nécessaires pour déterminer si l'optimisation préopératoire échoguidée améliore les devenirs chez la patientèle à risque élevé. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: PROSPERO ( CRD42022316140 ); première soumission le 10 mars 2022.

Impact of surgeon and hospital factors on length of stay after colorectal surgery systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Although length of stay (LOS) after colorectal surgery (CRS) is associated with worse patient and system level outcomes, the impact of surgeon and hospital-level factors on LOS after CRS has not been well investigated. The aim of this study was to synthesize the evidence for the impact of surgeon and hospital-level factors on LOS after CRS. METHODS: A comprehensive database search was conducted using terms related to LOS and CRS. Studies were included if they reported the effect of surgeon or hospital factors on LOS after elective CRS. The evidence for the effect of each surgeon and hospital factor on LOS was synthesized using vote counting by direction of effect, taking risk of bias into consideration. RESULTS: A total of 13 946 unique titles and abstracts were screened, and 69 studies met the inclusion criteria. All studies were retrospective and assessed a total of eight factors. Surgeon factors such as increasing surgeon volume, colorectal surgical specialty, and progression along a learning curve were significantly associated with decreased LOS (effect seen in 87.5 per cent, 100 per cent, and 93.3 per cent of studies respectively). In contrast, hospital factors such as hospital volume and teaching hospital status were not significantly associated with LOS. CONCLUSION: Provider-related factors were found to be significantly associated with LOS after elective CRS. In particular, surgeon-related factors related to experience specifically impacted LOS, whereas hospital-related factors did not. Understanding the mechanisms underlying these relationships may allow for tailoring of interventions to reduce LOS.

Inclusion of pregnant and breastfeeding women in nonobstetrical randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: There is an urgent need to prioritize and expedite the inclusion of pregnant and breastfeeding women in research. Characterizing trials that have successfully included these populations could inform the design and execution of future studies. In addition, up-to-date data on their inclusion in clinical research could assist in setting benchmarks, establishing targets, and monitoring progress toward more equitable inclusion. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to characterize the eligibility and enrollment of pregnant and breastfeeding women in randomized controlled trials evaluating interventions for nonobstetrical conditions experienced by, but not limited to, these populations. STUDY DESIGN: We developed a literature search in collaboration with an information specialist. We included randomized controlled trials published between 2017 and 2019 in the 5 highest-impact general medicine journals and the 3 highest-impact specialty journals in cardiovascular disease, critical care, general infectious diseases, HIV, and psychiatry. We included randomized controlled trials that evaluated screening, diagnosis, prevention, or treatment of nonobstetrical medical conditions. We excluded randomized controlled trials exclusively focused on males, pediatrics, geriatrics, oncology, or postmenopausal women, and publications reporting subgroup, pooled, or follow-up analyses of previously published randomized controlled trials. We screened titles and abstracts independently and in duplicate, with discrepancies resolved by a third reviewer. We entered data into a standardized electronic case report form. We reviewed study protocols, appendices, and trial registries for additional data. RESULTS: Of the 1333 randomized controlled trials, pregnant and breastfeeding women were eligible for 13 (1.0%) and 6 (0.5%), respectively. Pregnancy and breastfeeding eligibility criteria were not addressed in 383 of 1333 (28.7%) and 710 of 1333 (53.3%) randomized controlled trials, respectively. In total, 102 of 937 (10.9%) and 33 of 617 (5.3%) randomized controlled trials that explicitly excluded pregnant and breastfeeding women documented the rationale. Most studies excluding pregnant women (542/937; 57.8%) required at least 1 method of contraception and/or pregnancy testing as part of trial participation for women with reproductive capacity. Among the 13 randomized controlled trials that allowed inclusion of pregnant women, 3 restricted eligibility to specific trimesters. Two randomized controlled trials enrolled pregnant women after the first year of the study following interim review of safety results in nonpregnant participants. Four randomized controlled trials reported the number of pregnant women enrolled, which ranged from 0.7% to 3.4% of the study population. None of the studies reported on pregnancy or perinatal outcomes. Compared with randomized controlled trials that excluded pregnant women, those including them more commonly had an infectious disease focus (12/13 [92.3%] vs 270/937 [28.8%]; p<.0001), including HIV (5/13 [38.5%] vs 96/937 [10.2%]; p=.0079), enrolled participants in sub-Saharan Africa (5/13 [38.5%] vs 111/937 [11.8%]; p=.0143), and had exclusively nonindustry sponsorship (13/13 [100%] vs 559/937 [59.7%]; p=.0025); inclusion varied by study phase, randomization level, and intervention type. CONCLUSION: This study illustrates a major inequity in research involving pregnant and breastfeeding women. As new health challenges arise, including novel pandemics, and the research community mobilizes to develop therapies and innovate in patient care, it is crucial that pregnant and breastfeeding women not be left behind. Greater regulatory support, in the form of explicit requirements and incentives, will be needed to ensure these populations are integrated into the research agenda.