STudy to ActivelY WARM trauma patients (STAY WARM): a pilot study assessing feasibility of self-warming blankets in patients requiring a massive hemorrhage protocol activation.

PURPOSE: Massively bleeding trauma patients often arrive to intensive care units hypothermic. Active warming blankets have shown promise in reducing hypothermia in the pre-hospital setting, but less is known about their in-hospital use. The aim of this pilot evaluation was to understand the feasibility of the Ready-Heat® blanket in a level 1 trauma centre to improve the management of hypothermia in massively bleeding trauma patients. METHODS: This was a prospective, observational, feasibility study of 15 patients performed at a single level 1 trauma centre. Patients were eligible for enrollment if they presented to the trauma bay and a massive hemorrhage protocol was activated. Primary outcome measures (feasibility) included: blanket applied to the patient; temperature recording in the trauma bay, and next phase or final phase of care; and blanket remaining on patient upon arrival to the subsequent phase of care.Secondary outcome measures (safety) included skin irritation and cold discomfort. Use of the Ready-Heat® blanket was considered feasible if 10 of 15 patients met all four criteria for feasibility. RESULTS: The Ready-Heat® blanket was placed on all patients with mean time to blanket application of 24 (± 13.4) minutes. Thirteen patients (86.7%) met all four criteria for feasibility. Initial challenges were identified in the first five patients including proper blanket application, keeping the blanket on the patient through subsequent phases of care, and failure to obtain temperature recordings. CONCLUSION: The Ready-Heat® blanket proves feasible for this patient population. A larger study focusing on hypothermia prevention and treatment is warranted. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04399902. DATE OF REGISTRATION: May 22, 2020.

Variation in Anesthesiology Provider-Volume for Complex Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery: A Population-Based Study.

OBJECTIVE: Examine between-hospital and between-anesthesiologist variation in anesthesiology provider-volume (PV) and delivery of high-volume anesthesiology care. BACKGROUND: Better outcomes for anesthesiologists with higher PV of complex gastrointestinal cancer surgery have been reported. The factors linking anesthesiology practice and organization to volume are unknown. METHODS: We identified patients undergoing elective esophagectomy, hepatectomy, and pancreatectomy using linked administrative health data sets (2007-2018). Anesthesiology PV was the annual number of procedures done by the primary anesthesiologist in the 2 years before the index surgery. High-volume anesthesiology was PV>6 procedures/year. Funnel plots to described variation in anesthesiology PV and delivery of high-volume care. Hierarchical regression models examined between-anesthesiologist and between-hospital variation in delivery of high-volume care use with variance partition coefficients (VPCs) and median odds ratios (MORs). RESULTS: Among 7893 patients cared for at 17 hospitals, funnel plots showed variation in anesthesiology PV (median ranging from 1.5, interquartile range: 1-2 to 11.5, interquartile range: 8-16) and delivery of HV care (ranging from 0% to 87%) across hospitals. After adjustment, 32% (VPC 0.32) and 16% (VPC: 0.16) of the variation were attributable to between-anesthesiologist and between-hospital differences, respectively. This translated to an anesthesiologist MOR of 4.81 (95% CI, 3.27-10.3) and hospital MOR of 3.04 (95% CI, 2.14-7.77). CONCLUSIONS: Substantial variation in anesthesiology PV and delivery of high-volume anesthesiology care existed across hospitals. The anesthesiologist and the hospital were key determinants of the variation in high-volume anesthesiology care delivery. This suggests that targeting anesthesiology structures of care could reduce variation and improve delivery of high-volume anesthesiology care.

Association Between Familiarity of the Surgeon-Anesthesiologist Dyad and Postoperative Patient Outcomes for Complex Gastrointestinal Cancer Surgery.

Importance: The surgeon-anesthesiologist teamwork and relationship is crucial to good patient outcomes. Familiarity among work team members is associated with enhanced success in multiple fields but rarely studied in the operating room. Objective: To examine the association between surgeon-anesthesiologist dyad familiarity-as the number of times working together-with short-term postoperative outcomes for complex gastrointestinal cancer surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This population-based retrospective cohort study based in Ontario, Canada, included adults undergoing esophagectomy, pancreatectomy, and hepatectomy for cancer from 2007 through 2018. The data were analyzed January 1, 2007, through December 21, 2018. Exposures: Dyad familiarity captured as the annual volume of procedures of interest done by the surgeon-anesthesiologist dyad in the 4 years before the index surgery. Main Outcomes and Measures: Ninety-day major morbidity (any Clavien-Dindo grade 3 to 5). The association between exposure and outcome was examined using multivariable logistic regression. Results: Seven thousand eight hundred ninety-three patients with a median age of 65 years (66.3% men) were included. They were cared for by 737 anesthesiologists and 163 surgeons who were also included. The median surgeon-anesthesiologist dyad volume was 1 (range, 0-12.2) procedures per year. Ninety-day major morbidity occurred in 43.0% of patients. There was a linear association between dyad volume and 90-day major morbidity. After adjustment, the annual dyad volume was independently associated with lower odds of 90-day major morbidity, with an odds ratio of 0.95 (95% CI, 0.92-0.98; P = .01) for each incremental procedure per year, per dyad. The results did not change when examining 30-day major morbidity. Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults undergoing complex gastrointestinal cancer surgery, increasing familiarity of the surgeon-anesthesiologist dyad was associated with improved short-term patient outcomes. For each additional time that a unique surgeon-anesthesiologist dyad worked together, the odds of 90-day major morbidity decreased by 5%. These findings support organizing perioperative care to increase the familiarity of surgeon-anesthesiologist dyads.

Systemic angiopoietin-1/2 dysregulation following cardiopulmonary bypass in adults.

AIM: Vascular leakage following cardiopulmonary bypass contributes to morbidity. Angiopoietin-1 and -2 are biomarkers of endothelial dysfunction. Our aim was to characterize Ang-1 and -2 association with clinical characteristics and outcomes. METHODS: Observational cohort study measuring Ang-1/-2 with a panel of cytokines in adults undergoing cardiopulmonary bypass. RESULTS: Ang-2 levels increased immediately postop whereas Ang-1 levels decreased over time. No significant correlation was found with other inflammatory mediators. High correlation was found between the hospital length of stay and Ang-2 increase at 24 h (rho = 0.590; p < 0.0001). The predictors of Ang-2 increase were female gender, cross clamp time, transfusion of blood and absence of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor as a pre-op medication. CONCLUSION: Angiopoietins can detect vascular leakage early and could impact patient's management to decrease length of stay after cardiac surgery.

Oral neutrophils are an independent marker of the systemic inflammatory response after cardiac bypass.

BACKGROUND: Cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) is an immuno-reactive state where neutrophils are activated and accumulate in different tissues. Edema and tissue necrosis are the most common sequelae observed, predominantly in the lungs, kidneys, and heart, heralding significant risk for postoperative complications. No method exists to noninvasively assess in vivo neutrophil activity. The objective of this study was to determine if neutrophil recruitment to the oral cavity would correlate with specific biomarkers after coronary bypass surgery (CPB). METHODS: We conducted a single site prospective observational study including non-consecutive adult patients undergoing elective, on-pump CPB. Blood and either oral cavity rinses or swabs were collected pre- and post-CPB. Absolute neutrophil counts from oral samples and serum biomarkers were measured. The association between neutrophil recruitment to the oral cavity, biomarkers and outcomes after CPB were analyzed. RESULTS: CPB was associated with statistically significant increases in oral and blood neutrophil counts, as well as an increase in certain biomarkers over preoperative baseline. Peripheral blood neutrophil count were increased at all time points however statistically significant differences in median oral neutrophil counts were observed only at the time point immediately postoperative, and in what seems to be two unique patient populations (p < 0.001; group 1, median: 1.6×10(5), Interquartile range [IQR], 1.1×10(5) - 4.8×10(5), and group 2, median: 1.9×10(6), IQR, 8.7×10(5) - 4.0×10(6)). CONCLUSIONS: CPB is associated with a transient increase in oral neutrophils that may correlate with the systemic inflammatory response; oral neutrophils may have the ability to discriminate and identify unique patient populations based on their tissue migration.