Impact of a Perioperative Protocol on Length of ICU and Hospital Stay in Complex Spine Surgery.

BACKGROUND: In an attempt to improve patient care, a perioperative complex spine surgery management protocol was developed through collaboration between spine surgeons and neuroanesthesiologists. The aim of this study was to investigate whether implementation of the protocol in 2015 decreased total hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay (LOS) and complication rates after elective complex spine surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: A retrospective cohort study was conducted by review of the medical charts of patients who underwent elective complex spine surgery at an academic medical center between 2012 and 2017. Patients were divided into 2 groups based on the date of their spine surgery in relation to implementation of the spine surgery protocol; before-protocol (January 2012 to March 2015) and protocol (April 2015 to March 2017) groups. Outcomes in the 2 groups were compared, focusing on hospital and ICU LOS, and complication rates. RESULTS: A total of 201 patients were included in the study; 107 and 94 in the before-protocol and protocol groups, respectively. Mean (SD) hospital LOS was 14.8±10.8 days in the before-protocol group compared with 10±10.7 days in the protocol group (P<0.001). The spine surgery protocol was the primary factor decreasing hospital LOS; incidence rate ratio 0.78 (P<0.001). Similarly, mean ICU LOS was lower in the protocol compared with before-protocol group (4.2±6.3 vs. 6.3±7.3 d, respectively; P=0.011). There were no significant differences in the rate of postoperative complications between the 2 groups (P=0.231). CONCLUSION: Implementation of a spine protocol reduced ICU and total hospital LOS stay in high-risk spine surgery patients.

Physiologic predictors of collateral circulation and infarct growth during anesthesia - Detailed analyses of the GOLIATH trial.

Collateral circulation plays a pivotal role in acute ischemic stroke due to large vessel occlusion (LVO) and may be affected by multiple variables during sedation for endovascular therapy (EVT). We conducted detailed analyses of the GOLIATH trial to identify predictors of collateral circulation grade and infarct growth. We also modified the ASITN collateral grading scale and sought to determine its impact on clinical outcome and infarct growth. Multivariable analysis was used to identify predictors of collaterals and infarct growth. Ordinal analysis demonstrated nominal, but non-significant association between modified ASITN scale and infarct growth. Among all analyzed baseline clinical and procedural variables, the most significant predictors of infarct growth at 24 h were phenylephrine dose (estimate 6.78; p = 0.014) and baseline infarct volume (estimate 0.93; p = 0.03). The most significant predictors of worse collateral grade were mean arterial pressure (MAP) <70 mmHg (OR 0.35; p = 0.048) and baseline infarct volume (OR 0.96; p = 0.003). Hypotension during sedation for EVT for LVO negatively impacts collateral circulation, while higher pressor dose is a strong predictor of infarct growth. Avoidance of anesthesia-induced hypotension and consequent need for pressor therapy may prevent collateral failure and minimize infarct growth.

Acoustic reflectometry esophageal profiles minimally affected by massive gas ventilation.

Acoustic reflectometry can be used to distinguish between breathing tube placement in an esophagus vs the trachea via characteristic area-distance profiles for both cavities. In the cardiopulmonary resuscitation setting, capnography may be useless because the patient has little or no pulmonary circulation. With the breathing tube in the esophagus, can massive ventilation with a manual resuscitation bag, as might occur in the cardiopulmonary resuscitation setting, markedly alter the form of the obtained esophageal reflectometry profile? Nine hounds were induced, endotracheally intubated, mechanically ventilated, and anesthetized. Area-distance profiles were obtained with a 2-microphone acoustic reflectometer customized to measure areas up to 50 cm. Acoustic reflectometer profiles were obtained in intubated esophagi as follows: (1) baseline nonventilated state, (2) after aggressive 2-handed manual ventilation with high inspiratory pressures, rapid respiratory rates, and large tidal volumes for periods of 0.5, 1, and 1.5 minutes, upon detachment of the resuscitation bag, and (3) after esophagogastric decompression. We hypothesized that massive gas ventilation has no effect on the esophageal peak areas (null hypothesis), and used a paired t test for statistical significance (P < .05). For times of 0.5, 1.0, and 1.5 minutes, the ventilation volumes (mean +/- SD) were 25 +/- 7, 49 +/- 8, and 70 +/- 18 L. Massive gas ventilation caused minimal broadening and slight distal spread of the basal "hump". The mean peak area change was 0.18 +/- 0.35 cm2. For a paired t test (n = 9, df = 8), the corresponding t value was 1.54, with a P value of .16, which was incompatible with the null hypothesis. The experimental observations indicate a minimal effect of massive gas ventilation on the acoustic reflectometry esophageal profile. Hence, operator recognition of the altered canine acoustic reflectometer profile as that of an esophageal cavity is maintained, indicating that acoustic reflectometry may be useful in correctly identifying the site of breathing tube placement in out-of-hospital cardiac arrest situations despite massive esophageal ventilation.

Validation study of two-microphone acoustic reflectometry for determination of breathing tube placement in 200 adult patients.

BACKGROUND: Acoustic reflectometry allows the construction of a one-dimensional image of a cavity, such as the airway or the esophagus. The reflectometric area-distance profile consists of a constant cross-sectional area segment (length of endotracheal tube), followed either by a rapid increase in the area beyond the carina (tracheal intubation) or by an immediate decrease in the area (esophageal intubation). METHODS: Two hundred adult patients were induced and intubated, without restrictions on anesthetic agents or airway adjunct devices. A two-microphone acoustic reflectometer was used to determine whether the breathing tube was placed in the trachea or esophagus. A blinded reflectometer operator, seated a distance away from the patient, interpreted the acoustic area-distance profile alone to decide where the tube was placed. Capnography was used as the gold standard. RESULTS: Of 200 tracheal intubations confirmed by capnography, the reflectometer operator correctly identified 198 (99% correct tracheal intubation identification rate). In two patients there were false-negative results, patients with a tracheal intubation were interpreted as having an esophageal intubation. A total of 14 esophageal intubations resulted, all correctly identified by reflectometry, for a 100% esophageal intubation identification rate. CONCLUSIONS: Acoustic reflectometry is a rapid, noninvasive method by which to determine whether breathing tube placement is correct (tracheal) or incorrect (esophageal). Reflectometry determination of tube placement may be useful in airway emergencies, particularly in cases where visualization of the glottic area is not possible and capnography may fail, as in patients with cardiac arrest.