Broadening the scope and rising to the occasion, an opportunity for anaesthesiologists to take the lead in healthcare quality & patient safety (again).

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The landscape of healthcare is characterized by high demands and scarce human and financial resources. This calls for action in improving healthcare quality. This review shows how anaesthesiologists are the designated medical specialist to share their affinity and knowledge in quality and safety, throughout the hospital and across the care continuum. RECENT FINDINGS: Recent studies show excellent frameworks and examples of anaesthesiologist leading the way in patient safety and quality of care. SUMMARY: Anaesthesiologist are early adapters of patient safety. In the last decades anaesthesia has become linked with patient safety and the quality of care. With the recent transition from peroperative to perioperative care; new opportunities are emerging, expanding our professional scope. Unfortunately, the anaesthesiologist is not often positioned in a leading role in quality of care and patient safety. After a brief rise during the COVID-19 pandemic, in which anaesthesiologists were visible in the frontline in many countries, we have unfortunately disappeared from the spotlight. This review shows numerous ideas, examples, and a framework how a leading position can be realized.

Can perioperative pCO2 gaps predict complications in patients undergoing major elective abdominal surgery randomized to goal-directed therapy or standard care? A secondary analysis.

The difference between venous and arterial carbon dioxide pressure (pCO2 gap), has been used as a diagnostic and prognostic tool. We aimed to assess whether perioperative pCO2 gaps can predict postoperative complications. This was a secondary analysis of a multicenter RCT comparing goal-directed therapy (GDT) to standard care in which 464 patients undergoing high-risk elective abdominal surgery were included. Arterial and central venous blood samples were simultaneously obtained at four time points: after induction, at the end of surgery, at PACU/ICU admission, and PACU/ICU discharge. Complications within the first 30 days after surgery were recorded. Similar pCO2 gaps were found in patients with and without complications, except for the pCO2 gap at the end of surgery, which was higher in patients with complications (6.0 mmHg [5.0-8.0] vs. 6.0 mmHg [4.1-7.5], p = 0.005). The area under receiver operating characteristics curves for predicting complications from pCO2 gaps at all time points were between 0.5 and 0.6. A weak correlation between ScvO2 and pCO2 gaps was found for all timepoints (ρ was between - 0.40 and - 0.29 for all timepoints, p < 0.001). The pCO2 gap did not differ between GDT and standard care at any of the selected time points. In our study, pCO2 gap was a poor predictor of major postoperative complications at all selected time points. Our research does not support the use of pCO2 gap as a prognostic tool after high-risk abdominal surgery. pCO2 gaps were comparable between GDT and standard care. Clinical trial registration Netherlands Trial Registry NTR3380.

European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care consensus document on sustainability: 4 scopes to achieve a more sustainable practice.

Climate change is a defining issue for our generation. The carbon footprint of clinical practice accounts for 4.7% of European greenhouse gas emissions, with the European Union ranking as the third largest contributor to the global healthcare industry's carbon footprint, after the United States and China. Recognising the importance of urgent action, the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) adopted the Glasgow Declaration on Environmental Sustainability in June 2023. Building on this initiative, the ESAIC Sustainability Committee now presents a consensus document in perioperative sustainability. Acknowledging wider dimensions of sustainability, beyond the environmental one, the document recognizes healthcare professionals as cornerstones for sustainable care, and puts forward recommendations in four main areas: direct emissions, energy, supply chain and waste management, and psychological and self-care of healthcare professionals. Given the urgent need to cut global carbon emissions, and the scarcity of evidence-based literature on perioperative sustainability, our methodology is based on expert opinion recommendations. A total of 90 recommendations were drafted by 13 sustainability experts in anaesthesia in March 2023, then validated by 36 experts from 24 different countries in a two-step Delphi validation process in May and June 2023. To accommodate different possibilities for action in high- versus middle-income countries, an 80% agreement threshold was set to ease implementation of the recommendations Europe-wide. All recommendations surpassed the 80% agreement threshold in the first Delphi round, and 88 recommendations achieved an agreement >90% in the second round. Recommendations include the use of very low fresh gas flow, choice of anaesthetic drug, energy and water preserving measures, "5R" policies including choice of plastics and their disposal, and recommendations to keep a healthy work environment or on the importance of fatigue in clinical practice. Executive summaries of recommendations in areas 1, 2 and 3 are available as cognitive aids that can be made available for quick reference in the operating room.

Decoding the meaning of medical guidelines and their medicolegal implications.

Medical practice guidelines (MPGs) are important in medicine to ensure well tolerated and effective healthcare. They provide evidence-based recommendations for healthcare professionals in daily clinical settings. MPGs help patients and practitioners make informed decisions, ensure quality of care, allocate healthcare resources effectively and reduce legal liability. MPGs have medicolegal implications, as they influence clinical decision-making and patient outcomes, which can impact liability and malpractice cases. They define the standard of care within the healthcare industry and provide best practice recommendations. MPGs are a cornerstone of the informed consent process, as they facilitate a shared decision support system and they provide valuable evidence-based recommendations on various treatments or medical options. Finally, MPGs are also relevant in medical claims; thus, adherence to MPGs is highly encouraged in order to assure the best medical care. Nonetheless, MPGs have limitations and we advocate for wise usage of MPGs combined with the expertise of trained physicians that allows for individualisation and evidence-based recommendations. In this review, we describe the potential legal implications that MPGs may represent for healthcare providers and the role that MPGs have in daily practice at different stages in the doctor--patient relationship.

Genome-wide association study suggests a critical contribution of the adaptive immune system to chronic post-surgical pain.

Chronic post-surgical pain affects a large proportion of people undergoing surgery, delaying recovery time and worsening quality of life. Although many environmental variables have been established as risk factors, less is known about genetic risk. To uncover genetic risk factors we performed genome-wide association studies in post-surgical cohorts of five surgery types- hysterectomy, mastectomy, abdominal, hernia, and knee- totaling 1350 individuals. Genetic associations between post-surgical chronic pain levels on a numeric rating scale (NRS) and additive genetic effects at common SNPs were evaluated. We observed genome-wide significant hits in almost all cohorts that displayed significance at the SNP, gene, and pathway levels. The cohorts were then combined via a GWAS meta-analysis framework for further analyses. Using partitioned heritability, we found that loci at genes specifically expressed in the immune system carried enriched heritability, especially genes related to B and T cells. The relevance of B cells in particular was then demonstrated in mouse postoperative pain assays. Taken altogether, our results suggest a role for the adaptive immune system in chronic post-surgical pain.

AMAZONE: prevention of persistent pain after breast cancer treatment by online cognitive behavioral therapy-study protocol of a randomized controlled multicenter trial.

BACKGROUND: Surviving breast cancer does not necessarily mean complete recovery to a premorbid state of health. Among the multiple psychological and somatic symptoms that reduce the quality of life of breast cancer survivors, persistent pain after breast cancer treatment (PPBCT) with a prevalence of 15-65% is probably the most invalidating. Once chronic, PPBCT is difficult to treat and requires an individualized multidisciplinary approach. In the past decades, several somatic and psychological risk factors for PPBCT have been identified. Studies aiming to prevent PPBCT by reducing perioperative pain intensity have not yet shown a significant reduction of PPBCT prevalence. Only few studies have been performed to modify psychological distress around breast cancer surgery. The AMAZONE study aims to investigate the effect of online cognitive behavioral therapy (e-CBT) on the prevalence of PPBCT. METHODS: The AMAZONE study is a multicenter randomized controlled trial, with an additional control arm. Patients (n=138) scheduled for unilateral breast cancer surgery scoring high for surgical or cancer-related fears, general anxiety or pain catastrophizing are randomized to receive either five sessions of e-CBT or online education consisting of information about surgery and a healthy lifestyle (EDU). The first session is scheduled before surgery. In addition to the online sessions, patients have three online appointments with a psychotherapist. Patients with low anxiety or catastrophizing scores (n=322) receive treatment as usual (TAU, additional control arm). Primary endpoint is PPBCT prevalence 6 months after surgery. Secondary endpoints are PPBCT intensity, the intensity of acute postoperative pain during the first week after surgery, cessation of postoperative opioid use, PPBCT prevalence at 12 months, pain interference, the sensitivity of the nociceptive and non-nociceptive somatosensory system as measured by quantitative sensory testing (QST), the efficiency of endogenous pain modulation assessed by conditioned pain modulation (CPM) and quality of life, anxiety, depression, catastrophizing, and fear of recurrence until 12 months post-surgery. DISCUSSION: With perioperative e-CBT targeting preoperative anxiety and pain catastrophizing, we expect to reduce the prevalence and intensity of PPBCT. By means of QST and CPM, we aim to unravel underlying pathophysiological mechanisms. The online application facilitates accessibility and feasibility in a for breast cancer patients emotionally and physically burdened time period. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NTR NL9132 , registered December 16 2020.

Rationale and Design of the ISOLATION Study: A Multicenter Prospective Cohort Study Identifying Predictors for Successful Atrial Fibrillation Ablation in an Integrated Clinical Care and Research Pathway.

Introduction: Continuous progress in atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation techniques has led to an increasing number of procedures with improved outcome. However, about 30-50% of patients still experience recurrences within 1 year after their ablation. Comprehensive translational research approaches integrated in clinical care pathways may improve our understanding of the complex pathophysiology of AF and improve patient selection for AF ablation. Objectives: Within the "IntenSive mOlecular and eLectropathological chAracterization of patienTs undergoIng atrial fibrillatiOn ablatioN" (ISOLATION) study, we aim to identify predictors of successful AF ablation in the following domains: (1) clinical factors, (2) AF patterns, (3) anatomical characteristics, (4) electrophysiological characteristics, (5) circulating biomarkers, and (6) genetic background. Herein, the design of the ISOLATION study and the integration of all study procedures into a standardized pathway for patients undergoing AF ablation are described. Methods: ISOLATION (NCT04342312) is a two-center prospective cohort study including 650 patients undergoing AF ablation. Clinical characteristics and routine clinical test results will be collected, as well as results from the following additional diagnostics: determination of body composition, pre-procedural rhythm monitoring, extended surface electrocardiogram, biomarker testing, genetic analysis, and questionnaires. A multimodality model including a combination of established predictors and novel techniques will be developed to predict ablation success. Discussion: In this study, several domains will be examined to identify predictors of successful AF ablation. The results may be used to improve patient selection for invasive AF management and to tailor treatment decisions to individual patients.

PragmaTic, prospEctive, randomized, controlled, double-blind, mulTi-centre, multinational study on the safety and efficacy of a 6% HydroxYethyl Starch (HES) solution versus an electrolyte solution in trauma patients: study protocol for the TETHYS study.

BACKGROUND: Trauma may be associated with significant to life-threatening blood loss, which in turn may increase the risk of complications and death, particularly in the absence of adequate treatment. Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) solutions are used for volume therapy to treat hypovolemia due to acute blood loss to maintain or re-establish hemodynamic stability with the ultimate goal to avoid organ hypoperfusion and cardiovascular collapse. The current study compares a 6% HES 130 solution (Volulyte 6%) versus an electrolyte solution (Ionolyte) for volume replacement therapy in adult patients with traumatic injuries, as requested by the European Medicines Agency to gain more insights into the safety and efficacy of HES in the setting of trauma care. METHODS: TETHYS is a pragmatic, prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind, multicenter, multinational trial performed in two parallel groups. Eligible consenting adults ≥ 18 years, with an estimated blood loss of ≥ 500 ml, and in whom initial surgery is deemed necessary within 24 h after blunt or penetrating trauma, will be randomized to receive intravenous treatment at an individualized dose with either a 6% HES 130, or an electrolyte solution, for a maximum of 24 h or until reaching the maximum daily dose of 30 ml/kg body weight, whatever occurs first. Sample size is estimated as 175 patients per group, 350 patients total (α = 0.025 one-tailed, power 1-ß = 0.8). Composite primary endpoint evaluated in an exploratory manner will be 90-day mortality and 90-day renal failure, defined as AKIN stage ≥ 2, RIFLE injury/failure stage, or use of renal replacement therapy (RRT) during the first 3 months. Secondary efficacy and safety endpoints are fluid administration and balance, changes in vital signs and hemodynamic status, changes in laboratory parameters including renal function, coagulation, and inflammation biomarkers, incidence of adverse events during treatment period, hospital, and intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay, fitness for ICU or hospital discharge, and duration of mechanical ventilation and/or RRT. DISCUSSION: This pragmatic study will increase the evidence on safety and efficacy of 6% HES 130 for treatment of hypovolemia secondary to acute blood loss in trauma patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Registered in EudraCT, No.: 2016-002176-27 (21 April 2017) and ClinicalTrials.gov, ID: NCT03338218 (09 November 2017).

Individualized multidisciplinary analgesia to prevent persistent postsurgical pain.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Persistent postsurgical pain as outcome of surgery has reached more attention in the past years. In the first place because of related disability, long-term use of (opioid)analgesics and impact on the quality of life of individual patients. In addition, the individual and societal socio-economic burden of PPSP is high and increasing in the light of increasing numbers of surgery world-wide. RECENT FINDINGS: Actual studies identified risk factors for persistent postsurgical pain in relevant patient populations. Astonishingly, most of predicting factors seem unrelated to surgery. SUMMARY: Future perioperative practice will have to focus on identifying patients at risk for PPSP before surgery and develop/offer suitable individually tailored preventive interventions.

Outcome in patients undergoing postponed elective surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic (TRACE II): study protocol for a multicentre prospective observational study.

INTRODUCTION: During the COVID-19 pandemic many non-acute elective surgeries were cancelled or postponed around the world. This has created an opportunity to study the effect of delayed surgery on health conditions prior to surgery and postsurgical outcomes in patients with postponed elective surgery. The control group of the Routine Postsurgical Anesthesia Visit to Improve Patient Outcome (TRACE I) study, conducted between 2016 and 2019, will serve as a control cohort. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: TRACE II is an observational, multicentre, prospective cohort study among surgical patients with postponed surgery due to COVID-19 in academic and non-academic hospitals in the Netherlands. We aim to include 2500 adult patients. The primary outcome will be the 30-day incidence of major postoperative complications. Secondary outcome measures include the 30-day incidence of minor postoperative complications, 1 year mortality, length of stay (in hospital, medium care and intensive care), quality of recovery 30 days after surgery and postoperative quality of life up to 1 year following surgery. Multivariable logistic mixed-effects regression analysis with a random intercept for hospital will be used to test group differences on the primary outcome. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval was obtained from the Institutional Review Board of Maastricht University Medical Centre+ and Amsterdam UMC. Findings will be presented at national and international conferences, as well as published in peer-reviewed scientific journals, with a preference for open access journals. Data will be made publicly available after publication of the main results. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NL8841.

High-flow nasal cannula versus standard low-flow nasal cannula during deep sedation in patients undergoing radiofrequency atrial fibrillation catheter ablation: a single-centre randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: To our knowledge, there are few trials studying the effect of high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) during deep sedation. Our hypothesis is that high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) will prevent hypoxemia and desaturation as compared to low-flow nasal cannula (LFNC) during prolonged deep sedation in patients with atrial fibrillation undergoing radiofrequency catheter ablation (RFCA). METHODS: A single-centre, randomised controlled trial with HFNC as the intervention and LFNC as the control group. A total of 94 adult patients per group undergoing elective radiofrequency atrial fibrillation catheter ablation under deep sedation. will be included. The primary outcome is the lowest oxygen saturation (SpO2). Secondary outcomes are as follows: the duration of lowest SpO2, cross over from oxygen therapy in both directions, incidence of SpO2 below 90% > 60 seconds, adverse sedation events, adverse effects of HFNC, mean CO2, peak CO2 and patients experience with oxygen therapy. The study will take place during the 2-day admission period for RFCA. Patients can fill out their questionnaires in the first week after treatment. DISCUSSION: HFNC is increasingly used as a technique for oxygen delivery in procedural sedation and analgesia. We hypothesise that HFNC is superior to the standard treatment LFNC in patients under deep sedation with respect to the incidence of desaturation. To our knowledge, there are no adequately powered clinical trial studies on the effects of HFNC in prolonged deep sedation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04842253. Registered on 04 April 2021.

Validation of the PreOperative Score to predict Post-Operative Mortality (POSPOM) in Dutch non-cardiac surgery patients.

BACKGROUND: Standardized risk assessment tools can be used to identify patients at higher risk for postoperative complications and death. In this study, we validate the PreOperative Score to predict Post-Operative Mortality (POSPOM) for in-hospital mortality in a large cohort of non-cardiac surgery patients. In addition, the performance of POSPOM to predict postoperative complications was studied. METHODS: Data from the control cohort of the TRACE (routine posTsuRgical Anesthesia visit to improve patient outComE) study was analysed. POSPOM scores for each patient were calculated post-hoc. Observed in-hospital mortality was compared with predicted mortality according to POSPOM. Discrimination was assessed by receiver operating characteristic curves with C-statistics for in-hospital mortality and postoperative complications. To describe the performance of POSPOM sensitivity, specificity, negative predictive values, and positive predictive values were calculated. For in-hospital mortality, calibration was assessed by a calibration plot. RESULTS: In 2490 patients, the observed in-hospital mortality was 0.5%, compared to 1.3% as predicted by POSPOM. 27.1% of patients had at least one postoperative complication of which 22.4% had a major complication. For in-hospital mortality, POSPOM showed strong discrimination with a C-statistic of 0.86 (95% CI, 0.78-0.93). For the prediction of complications, the discrimination was poor to fair depending on the severity of the complication. The calibration plot showed poor calibration of POSPOM with an overestimation of in-hospital mortality. CONCLUSION: Despite the strong discriminatory performance, POSPOM showed poor calibration with an overestimation of in-hospital mortality. Performance of POSPOM for the prediction of any postoperative complication was poor but improved according to severity.

Prospective, randomized, controlled, double-blind, multi-center, multinational study on the safety and efficacy of 6% Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) sOlution versus an Electrolyte solutioN In patients undergoing eleCtive abdominal Surgery: study protocol for the PHOENICS study.

BACKGROUND: Hydroxyethyl starch (HES) solutions are used for volume therapy to treat hypovolemia due to acute blood loss and to maintain hemodynamic stability. This study was requested by the European Medicines Agency (EMA) to provide more evidence on the long-term safety and efficacy of HES solutions in the perioperative setting. METHODS: PHOENICS is a randomized, controlled, double-blind, multi-center, multinational phase IV (IIIb) study with two parallel groups to investigate non-inferiority regarding the safety of a 6% HES 130 solution (Volulyte 6%, Fresenius Kabi, Germany) compared with a crystalloid solution (Ionolyte, Fresenius Kabi, Germany) for infusion in patients with acute blood loss during elective abdominal surgery. A total of 2280 eligible patients (male and female patients willing to participate, with expected blood loss ≥ 500 ml, aged > 40 and ≤ 85 years, and ASA Physical status II-III) are randomly assigned to receive either HES or crystalloid solution for the treatment of hypovolemia due to surgery-induced acute blood loss in hospitals in up to 11 European countries. The dosing of investigational products (IP) is individualized to patients' volume needs and guided by a volume algorithm. Patients are treated with IP for maximally 24 h or until the maximum daily dose of 30 ml/kg body weight is reached. The primary endpoint is the treatment group mean difference in the change from the pre-operative baseline value in cystatin-C-based estimated glomerular filtration rate (eGFR), to the eGFR value calculated from the highest cystatin-C level measured during post-operative days 1-3. Further safety and efficacy parameters include, e.g., combined mortality/major post-operative complications until day 90, renal function, coagulation, inflammation, hemodynamic variables, hospital length of stay, major post-operative complications, and 28-day, 90-day, and 1-year mortality. DISCUSSION: The study will provide important information on the long-term safety and efficacy of HES 130/0.4 when administered according to the approved European product information. The results will be relevant for volume therapy of surgical patients. TRIAL REGISTRATION: EudraCT 2016-002162-30 . ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03278548.