Hypotension-Avoidance Versus Hypertension-Avoidance Strategies in Noncardiac Surgery : An International Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Among patients having noncardiac surgery, perioperative hemodynamic abnormalities are associated with vascular complications. Uncertainty remains about what intraoperative blood pressure to target and how to manage long-term antihypertensive medications perioperatively. OBJECTIVE: To compare the effects of a hypotension-avoidance and a hypertension-avoidance strategy on major vascular complications after noncardiac surgery. DESIGN: Partial factorial randomized trial of 2 perioperative blood pressure management strategies (reported here) and tranexamic acid versus placebo. (ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03505723). SETTING: 110 hospitals in 22 countries. PATIENTS: 7490 patients having noncardiac surgery who were at risk for vascular complications and were receiving 1 or more long-term antihypertensive medications. INTERVENTION: In the hypotension-avoidance strategy group, the intraoperative mean arterial pressure target was 80 mm Hg or greater; before and for 2 days after surgery, renin-angiotensin-aldosterone system inhibitors were withheld and the other long-term antihypertensive medications were administered only for systolic blood pressures 130 mm Hg or greater, following an algorithm. In the hypertension-avoidance strategy group, the intraoperative mean arterial pressure target was 60 mm Hg or greater; all antihypertensive medications were continued before and after surgery. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was a composite of vascular death and nonfatal myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery, stroke, and cardiac arrest at 30 days. Outcome adjudicators were masked to treatment assignment. RESULTS: The primary outcome occurred in 520 of 3742 patients (13.9%) in the hypotension-avoidance group and in 524 of 3748 patients (14.0%) in the hypertension-avoidance group (hazard ratio, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.88 to 1.12]; P = 0.92). Results were consistent for patients who used 1 or more than 1 antihypertensive medication in the long term. LIMITATION: Adherence to the assigned strategies was suboptimal; however, results were consistent across different adherence levels. CONCLUSION: In patients having noncardiac surgery, our hypotension-avoidance and hypertension-avoidance strategies resulted in a similar incidence of major vascular complications. PRIMARY FUNDING SOURCE: Canadian Institutes of Health Research, National Health and Medical Research Council (Australia), and Research Grant Council of Hong Kong.

Partial vs full glottic view with CMACTM D blade intubation of airway with simulated cervical spine injury: a randomized controlled trial.

PURPOSE: A previous study reported a shorter time to tracheal intubation by reducing percentage of glottic opening (POGO) view to <50% when intubating a normal adult airway using the GlidescopeTM blade. We evaluate the efficacy of reducing POGO to <50% when intubating patients with rigid cervical immobilization using CMACTM D blade. METHODS: One hundred and four adult patients were randomized to group POGO 100% or POGO <50% . Laryngoscopy was performed by advancing tip of the D blade at vallecula. POGO 100% was achieved by exerting upward force to displace epiglottis until glottic opening from the anterior commissure to inter arytenoid notch. POGO < 50% was acquired by withdrawing the D blade tip dorsally from vallecula. The primary outcome was time to intubation. RESULTS: The median time (IQR) to successful intubation was 29 (25-35) seconds for group POGO < 50% and 34 (28-40) seconds for group with POGO 100% (difference in medians, 5 seconds; 95% confidence interval, 2 to 8, p = 0.003). Complications were minor. CONCLUSION: Using the CMACTM D blade with a reduced POGO in patients with cervical spine immobilization resulted in faster tracheal intubation. TRIAL REGISTRATION: The trial is registered at ClinicalTrial.gov (CT.gov identifier: NCT04833166).

Rationale and design of the PeriOperative ISchemic Evaluation-3 (POISE-3): a randomized controlled trial evaluating tranexamic acid and a strategy to minimize hypotension in noncardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: For patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, bleeding and hypotension are frequent and associated with increased mortality and cardiovascular complications. Tranexamic acid (TXA) is an antifibrinolytic agent with the potential to reduce surgical bleeding; however, there is uncertainty about its efficacy and safety in noncardiac surgery. Although usual perioperative care is commonly consistent with a hypertension-avoidance strategy (i.e., most patients continue their antihypertensive medications throughout the perioperative period and intraoperative mean arterial pressures of 60 mmHg are commonly accepted), a hypotension-avoidance strategy may improve perioperative outcomes. METHODS: The PeriOperative Ischemic Evaluation (POISE)-3 Trial is a large international randomized controlled trial designed to determine if TXA is superior to placebo for the composite outcome of life-threatening, major, and critical organ bleeding, and non-inferior to placebo for the occurrence of major arterial and venous thrombotic events, at 30 days after randomization. Using a partial factorial design, POISE-3 will additionally determine the effect of a hypotension-avoidance strategy versus a hypertension-avoidance strategy on the risk of major cardiovascular events, at 30 days after randomization. The target sample size is 10,000 participants. Patients ≥45 years of age undergoing noncardiac surgery, with or at risk of cardiovascular and bleeding complications, are randomized to receive a TXA 1 g intravenous bolus or matching placebo at the start and at the end of surgery. Patients, health care providers, data collectors, outcome adjudicators, and investigators are blinded to the treatment allocation. Patients on ≥ 1 chronic antihypertensive medication are also randomized to either of the two blood pressure management strategies, which differ in the management of patient antihypertensive medications on the morning of surgery and on the first 2 days after surgery, and in the target mean arterial pressure during surgery. Outcome adjudicators are blinded to the blood pressure treatment allocation. Patients are followed up at 30 days and 1 year after randomization. DISCUSSION: Bleeding and hypotension in noncardiac surgery are common and have a substantial impact on patient prognosis. The POISE-3 trial will evaluate two interventions to determine their impact on bleeding, cardiovascular complications, and mortality. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov NCT03505723. Registered on 23 April 2018.

Ultrasound guided paralaryngeal pressure versus cricoid pressure on the occlusion of esophagus: a crossover study.

The primary objective of this study is to compare the effectiveness of cricoid pressure (CP) and paralaryngeal pressure (PLP) on occlusion of eccentric esophagus in patients under general anesthesia (GA). Secondary objectives include the prevalence of patients with central or eccentric esophagus both before and after GA, and the success rate of CP in occluding centrally located esophagus in patients post GA. Fifty-one ASA physical status I and II patients, undergoing GA for elective surgery were enrolled in this study. Ultrasonography imaging were performed to determine the position of the esophagus relative to the trachea: (i) before induction of GA, (ii) after GA before external CP maneuver, (iii) after GA with CP, and (iv) after GA with PLP. CP was applied to all patients whilst PLP via fingertip technique was only applied to patients with an eccentric esophagus. Among a total of 51 patients, 28 of them (55%) had eccentric esophagus pre GA, while this number increase to 33 (65%) after induction of GA. CP success rate was 100% in 18 patients with central esophagus post GA versus 27% in 33 patients with eccentric esophagus post GA (P<0.00001). Overall success rate for CP was 53%. In 33 patients with eccentric esophagus anatomy post GA, PLP success rate was 30% compared with 27% with CP (P=1.000). Ultrasound guided PLP fingertips technique was not effective in patients with an eccentrically located esophagus post GA. Ultrasound guided CP achieved 100% success rate in patients with a centrally located esophagus post GA.

Transversus Abdominis Plane Block Versus Intraperitoneal Local Anesthetics in Bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Transversus abdominis plane (TAP) block and intraperitoneal local anesthetics (IPLA) are widely investigated techniques that potentially improve analgesia after bariatric surgery. The analgesic efficacy of TAP block has been shown in previous studies, but the performance of TAP block can be difficult in patients with obesity. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to compare the analgesic efficacy of TAP block and IPLA. An alternative technique is useful in clinical setting when TAP block is not feasible. METHODS: We searched PubMed, Embase, and CENTRAL from inception until August 2020 for randomized controlled trials comparing both techniques. The primary outcome was cumulative morphine consumption at 24 h. Secondary pain-related outcomes included pain score at rest and on movement at 2, 6, 12, and 24 h; postoperative nausea and vomiting; and length of hospital stay. RESULTS: We included 23 studies with a total of 2,178 patients. TAP block is superior to control in reducing opioid consumption at 24 h, improving pain scores at all the time points and postoperative nausea and vomiting. The cumulative opioid consumption at 24 h for IPLA is less than control, while the indirect comparison between IPLA with PSI and control showed a significant reduction in pain scores at rest, at 2 h, and on movement at 12 h, and 24 h postoperatively. CONCLUSIONS: Transversus abdominis plane block is effective for reducing pain intensity and has superior opioid-sparing effect compared to control. Current evidence is insufficient to show an equivalent analgesic benefit of IPLA to TAP block.