Effect of a Rapid Response Team on the Incidence of In-Hospital Mortality.

BACKGROUND: Approximately half of the life-limiting events, such as cardiopulmonary arrests or cardiac arrhythmias occurring in hospitals, are considered preventable. These critical events are usually preceded by clinical deterioration. Rapid response teams (RRTs) were introduced to intervene early in the course of clinical deterioration and possibly prevent progression to an event. An RRT was introduced at the Cleveland Clinic in 2009 and transitioned to an anesthesiologist-led system in 2012. We evaluated the association between in-hospital mortality and: (1) the introduction of the RRT in 2009 (primary analysis), and (2) introduction of the anesthesiologist-led system in 2012 and other policy changes in 2014 (secondary analyses). METHODS: We conducted a single-center, retrospective analysis using the medical records of overnight hospitalizations from March 1, 2005, to December 31, 2018, at the Cleveland Clinic. We assessed the association between the introduction of the RRT in 2009 and in-hospital mortality using segmented regression in a generalized estimating equation model to account for within-subject correlation across repeated visits. Baseline potential confounders (demographic factors and surgery type) were controlled for using inverse probability of treatment weighting on the propensity score. We assessed whether in-hospital mortality changed at the start of the intervention and whether the temporal trend (slope) differed from before to after initiation. Analogous models were used for the secondary outcomes. RESULTS: Of 628,533 hospitalizations in our data set, 177,755 occurred before and 450,778 after introduction of our RRT program. Introduction of the RRT was associated with a slight initial increase in in-hospital mortality (odds ratio [95% confidence interval {CI}], 1.17 [1.09-1.25]; P < .001). However, while the pre-RRT slope in in-hospital mortality over time was flat (odds ratio [95% CI] per year, 1.01 [0.98-1.04]; P = .60), the post-RRT slope decreased over time, with an odds ratio per additional year of 0.961 (0.955-0.968). This represented a significant improvement (P < .001) from the pre-RRT slope. CONCLUSIONS: We found a gradual decrease in mortality over a 9-year period after introduction of an RRT program. Although mechanisms underlying this decrease are unclear, possibilities include optimization of RRT implementation, anesthesiology department leadership of the RRT program, and overall improvements in health care delivery over the study period. Our findings suggest that improvements in outcome after RRT introduction may take years to manifest. Further work is needed to better understand the effects of RRT implementation on in-hospital mortality.

Chest pain in patients recovering from noncardiac surgery: A retrospective analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Chest pain is relatively common postoperatively. Myocardial infarction (MI) is one cause of chest pain after surgery, but chest pain also results from less severe conditions. Because of its potential severity, chest pain usually prompts the activation of Rapid Response Systems (RRS). While chest pain is a cardinal symptom of myocardial ischemia in the non-surgical setting, the significance and relevance of chest pain after noncardiac surgery remains unclear. DESIGN: We conducted a retrospective analysis of noncardiac surgical inpatients for whom postoperative chest pain triggered our multidisciplinary RRS. SETTING: Surgical wards at Cleveland Clinic, Cleveland, OH. PATIENTS: Postsurgical patients after noncardiac surgery in whom the RSS system was activated for chest pain. INTERVENTIONS: RRS specified interventions like ECG readings, troponin measurements, transfer to ICU. MEASUREMENTS: Our primary outcome was MI. Secondary outcomes included the proportion of patients who had an ECG performed, troponin measurements, echocardiography, cardiac catheterization, and were admitted to the Intensive Care Unit (ICU). MAIN RESULTS: 5850 surgical patients experienced postoperative chest pain and triggered an RRS activation between 2009 and 2019. A total of 3110 patients had troponin T measured within 6 h after RRS activation, and 538 of them (17%) had elevated troponin, meeting the Fourth Universal Definition criteria for MI. Additionally, 2 patients had ST-segment elevation infarction (STEMI) without troponin measurement. Among the 540 patients with MI, only 19 (3.5%) were diagnosed with a STEMI by ECG, 388 (72%) had echocardiography, 43 patients (8%) had cardiac catheterization, 8 patients (1.5%) required emergent cardiac surgery, and 424 (79%) were admitted to an ICU. CONCLUSION: Chest pain is a serious clinical sign, often indicating a postoperative myocardial infarction, and therefore should be taken seriously. Troponin screening should be routinely considered in postsurgical patients who report chest pain.

Effect of intraoperative subhypnotic infusion of propofol on postoperative nausea and vomiting: A retrospective analysis.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: To measure the possible association between subhypnotic propofol infusion during general balanced anesthesia and the incidence of PONV. DESIGN: Retrospective Cohort Analysis Using Propensity Score Matching. SETTING: Postanesthesia care unit and inpatient unit. PATIENTS: Patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status I-IV, undergoing non-cardiac surgery lasting >2 h were included. Patients were excluded if transferred to the intensive care unit after surgery or received ketamine. Initially 70,976 patients were screened, and a cohort of 51,707 eligible adult patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery under general balanced anesthesia between 2015 and 2019 were included. Using a propensity score matching, 3185 patients who received subhypnotic propofol during general balanced anesthesia were matched with 5826 patients who did not receive subhypnotic propofol in a 1:2 ratio. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS: The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV during PACU stay. The secondary outcome was the incidence of PONV within the first 24 h after surgery. Exploratory outcomes were time-to-extubation and length of hospital stay. MAIN RESULTS: A total of 9011 patients were included (3185 patients who received propofol infusion, and 5826 patients who did not receive propofol infusion) after propensity score matching. The adjusted odds ratio for PONV incidence was 1.03 (95% CI: 0.90, 1.18; p = 0.635) in PACU, and 1.05 (95% CI: 0.90, 1.23; P = 0.50) within 24 h after surgery. The length of hospital stay was 6 h shorter (ratio of means (95% CI) of 0.92, 0.89, 0.94), p < 0.001) and time-to-extubation was 2 min longer (ratio of means 1.24 (1.20, 1.28), p < 0.001) in patients receiving subhypnotic propofol infusion. CONCLUSIONS: Our study suggests that subhypnotic propofol infusion during general balanced anesthesia is not associated with a reduction in the incidence of PONV during PACU stay and within the first 24 h after surgery. However, it is associated with decreased LOS and increased time-to-extubation, but differences in neither outcome were clinically important.

Sugammadex Versus Neostigmine for Reversal of Residual Neuromuscular Blocks After Surgery: A Retrospective Cohort Analysis of Postoperative Side Effects.

BACKGROUND: Sugammadex and neostigmine given to reverse residual neuromuscular blockade can cause side effects including bradycardia, anaphylaxis, bronchospasm, and even cardiac arrest. We tested the hypothesis that sugammadex is noninferior to neostigmine on a composite of clinically meaningful side effects, or vice versa. METHODS: We analyzed medical records of patients who had general, cardiothoracic, or pediatric surgery and were given neostigmine or sugammadex from June 2016 to December 2019. Our primary outcome was a collapsed composite of bradycardia, anaphylaxis, bronchospasm, and cardiac arrest occurring between administration of the reversal agent and departure from the operation room. We a priori restricted our analysis to side effects requiring pharmacologic treatment that were therefore presumably clinically meaningful. Sugammadex would be considered noninferior to neostigmine (or vice versa) if the odds ratio for composite of side effects did not exceed 1.2. RESULTS: Among 89,753 surgeries in 70,690 patients, 16,480 (18%) were given sugammadex and 73,273 (82%) were given neostigmine. The incidence of composite outcome was 3.4% in patients given sugammadex and 3.0% in patients given neostigmine. The most common individual side effect was bradycardia (2.4% in the sugammadex group versus 2.2% neostigmine). Noninferiority was not found, with an estimated odds ratio of 1.21 (sugammadex versus neostigmine; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.09-1.34; noninferiority P = .57), and neostigmine was superior to sugammadex with an estimated odds ratio of 0.83 (0.74-0.92), 1-side superiority P < .001. CONCLUSIONS: The composite incidence was less with neostigmine than with sugammadex, but only by 0.4% (a negligible clinical effect). Since 250 patients would need to be given neostigmine rather than sugammadex to avoid 1 episode of a minor complication such as bradycardia or bronchospasm, we conclude that sugammadex and neostigmine are comparably safe.

Postoperative delirium and neurocognitive disorders.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Postoperative neurocognitive disorders (NCD) are significant causes of morbidity and mortality. In this paper, we will review our understanding and potential management of postoperative NCD. RECENT FINDINGS: Postoperative delirium, delayed neurocognitive recovery and postoperative cognitive dysfunction (POCD) are recognized as a part of the continuous spectrum of postoperative NCD. Although the pathophysiology is still poorly understood, there is renewed focus on improving neurocognitive outcomes of aging surgical population. Novel methods of neurocognitive screening are developed and research in the prevention and management of NCD has gained traction. SUMMARY: A spectrum of NCD exists in surgical patients ranging from postoperative delirium, delayed neurocognitive recovery, and POCD. Identification of patients at-risk for developing NCD can help target appropriate perioperative intervention. Also, specialized care teams and the implementation of standardized protocols are crucial for the successful management perioperative NCD. Finally, large, randomized, multicenter studies are needed to confirm benefits of preventive and treatment strategies.

Perioperative challenges in management of diabetic patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.

Prediabetes and diabetes are important disease processes which have several perioperative implications. About one third of the United States population is considered to have prediabetes. The prevalence in surgical patients is even higher. This is due to the associated micro and macrovascular complications of diabetes that result in the need for subsequent surgical procedures. A careful preoperative evaluation of diabetic patients and patients at risk for prediabetes is essential to reduce perioperative mortality and morbidity. This preoperative evaluation involves an optimization of preoperative comorbidities. It also includes optimization of antidiabetic medication regimens, as the avoidance of unintentional hypoglycemic and hyperglycemic episodes during the perioperative period is crucial. The focus of the perioperative management is to ensure euglycemia and thus improve postoperative outcomes. Therefore, prolonged preoperative fasting should be avoided and close monitoring of blood glucose should be initiated and continued throughout surgery. This can be accomplished with either analysis in blood gas samples, venous phlebotomy or point-of-care testing. Although capillary and arterial whole blood glucose do not meet standard guidelines for glucose testing, they can still be used to guide insulin dosing in the operating room. Intraoperative glycemic control goals may vary slightly in different protocols but overall the guidelines suggest a glucose range in the operating room should be between 140 mg/dL to 180 mg/dL. When hyperglycemia is detected in the operating room, blood glucose management may be initiated with subcutaneous rapid-acting insulin, with intravenous infusion or boluses of regular insulin. Fluid and electrolyte management are other perioperative challenges. Notably diabetic ketoacidosis and hyperglycemic hyperosmolar nonketotic state are the two most serious acute metabolic complications of diabetes that must be recognized early and treated.

Association of Pain With Atrial Fibrillation and Delirium After Cardiac Surgery: A DECADE Sub-Study.

OBJECTIVE: The authors aimed to evaluate the effects of postoperative pain on the incidence of atrial fibrillation and delirium in patients having surgery with cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB). DESIGN: Post hoc analysis of the (An investigator-initiated, multicentre, double-blind trial (ClinicalTrials NCT02004613) (DECADE)), a randomized, placebo-controlled trial. SETTING: Tertiary, academic hospital. PARTICIPANTS: Six hundred five adults from the DECADE enrolled at Cleveland Clinic Main Campus, who had had surgery with CPB. INTERVENTIONS: Dexmedetomidine versus placebo started before surgical incision and postoperatively was maintained until 24 hours. MEASUREMENTS: Primary outcomes were atrial fibrillation, diagnosed by clinicians in the intensive care unit (ICU), presence of delirium assessed with the Confusion Assessment Method for the ICU, data on pain scores, and opioid consumption, occurring between ICU admission and the earlier of postoperative day five or hospital discharge. RESULTS: Postoperative pain levels were similar among patients with or without atrial fibrillation. Two hundred six (34%) patients had atrial fibrillation and ninety-two (15%) had delirium before hospital discharge within the first five postoperative days. The risk of atrial fibrillation was not significantly different between groups (hazard ratio: 1.09; 97.5% confidence interval [CI]: 0.99, 1.20, p = 0.039); there were no associations between postoperative pain and the risk of postoperative delirium (hazard ratio: 0.96; 97.5% CI: 0.84-1.11; p = 0.57). Postoperative opioid consumption was neither significantly associated with postoperative atrial fibrillation nor delirium. CONCLUSIONS: Atrial fibrillation and delirium was not associated with pain after cardiac surgery. Opioid use was not associated with atrial fibrillation and delirium. Because both atrial fibrillation and delirium have a multifactorial nature, further studies should be focused on other plausible mechanisms.

Point-of-care ultrasonography for the hospitalist.

Point-of-care ultrasonography (POCUS) has emerged as a vital tool in medicine. Initially used for procedural guidance, POCUS is now used for diagnostics and monitoring of the lung, heart, abdomen, and deep vein thrombosis. This wide applicability makes it an essential tool for hospitalists in daily clinical practice. This article provides an overview of the clinical integration of POCUS and basic image interpretation.

Burnout of healthcare providers during COVID-19.

Physician burnout is not new, but the COVID-19 pandemic is accelerating the many negative repercussions of uncertainty and inadequate support, and the consequences are being felt by patients, physicians, and healthcare systems.

Cardiopulmonary resuscitation in COVID-19 patients.

COVID-19 is extremely transmissible. Cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) is associated with multiple aerosol-generating procedures including chest compression, positive pressure ventilation, and airway manipulation. Healthcare providers who perform CPR are at high risk of contracting COVID-19. CPR in patients with suspected or proven COVID-19 must be performed without compromising the safety of healthcare providers. An overview of special considerations.

Airway management considerations in patients with COVID-19.

Approximately 12% to 15% of hospitalized patients with COVID-19 infection require invasive ventilation via endotracheal intubation. The key to minimizing risk of disease transmission during this aerosol-generating procedure is careful preparation, which includes having necessary equipment and medications on hand as well as an experienced intubation team who can troubleshoot any unforeseen complications. Personal protective equipment should be donned and doffed in the presence of an assistant (ie, "buddy" system).

Effect of Sevoflurane Versus Isoflurane on Emergence Time and Postanesthesia Care Unit Length of Stay: An Alternating Intervention Trial.

BACKGROUND: We previously reported that the duration of hospitalization was not different between isoflurane and sevoflurane. But more plausible consequences of using soluble volatile anesthetics are delayed emergence from anesthesia and prolonged stays in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). We therefore compared isoflurane and sevoflurane on emergence time and PACU duration. METHODS: We reanalyzed data from 1498 adults who participated in a previous alternating intervention trial comparing isoflurane and sevoflurane. Patients, mostly having colorectal surgery, were assigned to either volatile anesthetic in 2-week blocks that alternated for half a year. Emergence time was defined as the time from minimum alveolar concentration fraction reaching 0.3 at the end of the procedure until patients left the operating room. PACU duration was defined from admission to the end of phase 1 recovery. Treatment effect was assessed using Cox proportional hazards regression, adjusted for imbalanced baseline variables. RESULTS: A total of 674 patients were given isoflurane, and 824 sevoflurane. Emergence time was slightly longer for isoflurane with a median (quartiles) of 16 minutes (12-22 minutes) vs 14 minutes (11-19 minutes) for sevoflurane, with an adjusted hazard ratio of 0.81 (97.5% CI, 0.71-0.92; P < .001). Duration in the PACU did not differ, with a median (quartiles) of 2.6 hours (2.0-3.6 hours) for isoflurane and 2.6 hours (2.0-3.7 hours) hours for sevoflurane. The adjusted hazard ratio for PACU discharge time was 1.04 (97.5% CI, 0.91-1.18; P = .56). CONCLUSIONS: Isoflurane prolonged emergence by only 2 minutes, which is not a clinically important amount, and did not prolong length of stay in the PACU. The more soluble and much less-expensive anesthetic isoflurane thus seems to be a reasonable alternative to sevoflurane.

Multimodal Analgesia for Perioperative Management of Patients presenting for Spinal Surgery.

Multimodal, non-opioid based analgesia has become the cornerstone of ERAS protocols for effective analgesia after spinal surgery. Opioid side effects, dependence and legislation restricting long term opioid use has led to a resurgence in interest in opioid sparing techniques. The increasing array of multimodal opioid sparing analgesics available for spinal surgery targeting novel receptors, transmitters, and altering epigenetics can help provide an optimal perioperative experience with less opioid side effects and long-term dependence. Epigenetic mechanisms of pain may enhance or suppress gene expression, without altering the genome itself. Such mechanisms are complex, dynamic and responsive to environment. Alterations that occur can affect the pathophysiology of pain management at a DNA level, modifying perceived pain relief. In this review, we provide a brief overview of epigenetics of pain, systemic local anesthetics and neuraxial techniques that continue to remain useful for spinal surgery, neuropathic agents, as well as other common and less common target receptors for a truly multimodal approach to perioperative pain management.

Liposomal bupivacaine: a review of a new bupivacaine formulation.

Many attempts have been made to increase the duration of local anesthetic action. One avenue of investigation has focused on encapsulating local anesthetics within carrier molecules to increase their residence time at the site of action. This article aims to review the literature surrounding the recently approved formulation of bupivacaine, which consists of bupivacaine loaded in multivesicular liposomes. This preparation increases the duration of local anesthetic action by slow release from the liposome and delays the peak plasma concentration when compared to plain bupivacaine administration. Liposomal bupivacaine has been approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for local infiltration for pain relief after bunionectomy and hemorrhoidectomy. Studies have shown it to be an effective tool for postoperative pain relief with opioid sparing effects and it has also been found to have an acceptable adverse effect profile. Its kinetics are favorable even in patients with moderate hepatic impairment, and it has been found not to delay wound healing after orthopedic surgery. More studies are needed to establish its safety and efficacy for use via intrathecal, epidural, or perineural routes. In conclusion, liposomal bupivacaine is effective for treating postoperative pain when used via local infiltration when compared to placebo with a prolonged duration of action, predictable kinetics, and an acceptable side effect profile. However, more adequately powered trials are needed to establish its superiority over plain bupivacaine.