Tracheal intubation in patients at risk for cervical spinal cord injury: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Tracheal intubation in patients at risk for secondary spinal cord injury is potentially difficult and risky. OBJECTIVES: To compare tracheal intubation techniques in adult patients at risk for secondary cervical spinal cord injury undergoing surgery. Primary outcome was first-attempt failure rate. Secondary outcomes were time to successful intubation and procedure complications. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) with trial sequential analysis (TSA). DATA SOURCES: Databases searched up to July 2019. ELIGIBILITY: Randomized controlled trials comparing different intubation techniques. RESULTS: We included 18 trials enrolling 1972 patients. Four studies used the "awake" approach, but no study compared awake versus non-awake techniques. In remaining 14 RCTs, intubation was performed under general anesthesia. First-attempt failure rate was similar when comparing direct laryngoscopy or fiberoptic bronchoscopy versus other techniques. A better first-attempt failure rate was found with videolaryngoscopy and when pooling all the fiberoptic techniques together. All these results appeared not significant at TSA, suggesting inconclusive evidence. Intubating lighted stylet allowed faster intubation. Postoperative neurological complications were 0.34% (no significant difference among techniques). No life-threatening adverse event was reported; mild local complications were common (19.5%). The certainty of evidence was low to very low mainly due to high imprecision and indirectness. CONCLUSIONS: Videolaryngoscopy and fiberoptic-assisted techniques might be associated with higher first-attempt failure rate over controls. However, low to very low certainty of evidence does not allow firm conclusions on the best tracheal intubation in patients at risk for cervical spinal cord injury.

Awake Fiberoptic Intubation Protocols in the Operating Room for Anticipated Difficult Airway: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials.

Awake fiberoptic intubation is one of the recommended strategies for surgical patients with anticipated difficult airway, especially when concurrent difficult ventilation is expected. We performed the first systematic review of randomized controlled trials assessing different protocols for awake fiberoptic intubation in anticipated difficult airway, including studies investigating elective awake fiberoptic intubation for scheduled surgery; randomized controlled trials comparing different methods for performing awake fiberoptic intubation; and adult patients with anticipated difficult airway. We excluded studies in the nonoperating theater settings, randomized controlled trials comparing awake fiberoptic intubation with other techniques, and studies based on simulation. Primary outcomes were success rate and death; secondary outcomes were major adverse events. Thirty-seven randomized controlled trials evaluating 2045 patients and 4 areas were identified: premedication, local anesthesia, sedation, and ancillary techniques to facilitate awake fiberoptic intubation. Quality of evidence was moderate-low and based on small-sampled randomized controlled trials. Overall, 12 of 2045 intubation failures (0.59%) and 7 of 2045 severe adverse events (0.34%) occurred, with no permanent consequences or death. All evaluated methods to achieve local anesthesia performed similarly well. No differences were observed in success rate with different sedatives. Dexmedetomidine resulted in fewer desaturation episodes compared to propofol and opioids with or without midazolam (relative risk, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.28-0.95]; P = .03); occurrence of desaturation was similar with remifentanil versus propofol, while incidence of apnoea was lower with sevoflurane versus propofol (relative risk, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.22-0.81]; P = .01). A high degree of efficacy and safety was observed with minimal differences among different protocols; dexmedetomidine might offer a better safety profile compared to other sedatives.

Closed-Loop Delivery Systems Versus Manually Controlled Administration of Total IV Anesthesia: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials.

Bispectral Index Scale (BIS)-guided closed-loop delivery of anesthetics has been extensively studied. We performed a meta-analysis of all the randomized clinical trials comparing efficacy and performance between BIS-guided closed-loop delivery and manually controlled administration of total IV anesthesia. Scopus, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials were searched for pertinent studies. Inclusion criteria were random allocation to treatment and closed-loop delivery systems versus manually controlled administration of total IV anesthesia in any surgical setting. Exclusion criteria were duplicate publications and nonadult studies. Twelve studies were included, randomly allocating 1284 patients. Use of closed-loop anesthetic delivery systems was associated with a significant reduction in the dose of propofol administered for induction of anesthesia (mean difference [MD] = 0.37 [0.17-0.57], P for effect <0.00001, P for heterogeneity = 0.001, I = 74%) and a significant reduction in recovery time (MD = 1.62 [0.60-2.64], P for effect <0.0001, P for heterogeneity = 0.06, I = 47%). The target depth of anesthesia was preserved more frequently with closed-loop anesthetic delivery than with manual control (MD = -15.17 [-23.11 to -7.24], P for effect <0.00001, P for heterogeneity <0.00001, I = 83%). There were no differences in the time required to induce anesthesia and the total propofol dose. Closed-loop anesthetic delivery performed better than manual-control delivery. Both median absolute performance error and wobble index were significantly lower in closed-loop anesthetic delivery systems group (MD = 5.82 [3.17-8.46], P for effect <0.00001, P for heterogeneity <0.00001, I = 90% and MD = 0.92 [0.13-1.72], P for effect = 0.003, P for heterogeneity = 0.07, I = 45%). When compared with manual control, BIS-guided anesthetic delivery of total IV anesthesia reduces propofol requirements during induction, better maintains a target depth of anesthesia, and reduces recovery time.

Ethical issues associated with in-hospital emergency from the Medical Emergency Team's perspective: a national survey.

BACKGROUND: Medical Emergency Teams (METs) are frequently involved in ethical issues associated to in-hospital emergencies, like decisions about end-of-life care and intensive care unit (ICU) admission. MET involvement offers both advantages and disadvantages, especially when an immediate decision must be made. We performed a survey among Italian intensivists/anesthesiologists evaluating MET's perspective on the most relevant ethical aspects faced in daily practice. METHODS: A questionnaire was developed on behalf of the Italian scientific society of anesthesia and intensive care (SIAARTI) and administered to its members. Decision making criteria applied by respondents when dealing with ethical aspects, the estimated incidence of conflicts due to ethical issues and the impact on the respondents' emotional and moral distress were explored. RESULTS: The questionnaire was completed by 327 intensivists/anesthesiologists. Patient life-expectancy, wishes, and the quality of life were the factors most considered for decisions. Conflicts with ward physicians were reported by most respondents; disagreement on appropriateness of ICU admission and family unpreparedness to the imminent patient death were the most frequent reasons. Half of respondents considered that in case of conflicts the final decision should be made by the MET. Conflicts were generally recognized as causing increased and moral distress within the MET members. Few respondents reported that dedicated protocols or training were locally available. CONCLUSION: Italian intensivists/anesthesiologists reported that ethical issues associated with in-hospital emergencies are occurring commonly and are having a significant negative impact on MET well-being. Conflicts with ward physicians happen frequently. They also conveyed that hospitals don't offer ethics training and have no protocols in place to address ethical issues.

An international survey on noninvasive ventilation use for acute respiratory failure in general non-monitored wards.

BACKGROUND: Use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for the treatment of patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) has greatly increased in the last decades. In contrast, the increasing knowledge of its effectiveness and physician confidence in managing this technique have been accompanied by a declining number of available ICU beds. As a consequence, the application of NIV outside the ICU has been reported as a growing phenomenon. Previously published surveys highlighted a great heterogeneity in NIV use, clinical indications, settings, and efficacy. Moreover, they revealed a marked heterogeneity with regard to staff training and technical and organizational aspects. We performed the first worldwide web-based survey focused on NIV use in general wards for ARF. METHODS: A questionnaire to obtain data regarding hospital and ICU characteristics, settings and modalities of NIV application and monitoring, estimated outcomes, technical and organizational aspects, and observed complications was developed. The multiple-choice anonymous questionnaire to be filled out online was distributed worldwide by mail, LinkedIn, and Facebook professional groups. RESULTS: One-hundred fifty-seven questionnaires were filled out and analyzed. Respondents were from 51 countries from all 5 continents. NIV application in general wards was reported by 66% of respondents. Treatments were reported as increasing in 57% of cases. Limited training and human resources were the most common reasons for not using NIV in general wards. Overall, most respondents perceived that NIV avoids tracheal intubation in most cases; worsening of ARF, intolerance, and inability to manage secretions were the most commonly reported causes of NIV failure. CONCLUSIONS: Use of NIV in general wards was reported as effective, common, and gradually increasing. Improvement in staff training and introduction of protocols could help to make this technique safer and more common when applied in general wards setting.