Anaesthesia care with and without tracheal intubation during emergency endoscopy for peptic ulcer bleeding: a population-based cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency upper gastrointestinal bleeding is a common condition with high mortality. Most patients undergo oesophagogastroduodenoscopy (OGD), but no universally agreed approach exists to the type of airway management required during the procedure. We aimed to compare anaesthesia care with tracheal intubation (TI group) and without airway instrumentation (monitored anaesthesia care, MAC group) during emergency OGD. METHODS: This was a prospective, nationwide, population-based cohort study during 2006-13. Emergency OGDs performed under anaesthesia care were included. End points were 90 day mortality (primary) and length of stay in hospital (secondary). Associations between exposure and outcomes were assessed in logistic and linear regression models, adjusted for the following potential confounders: shock at admission, level of anaesthetic expertise present, ASA score, Charlson comorbidity index score, BMI, age, sex, alcohol use, referral origin (home or in-hospital), Forrest classification, ulcer localization, and postoperative care. RESULTS: The study group comprised 3580 patients under anaesthesia care: 2101 (59%) for the TI group and 1479 (41%) for the MAC group. During the first 90 days after OGD, 18.9% in the TI group and 18.4% in the MAC group died, crude odds ratio=1.03 [95% confidence interval (CI)=0.87-1.23, P=0.701], adjusted odds ratio=0.95 (95% CI=0.79-1.15, P=0.590). Patients in the TI group stayed slightly longer in hospital [mean 8.16 (95% CI=7.63-8.60) vs 7.63 days (95%=CI 6.92-8.33), P=0.108 in adjusted analysis]. CONCLUSIONS: In this large population-based cohort study, anaesthesia care with TI was not different from anaesthesia care without airway instrumentation in patients undergoing emergency OGD in terms of 90 day mortality and length of hospital stay.

Gender differences in randomised, controlled trials in intensive care units.

There is a male dominance among patients in intensive care units (ICUs). Potentially, this will increase the risk of a skewed male/female distribution in randomised, controlled trials (RCTs). We have evaluated if this has in fact happened when randomising and whether the authors have been aware of that. We performed a systematic search on PubMed from 1 January 2011 to 31 May 2012 using the mesh terms 'randomized controlled trial' and 'intensive care unit'. Twenty-five RCTs with a total of 12,788 patients met the inclusion criteria, with an overall male dominance of 63.6% (P < 0.0001). Eighteen of the 25 papers had an individually statistically significant gender difference in their total trial population. None of the 18 trials with a significant gender difference in their overall trial population had calculated the P-value for this overall difference. In the randomised groups, there was a significant gender difference in five papers. Seventeen had no significant gender difference in the randomised groups, and three papers did not state gender in the randomised groups. This study show that there is a marked male dominance in RCTs conducted in ICUs. We recommend that when planning future RCTs, the authors contemplate if their results can be used indiscriminately among ICU patients if the distribution of males and females is much skewed. It is relevant to determine if ones endpoint can be influenced by gender differences and if there is a risk of gender influence on data, proportional allocation or stratification should be considered.