Teleconsultation for Preoperative Anesthesia Evaluation: Identifying Environmental Potentials by Life Cycle Assessment.

Introduction: Teleconsultations for preoperative evaluation in anesthesiology proved to be feasible during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, widespread implementation of teleconsultations has not yet occurred. Besides time savings and economic benefits, teleconsultations in anesthesia may have the potential to reduce CO2 emissions. Methods: We conducted a life cycle assessment based on prospective surveys to assess the potential environmental benefits of preoperative anesthesia teleconsultations in comparison to the status-quo in-person consultations. Within 1 month, all patients presenting at the preoperative anesthesia clinic at RWTH Aachen University Hospital were asked about the distance traveled and mode of transportation to the hospital. The main outcome measure was the potential environmental benefit resulting from the implementation of teleconsultations. Results: In total, 821 out of 981 patients presenting at the anesthesia clinic participated in the survey. Most patients visited on an outpatient basis (62.9%) and traveled by car (81.7%). The median travel distance was 25 km [interquartile range 12-40]. If patients who came to the hospital solely for the anesthesia appointment had scheduled virtual appointments, the emissions of 3.03-ton CO2 equivalents (CO2-eq) could be avoided in the first month after implementation. The environmental impact associated with the production of teleconsultation equipment is outweighed by the reduction in patient travel. If all outpatient appointments were performed virtually, these savings would triple. Within 10 years, more than 1,300 tons CO2-eq could be avoided. Conclusion: Teleconsultations can mitigate the environmental impact of in-person anesthesia consultations. Further research is essential to leverage teleconsultations for preoperative evaluation also across other medical specialties.

Easy-to-implement educational interventions to bring climate-smart actions to daily anesthesiologic practice: a cross-sectional before and after study.

BACKGROUND: Anesthesia contributes significantly to a hospital's carbon footprint. Climate-smart actions have the potential to reduce greenhouse gas emissions. Prerequisites for sustainable behavior of providers are knowledge and awareness. We aimed to assess the change in anesthesiologists' climate-friendly behavior before and after educational interventions in three areas that every anesthesiologist can address in their daily clinical routine: 1) energy use; 2) recycling opportunities; 3) consumption of volatile anesthetics. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional before-and-after single center sub-study within the multicenter "Provider Education and Evaluation Project" at the Department of Anesthesiology, RWTH Aachen University hospital from May3 2021 to May 1 2022. Educational interventions consisted of stickers, posters and a presentation on climate-smart actions in anesthesiologists' work routine between the first and the second assessment. For each cross-sectional assessment, all central 28 ORs were observed for one week. During the before-and-after comparison we analyzed: 1) energy wasted in unoccupied ORs because of running computers and turned-on lights at 9 p.m.; 2) feasibility of recycling preoperative anesthesia plastic packaging by determining the difference between calculated weight of unseparated preoperative plastic waste in the first assessment and the weight of actual separated waste in the second assessment; 3) fresh gas flow in balanced anesthesia cases in steady state at 9 a.m., and purchased hypnotics converted to bottles/1000 general anesthesia cases in 2018-2022. RESULTS: We observed a reduction of wasted energy by 44% in unoccupied ORs. Usage of low fresh gas flow settings increased from 55% to 75%. The average of purchased desflurane in 2018-2020 decreased by 72% in 2022. We calculated 10.33 kg of preoperative plastic waste per week but were unable to implement waste separation for infrastructural and logistical reasons. CONCLUSIONS: We found that environment-friendly working behaviors increased after the implementation of educational interventions. The causality between the interventions and the observed improvements remains to be proven.

Poor reporting quality of randomized controlled trials comparing treatments of COVID-19-A retrospective cross-sectional study on the first year of publications.

INTRODUCTION: Transparent and complete reporting of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) is essential for critical scientific appraisal of the results. It has been argued whether publications during the COVID-19 pandemic have met reporting standards. In this study, we assessed reporting adherence of RCTs on treatment interventions in COVID-19 patients to the CONSORT checklist and discuss which lessons can be learned to improve reporting in the future. METHODS: This was a retrospective, cross-sectional study performed at the University Hospital RWTH Aachen, Germany. We conducted a pragmatic systematic literature search in the PubMed database to identify RCTs on treatment interventions in COVID-19 patients in the first year of publications on the topic (March 2020-February 2021). We investigated the adherence of each publication to the CONSORT checklist and assessed the association between specific predictors and percentage adherence in an exploratory multivariable regression model. RESULTS: We analyzed 127 RCTs and found that the median percentage adherence to the CONSORT checklist was 54.3% [IQR 38.9 to 65.7]. In the exploratory multivariable regression model, the impact factor (highest tertile of impact factor compared to lowest tertile ß = 21.77, 95% CI 13.89 to 29.66, p<0.001; middle tertile compared lowest tertile ß = 11.79, 95% CI 5.74 to 17.84, p<0.001)) and authors' referral to the CONSORT statement (ß = 9.29, 95% CI 2.98 to 15.60, p = 0.004) were associated with a higher percentage adherence to the CONSORT checklist. CONCLUSION: The reporting quality of RCTs on treatment interventions in COVID-19 patients during the first year of publications was poor. Measures to improve reporting quality are urgently needed.

Administration of vitamin D and its metabolites in critically ill adult patients: an updated systematic review with meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials.

BACKGROUND: The clinical significance of vitamin D administration in critically ill patients remains inconclusive. The purpose of this systematic review with meta-analysis was to investigate the effect of vitamin D and its metabolites on major clinical outcomes in critically ill patients, including a subgroup analysis based on vitamin D status and route of vitamin D administration. METHODS: Major databases were searched through February 9, 2022. Randomized controlled trials of adult critically ill patients with an intervention group receiving vitamin D or its metabolites were included. Random-effect meta-analyses were performed to estimate the pooled risk ratio (dichotomized outcomes) or mean difference (continuous outcomes). Risk of bias assessment included the Cochrane tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. RESULTS: Sixteen randomized clinical trials with 2449 patients were included. Vitamin D administration was associated with lower overall mortality (16 studies: risk ratio 0.78, 95% confidence interval 0.62-0.97, p = 0.03; I2 = 30%), reduced intensive care unit length of stay (12 studies: mean difference - 3.13 days, 95% CI - 5.36 to - 0.89, n = 1250, p = 0.006; I2 = 70%), and shorter duration of mechanical ventilation (9 studies: mean difference - 5.07 days, 95% CI - 7.42 to - 2.73, n = 572, p < 0.0001; I2 = 54%). Parenteral administration was associated with a greater effect on overall mortality than enteral administration (test of subgroup differences, p = 0.04), whereas studies of parenteral subgroups had lower quality. There were no subgroup differences based on baseline vitamin D levels. CONCLUSIONS: Vitamin D supplementation in critically ill patients may reduce mortality. Parenteral administration might be associated with a greater impact on mortality. Heterogeneity and assessed certainty among the studies limits the generalizability of the results. TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO international prospective database of systematic reviews (CRD42021256939-05 July 2021).

Vitamin D supplementation for the treatment of COVID-19: a living systematic review.

BACKGROUND: The role of vitamin D supplementation as a treatment for COVID-19 has been a subject of considerable discussion. A thorough understanding of the current evidence regarding the effectiveness and safety of vitamin D supplementation for COVID-19 based on randomised controlled trials is required. OBJECTIVES: To assess whether vitamin D supplementation is effective and safe for the treatment of COVID-19 in comparison to an active comparator, placebo, or standard of care alone, and to maintain the currency of the evidence, using a living systematic review approach. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register, Web of Science and the WHO COVID-19 Global literature on coronavirus disease to identify completed and ongoing studies without language restrictions to 11 March 2021. SELECTION CRITERIA: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. We included randomised controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating vitamin D supplementation for people with COVID-19, irrespective of disease severity, age, gender or ethnicity. We excluded studies investigating preventive effects, or studies including populations with other coronavirus diseases (severe acute respiratory syndrome (SARS) or Middle East respiratory syndrome (MERS)). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We followed standard Cochrane methodology. To assess bias in included studies, we used the Cochrane risk of bias tool (ROB 2) for RCTs. We rated the certainty of evidence using the GRADE approach for the following prioritised outcome categories: individuals with moderate or severe COVID-19: all-cause mortality, clinical status, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events, and for individuals with asymptomatic or mild disease: all-cause mortality, development of severe clinical COVID-19 symptoms, quality of life, adverse events, serious adverse events. MAIN RESULTS: We identified three RCTs with 356 participants, of whom 183 received vitamin D. In accordance with the World Health Organization (WHO) clinical progression scale, two studies investigated participants with moderate or severe disease, and one study individuals with mild or asymptomatic disease. The control groups consisted of placebo treatment or standard of care alone. Effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation for people with COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease We included two studies with 313 participants. Due to substantial clinical and methodological diversity of both studies, we were not able to pool data. Vitamin D status was unknown in one study, whereas the other study reported data for vitamin D deficient participants. One study administered multiple doses of oral calcifediol at days 1, 3 and 7,  whereas the other study gave a single high dose of oral cholecalciferol at baseline. We assessed one study with low risk of bias for effectiveness outcomes, and the other with some concerns about randomisation and selective reporting. All-cause mortality at hospital discharge (313 participants) We found two studies reporting data for this outcome. One study reported no deaths when treated with vitamin D out of 50 participants, compared to two deaths out of 26 participants in the control group (Risk ratio (RR) 0.11, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.01 to 2.13). The other study reported nine deaths out of 119 individuals in the vitamin D group, whereas six participants out of 118 died in the placebo group (RR 1.49, 95% CI 0.55 to 4.04]. We are very uncertain whether vitamin D has an effect on all-cause mortality at hospital discharge (very low-certainty evidence). Clinical status assessed by the need for invasive mechanical ventilation (237 participants) We found one study reporting data for this outcome. Nine out of 119 participants needed invasive mechanical ventilation when treated with vitamin D, compared to 17 out of 118 participants in the placebo group (RR 0.52, 95% CI 0.24 to 1.13). Vitamin D supplementation may decrease need for invasive mechanical ventilation, but the evidence is uncertain (low-certainty evidence). Quality of life We did not find data for quality of life. Safety of vitamin D supplementation for people with COVID-19 and moderate to severe disease We did not include data from one study, because assessment of serious adverse events was not described and we are concerned that data might have been inconsistently measured. This study reported vomiting in one out of 119 participants immediately after vitamin D intake (RR 2.98, 95% CI 0.12 to 72.30). We are very uncertain whether vitamin D supplementation is associated with higher risk for adverse events (very low-certainty). Effectiveness and safety of vitamin D supplementation for people with COVID-19 and asymptomatic or mild disease We found one study including 40 individuals, which did not report our prioritised outcomes, but instead data for viral clearance, inflammatory markers, and vitamin D serum levels. The authors reported no events of hypercalcaemia, but recording and assessment of further adverse events remains unclear. Authors administered oral cholecalciferol in daily doses for at least 14 days, and continued with weekly doses if vitamin D blood levels were > 50 ng/mL. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: There is currently insufficient evidence to determine the benefits and harms of vitamin D supplementation as a treatment of COVID-19. The evidence for the effectiveness of vitamin D supplementation for the treatment of COVID-19 is very uncertain. Moreover, we found only limited safety information, and were concerned about consistency in measurement and recording of these outcomes. There was substantial clinical and methodological heterogeneity of included studies, mainly because of different supplementation strategies, formulations, vitamin D status of participants, and reported outcomes. There is an urgent need for well-designed and adequately powered randomised controlled trials (RCTs) with an appropriate randomisation procedure, comparability of study arms and preferably double-blinding. We identified 21 ongoing and three completed studies without published results, which indicates that these needs will be addressed and that our findings are subject to change in the future. Due to the living approach of this work, we will update the review periodically.