Association of anemia and transfusions with outcome after subarachnoid hemorrhage.

INTRODUCTION: The benefits of correcting anemia using red blood cell transfusion (RBCT) after subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) are controversial. We aimed to evaluate the role of anemia and RBCT on neurological outcome after SAH using a restrictive transfusion policy. OBJECTIVE: We reviewed our institutional database of adult patients admitted to the Department of Intensive Care (ICU) after non-traumatic SAH over a 5-year period. We recorded hemoglobin (Hb) levels daily for a maximum of 20 days, as well as the use of RBCT. Unfavorable neurological outcome (UO) was defined as a Glasgow Outcome Score of 1-3 at 3 months. RESULTS: Among 270 eligible patients, UO was observed in 40% of them. Patients with UO had lower Hb over time and received RBCT more frequently than others (15/109, 14% vs. 6/161, 4% - p < 0.01). Pre-RBCT median Hb values were similar in UO and FO patients (6.9 [6.6-7.1] vs. 7.3 [6.3-8.1] g/dL - p = 0.21). The optimal discriminative Hb threshold for UO was 9 g/dL. In a multivariable analysis, neither anemia nor RBCT were independently associated with UO. CONCLUSION: In this retrospective single center study using a restrictive strategy of RBCT in SAH patients was not associated with worse outcome in 3 months.

Perioperative pain management in cardiac surgery: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Every year, more than 1.5 million patients, who undergo cardiac surgery worldwide, are exposed to a series of factors that can trigger acute postoperative pain associated with hemodynamic instability, respiratory complications, and psychological disorders. Through an evaluation of literature data about postoperative pain in cardiac surgery we define unmet needs and potential objectives for future research on this often-underestimated problem. METHODS: Following PRISMA Guidelines, a systematic literature search was carried out by two independent researchers on Scopus, CINAHL, the Cochrane Library, and PubMed using the key words: (perioperative OR postoperative) analgesia AND "cardiac surgery." Papers concerning children, or published prior to 2000, were considered ineligible, as well as abstracts, animal studies, and studies written in languages other than English. RESULTS: Fifty-four papers were selected and subsequently divided into two main categories: systemic analgesic drugs and regional anesthesia techniques. CONCLUSIONS: Over the past 17 years, opioids are still the most extensively used therapy, whereas we found only few trials investigating other drugs (e.g. paracetamol). Regional anesthesia techniques, especially thoracic epidural analgesia and intrathecal morphine administration, can effectively treat pain, but have not yet showed any significant impact on major clinical outcomes, with several concerns related to their potential complications. To date multimodal analgesia with implementation of regional analgesia seems to be the best choice. In the future, better-designed studies should consider other drugs stratifying groups according to comorbidities and risk factors, as well as using standardized units of measurement.

Randomized Evidence for Reduction of Perioperative Mortality: An Updated Consensus Process.

OBJECTIVE: Of the 230 million patients undergoing major surgical procedures every year, more than 1 million will die within 30 days. Thus, any nonsurgical interventions that help reduce perioperative mortality might save thousands of lives. The authors have updated a previous consensus process to identify all the nonsurgical interventions, supported by randomized evidence, that may help reduce perioperative mortality. DESIGN AND SETTING: A web-based international consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS: The study comprised 500 clinicians from 61 countries. INTERVENTIONS: A systematic literature search was performed to identify published literature about nonsurgical interventions, supported by randomized evidence, showing a statistically significant impact on mortality. A consensus conference of experts discussed eligible papers. The interventions identified by the conference then were submitted to colleagues worldwide through a web-based survey. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: The authors identified 11 interventions contributing to increased survival (perioperative hemodynamic optimization, neuraxial anesthesia, noninvasive ventilation, tranexamic acid, selective decontamination of the gastrointestinal tract, insulin for tight glycemic control, preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump, leuko-depleted red blood cells transfusion, levosimendan, volatile agents, and remote ischemic preconditioning) and 2 interventions showing increased mortality (beta-blocker therapy and aprotinin). Interventions then were voted on by participating clinicians. Percentages of agreement among clinicians in different countries differed significantly for 6 interventions, and a variable gap between evidence and clinical practice was noted. CONCLUSIONS: The authors identified 13 nonsurgical interventions that may decrease or increase perioperative mortality, with variable agreement by clinicians. Such interventions may be optimal candidates for investigation in high-quality trials and discussion in international guidelines to reduce perioperative mortality.

Randomized evidence for reduction of perioperative mortality: an updated consensus process

Objective: Out of the 230 million patients undergoing major surgical procedure every year, morethan 1 million will die within 30 days. Thus, any nonsurgical interventions that help reduce perioperative mortality might save thousands of lives. We decided to update a previous consensus process to identify all the nonsurgical interventions, supported by randomized evidence, that may help reduce perioperative mortality. Design and Setting: A web-based international consensus conference. Participants: 500 hundred clinicians from 61 countries. Interventions: A systematic literature search was performed to identify published literature aboutnonsurgical interventions, supported by randomized evidence showing a statistically significant impact on mortality. Eligible papers were discussed by a Consensus Conference of experts. The interventions identified by the conference were then submitted to colleagues worldwide through aweb-based survey...

Worldwide Opinion on Multicenter Randomized Interventions Showing Mortality Reduction in Critically Ill Patients: A Democracy-Based Medicine Approach.

OBJECTIVES: Democracy-based medicine is a combination of evidence-based medicine (systematic review), expert assessment, and worldwide voting by physicians to express their opinions and self-reported practice via the Internet. The authors applied democracy-based medicine to key trials in critical care medicine. DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic review of literature followed by web-based voting on findings of a consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS: A total of 555 clinicians from 61 countries. INTERVENTIONS: The authors performed a systematic literature review (via searching MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Embase) and selected all multicenter randomized clinical trials in critical care that reported a significant effect on survival and were endorsed by expert clinicians. Then they solicited voting and self-reported practice on such evidence via an interactive Internet questionnaire. Relationships among trial sample size, design, and respondents' agreement were investigated. The gap between agreement and use/avoidance and the influence of country origin on physicians' approach to interventions also were investigated. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: According to 24 multicenter randomized controlled trials, 15 interventions affecting mortality were identified. Wide variabilities in both the level of agreement and reported practice among different interventions and countries were found. Moreover, agreement and reported practice often did not coincide. Finally, a positive correlation among agreement, trial sample size, and number of included centers was found. On the contrary, trial design did not influence clinicians' agreement. CONCLUSIONS: Physicians' clinical practice and agreement with the literature vary among different interventions and countries. The role of these interventions in affecting survival should be further investigated to reduce both the gap between evidence and clinical practice and transnational differences.