The impact of COVID-19 on emergency department presentations for mental health disorders in Queensland, Australia: A time series analysis.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has been associated with detrimental effects on mental health and psychological well-being. Although multiple studies have shown decreases in mental health-related Emergency Department (ED) presentations early in the COVID-19 pandemic, the medium-term effects on mental health-related ED presentations have remained less clear. This study aimed to evaluate the effect of the pandemic on mental health ED presentations by comparing observed presentation numbers to predictions from pre-pandemic data. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study tallied weekly ED presentations associated with mental health disorders from a state-wide minimum dataset. Three time periods were identified: Pre-Pandemic (January 1, 2018-March 8, 2020), Statewide Lockdown (March 9, 2020-June 28, 2020), and Restrictions Easing (June 29, 2020-June 27, 2021). Time series analysis was used to generate weekly presentation forecasts using pre-pandemic data. Observed presentation numbers were compared to these forecasts. RESULTS: Weekly presentation numbers were lower than predicted in 11 out of 16 weeks in the Statewide Lockdown period and 52 out of 52 weeks in the Restrictions Easing period. The largest decrease was seen for anxiety disorders (Statewide Lockdown: 76.8% of forecast; Restrictions Easing: 36.4% of forecast), while an increase was seen in presentations for eating disorders (Statewide Lockdown: 139.5% of forecast; Restrictions Easing: 194.4% of forecast). CONCLUSIONS: Overall weekly mental health-related presentations across Queensland public EDs were lower than expected for the first 16 months of the COVID-19 pandemic. These findings underline the limitations of emergency department provision of mental health care and the importance of alternate care modalities in the pandemic context.

Statistically significant differences versus convincing evidence of real treatment effects: an analysis of the false positive risk for single-centre trials in anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND: The American Statistical Association has highlighted problems with null hypothesis significance testing and outlined alternative approaches that may 'supplement or even replace P-values'. One alternative is to report the false positive risk (FPR), which quantifies the chance the null hypothesis is true when the result is statistically significant. METHODS: We reviewed single-centre, randomised trials in 10 anaesthesia journals over 6 yr where differences in a primary binary outcome were statistically significant. We calculated a Bayes factor by two methods (Gunel, Kass). From the Bayes factor we calculated the FPR for different prior beliefs for a real treatment effect. Prior beliefs were quantified by assigning pretest probabilities to the null and alternative hypotheses. RESULTS: For equal pretest probabilities of 0.5, the median (inter-quartile range [IQR]) FPR was 6% (1-22%) by the Gunel method and 6% (1-19%) by the Kass method. One in five trials had an FPR ≥20%. For trials reporting P-values 0.01-0.05, the median (IQR) FPR was 25% (16-30%) by the Gunel method and 20% (16-25%) by the Kass method. More than 90% of trials reporting P-values 0.01-0.05 required a pretest probability >0.5 to achieve an FPR of 5%. The median (IQR) difference in the FPR calculated by the two methods was 0% (0-2%). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings suggest that a substantial proportion of single-centre trials in anaesthesia reporting statistically significant differences provide limited evidence of real treatment effects, or, alternatively, required an implausibly high prior belief in a real treatment effect. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42023350783).

Interpreting frequentist hypothesis tests: insights from Bayesian inference.

Randomized controlled trials are one of the best ways of quantifying the effectiveness of medical interventions. Therefore, when the authors of a randomized superiority trial report that differences in the primary outcome between the intervention group and the control group are "significant" (i.e., P ≤ 0.05), we might assume that the intervention has an effect on the outcome. Similarly, when differences between the groups are "not significant," we might assume that the intervention does not have an effect on the outcome. Nevertheless, both assumptions are frequently incorrect.In this article, we explore the relationship that exists between real treatment effects and declarations of statistical significance based on P values and confidence intervals. We explain why, in some circumstances, the chance an intervention is ineffective when P ≤ 0.05 exceeds 25% and the chance an intervention is effective when P > 0.05 exceeds 50%.Over the last decade, there has been increasing interest in Bayesian methods as an alternative to frequentist hypothesis testing. We provide a robust but nontechnical introduction to Bayesian inference and explain why a Bayesian posterior distribution overcomes many of the problems associated with frequentist hypothesis testing.Notwithstanding the current interest in Bayesian methods, frequentist hypothesis testing remains the default method for statistical inference in medical research. Therefore, we propose an interim solution to the "significance problem" based on simplified Bayesian metrics (e.g., Bayes factor, false positive risk) that can be reported along with traditional P values and confidence intervals. We calculate these metrics for four well-known multicentre trials. We provide links to online calculators so readers can easily estimate these metrics for published trials. In this way, we hope decisions on incorporating the results of randomized trials into clinical practice can be enhanced, minimizing the chance that useful treatments are discarded or that ineffective treatments are adopted.

RéSUMé: Les études randomisées contrôlées constituent l'un des meilleurs moyens de quantifier l'efficacité des interventions médicales. Par conséquent, lorsque les autrices et auteurs d'une étude randomisée superiorité signalent que les différences dans le critère d'évaluation principal entre le groupe d'intervention et le groupe témoin sont « significatives ¼ (c.-à-d. P ≤ 0,05), nous pourrions supposer que l'intervention a un effet sur le critère d'évaluation. De même, lorsque les différences entre les groupes ne sont « pas significatives ¼, nous pourrions supposer que l'intervention n'a pas d'effet sur le critère d'évaluation. Pourtant, ces deux hypothèses s'avèrent souvent incorrectes.Dans cet article, nous explorons la relation qui existe entre les effets réels d'un traitement et les déclarations de signification statistique fondées sur les valeurs P et les intervalles de confiance. Nous expliquons pourquoi, dans certaines circonstances, la probabilité qu'une intervention soit inefficace lorsque P ≤ 0,05 dépasse 25 % et la probabilité qu'une intervention soit efficace lorsque P > 0,05 dépasse 50 %.Au cours de la dernière décennie, nous avons assisté à un intérêt croissant pour les méthodes bayésiennes comme alternative aux tests d'hypothèses fréquentistes. Nous proposons une introduction robuste mais non technique à l'inférence bayésienne et expliquons pourquoi une distribution postérieure bayésienne surmonte bon nombre des problèmes associés aux tests d'hypothèses fréquentistes.Malgré l'intérêt actuel pour les méthodes bayésiennes, les tests d'hypothèses fréquentistes restent la méthode par défaut pour l'inférence statistique en recherche médicale. Par conséquent, nous proposons une solution provisoire au « problème de signification ¼ basée sur des mesures bayésiennes simplifiées (par exemple, facteur de Bayes, risque de faux positifs) qui peuvent être rapportées en même temps que les mesures traditionnelles des valeurs P et des intervalles de confiance. Nous calculons ces paramètres pour quatre études multicentriques bien connues. Nous fournissons des liens vers des calculatrices en ligne afin que les lectrices et lecteurs puissent facilement estimer ces mesures pour les études publiées. De cette façon, nous espérons que les décisions sur l'intégration des résultats des études randomisées dans la pratique clinique pourront être améliorées, minimisant ainsi le risque que des traitements utiles soient rejetés ou que des traitements inefficaces soient adoptés.

Defining major surgical complications using administrative data in Ontario: a validation study.

BACKGROUND: Although surgical complications are often included as an outcome of surgical research conducted using administrative data, little validation work has been performed. We sought to evaluate the diagnostic performance of an algorithm designed to capture major surgical complications using health administrative data. METHODS: This retrospective study included patients who underwent high-risk elective general surgery at a single institution in Ontario, Canada, from Sept. 1, 2016, to Sept. 1, 2017. Patients were identified for inclusion using the local operative database. Medical records were reviewed by trained clinicians to abstract postoperative complications. Data were linked to administrative data holdings, and a series of code-based algorithms were applied to capture a composite indicator of major surgical complications. We used sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value (PPV), negative predictive value (NPV) and accuracy to evaluate the performance of our administrative data algorithm, as compared with data abstracted from the institutional charting system. RESULTS: The study included a total of 270 patients. According to the data from the chart audit, 55% of patients experienced at least 1 major surgical complication. Overall sensitivity, specificity, PPV, NPV and accuracy for the composite outcome was 72%, 80%, 82%, 70% and 76%, respectively. Diagnostic performance was poor for several of the individual complications. CONCLUSION: Our results showed that administrative data holdings can be used to capture a composite indicator of major surgical complications with adequate sensitivity and specificity. Additional work is required to identify suitable algorithms for several specific complications.

Effect of High-Dose Selenium on Postoperative Organ Dysfunction and Mortality in Cardiac Surgery Patients: The SUSTAIN CSX Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Selenium contributes to antioxidative, anti-inflammatory, and immunomodulatory pathways, which may improve outcomes in patients at high risk of organ dysfunctions after cardiac surgery. Objective: To assess the ability of high-dose intravenous sodium selenite treatment to reduce postoperative organ dysfunction and mortality in cardiac surgery patients. Design, Setting, and Participants: This multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial took place at 23 sites in Germany and Canada from January 2015 to January 2021. Adult cardiac surgery patients with a European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II score-predicted mortality of 5% or more or planned combined surgical procedures were randomized. Interventions: Patients were randomly assigned (1:1) by a web-based system to receive either perioperative intravenous high-dose selenium supplementation of 2000 µg/L of sodium selenite prior to cardiopulmonary bypass, 2000 µg/L immediately postoperatively, and 1000 µg/L each day in intensive care for a maximum of 10 days or placebo. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was a composite of the numbers of days alive and free from organ dysfunction during the first 30 days following cardiac surgery. Results: A total of 1416 adult cardiac surgery patients were analyzed (mean [SD] age, 68.2 [10.4] years; 1043 [74.8%] male). The median (IQR) predicted 30-day mortality by European System for Cardiac Operative Risk Evaluation II score was 8.7% (5.6%-14.9%), and most patients had combined coronary revascularization and valvular procedures. Selenium did not increase the number of persistent organ dysfunction-free and alive days over the first 30 postoperative days (median [IQR], 29 [28-30] vs 29 [28-30]; P = .45). The 30-day mortality rates were 4.2% in the selenium and 5.0% in the placebo group (odds ratio, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.50-1.36; P = .44). Safety outcomes did not differ between the groups. Conclusions and Relevance: In high-risk cardiac surgery patients, perioperative administration of high-dose intravenous sodium selenite did not reduce morbidity or mortality. The present data do not support the routine perioperative use of selenium for patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02002247.

Minimum false-positive risk of primary outcomes and impact of reducing nominal P-value threshold from 0.05 to 0.005 in anaesthesiology randomised clinical trials: a cross-sectional study.

BACKGROUND: Reproducibility of research is poor; this may be because many articles report statistically significant findings that are false positives. Two potential solutions are to lower the P-value for statistical significance testing from 0.05 to 0.005 and to report the minimum false-positive risk (minFPR). This study determined these metrics for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in general anaesthesiology journals. METHODS: We identified superiority RCTs published between January 1, 2019 and March 15, 2021 from seven leading anaesthesia journals. P-values for primary outcomes were collected, and minFPRs for these outcomes were calculated using a formula assuming a 50% prior probability of an intervention being effective (minFPR50). The primary outcomes were the percentage of RCTs maintaining statistical significance at P<0.005 and minFPR50. RESULTS: We included 318 RCTs. P-values below 0.05 were reported in 205/318 (64%) of RCTs. Of these 205 RCTs, 119/205 (58%) maintained statistical significance at the P<0.005 threshold. The mean (standard deviation) minFPR50 was 22% (20). At P=0.005, the minFPR50 was approximately 5%. CONCLUSIONS: These proposed metrics aimed at mitigating reproducibility concerns would call a significant portion of the anaesthesiology literature into question. We found a minFPR of 22% and determined that 42% of primary outcomes would not maintain statistical significance if the P-value threshold changed from 0.05 to 0.005. These findings could partially explain the lack of reproducibility of research findings.

Minimum protamine dose required to neutralize heparin in cardiac surgery: a single-centre, prospective, observational cohort study.

PURPOSE: Excess protamine contributes to coagulopathy following cardiopulmonary bypass (CPB) and may increase blood loss and transfusion requirements. The primary aim of this study was to find the least amount of protamine necessary to neutralize residual heparin following CPB using the gold standard assays of anti-IIa and anti-Xa activity. Secondary objectives were to evaluate whether the post-CPB activated clotting time could be used as a surrogate marker for quantifying heparin neutralization. METHODS: Twenty-eight consecutive patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery were enrolled. Protamine administration was standardized through an infusion pump at 25 mg·min-1. Blood samples were withdrawn prior to and following administration of 150, 200, 250, and 300 mg protamine and analyzed for activated clotting time and anti-IIa and -Xa activity. RESULTS: Following a mean (standard deviation) cumulative heparin dose of 67,700 (19,400) units and a CPB duration of 113 (71) min, protamine requirements varied widely. Eight out of 25 (32%) patients showed complete neutralization of anti-IIa and -Xa activity at the first sampling point (150 mg protamine; protamine:heparin ratio, 0.3 [0.1]). A protamine:heparin ratio of 0.5 (0.2) was sufficient for heparin neutralization in > 90% of patients. After CPB, a low to mid-range activated clotting time correlated well with anti-IIa and -Xa activity. CONCLUSIONS: The protamine:heparin ratio required to neutralize residual unfractionated heparin (UFH) following CPB is variable. A protamine:heparin ratio of 0.3 was sufficient to neutralize UFH in some patients, while a ratio of 0.5 is sufficient to neutralize both residual anti-IIa and -Xa activity in most patients. Larger studies are necessary to confirm these findings and evaluate their clinical implications. STUDY REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03787641); registered 26 December 2018.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: L'excès de protamine contribue à la coagulopathie après la circulation extracorporelle (CEC) et peut augmenter les pertes de sang et les besoins transfusionnels. L'objectif principal de cette étude était de déterminer la quantité minimale de protamine nécessaire pour neutraliser l'héparine résiduelle post-CEC en utilisant les tests de référence de l'activité anti-IIa et anti-Xa. Les objectifs secondaires consistaient à évaluer si le temps de coagulation activé post-CEC pouvait être utilisé comme marqueur de substitution pour quantifier la neutralisation de l'héparine. MéTHODE: Vingt-huit patients consécutifs bénéficiant d'une chirurgie cardiaque non urgente ont été recrutés. L'administration de protamine par une pompe à perfusion à 25 mg·min-1 a été normalisée. Des échantillons de sang ont été prélevés avant et après l'administration de 150, 200, 250 et 300 mg de protamine et analysés pour déterminer le temps de coagulation activé et l'activité anti-IIa et -Xa. RéSULTATS: Après une dose cumulative moyenne (écart type) d'héparine de 67 700 (19 400) unités et une durée de CEC moyenne de 113 (71) min, les besoins en protamine variaient considérablement. Huit patients sur 25 (32 %) ont affiché une neutralisation complète de l'activité anti-IIa et -Xa au premier point de prélèvement (150 mg de protamine; rapport protamine : héparine, 0,3 [0,1]). Un rapport protamine/héparine de 0,5 (0,2) était suffisant pour la neutralisation de l'héparine chez > 90 % des patients. Après la CEC, un temps de coagulation activé bas à moyen était bien corrélé avec l'activité anti-IIa et -Xa. CONCLUSION: Le rapport protamine : héparine nécessaire pour neutraliser l'héparine non fractionnée (HNF) résiduelle suivant une CEC est variable. Un rapport protamine : héparine de 0,3 était suffisant pour neutraliser l'HNF chez certains patients, tandis qu'un rapport de 0,5 est suffisant pour neutraliser à la fois l'activité résiduelle des anti-IIa et celle des anti-Xa chez la plupart des patients. Des études plus vastes sont nécessaires pour confirmer ces résultats et évaluer leurs implications cliniques. ENREGISTREMENT DE L'éTUDE: ClinicalTrials.gov (NCT03787641); enregistrée le 26 décembre 2018.

Association Between Handover of Anesthesiology Care and 1-Year Mortality Among Adults Undergoing Cardiac Surgery.

Importance: Handovers of anesthesia care from one anesthesiologist to another is an important intraoperative event. Despite its association with adverse events after noncardiac surgery, its impact in the context of cardiac surgery remains unclear. Objective: To compare the outcomes of patients who were exposed to anesthesia handover vs those who were unexposed to anesthesia handover during cardiac surgery. Design, Setting, and Participants: This retrospective cohort study in Ontario, Canada, included Ontario residents who were 18 years or older and had undergone coronary artery bypass grafting or aortic, mitral, tricuspid valve, or thoracic aorta surgical procedures between 2008 and 2019. Exclusion criteria were non-Ontario residency status and other concomitant procedures. Statistical analysis was conducted from April 2021 to June 2021, and data collection occurred between November 2020 to January 2021. Exposures: Complete handover of anesthesia care, where the case is completed by the replacement anesthesiologist. Main Outcomes and Measures: The coprimary outcomes were mortality within 30 days and 1 year after surgery. Secondary outcomes were patient-defined adverse cardiac and noncardiac events (PACE), intensive care unit (ICU), and hospital lengths of stay (LOS). Inverse probability of treatment weighting based on the propensity score was used to estimate adjusted effect measures. Mortality was assessed using a Cox proportional hazard model, PACE using a cause-specific hazard model with death as a competing risk, and LOS using Poisson regression. Results: Of the 102 156 patients in the cohort, 25 207 (24.7%) were women; the mean (SD) age was 66.4 (10.8) years; and 72 843 of surgical procedures (71.3%) were performed in teaching hospitals. Handover occurred in 1926 patients (1.9%) and was associated with higher risks of 30-day mortality (hazard ratio [HR], 1.89; 95% CI, 1.41-2.54) and 1-year mortality (HR, 1.66; 95% CI, 1.31-2.12), as well as longer ICU (risk ratio [RR], 1.43; 95% CI, 1.22-1.68) and hospital (RR, 1.17; 95% CI, 1.06-1.28) LOS. There was no statistically significant association between handover and PACE (30 days: HR 1.09; 95% CI, 0.79-1.49; 1 year: HR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.70-1.13). Conclusions and Relevance: Handover of anesthesia care during cardiac surgical procedures was associated with higher 30-day and 1-year mortality rates and increased health care resource use. Further research is needed to evaluate and systematically improve the handover process qualitatively.

Patient Sex and Postoperative Outcomes after Inpatient Intraabdominal Surgery: A Population-based Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Intraabdominal surgeries are frequently performed procedures that lead to a high volume of unplanned readmissions and postoperative complications. Patient sex may be a determinant of adverse outcomes in this population, possibly due to differences in biology or care delivery, but it is understudied. The authors hypothesized that there would be no association between patient sex and the risk of postoperative adverse outcomes in intraabdominal surgery. METHODS: This retrospective, population-based cohort study involved adult inpatients aged 18 yr or older who underwent intraabdominal surgeries in Ontario, Canada, between April 2009 and March 2016. The authors studied the association of patient sex on the primary composite outcome of all-cause death, hospital readmission, or major postoperative complications, all within 30 postoperative days. Inverse probability of exposure weighting based on propensity scores (computed using demographic characteristics such as rural residence status and median neighborhood income quintile, common comorbidities, and surgery- and hospital-specific characteristics) was used to estimate the adjusted association of sex on outcomes. RESULTS: The cohort included 215,846 patients (52.3% female). The primary outcome was observed in 24,712 (21.9%) females and 25,486 (24.7%) males (unadjusted risk difference, 2.8% [95% CI, 2.5 to 3.2%]; P < 0.001). After adjustment, the association between the male sex and the primary outcome was not statistically significant (adjusted risk difference, -0.2% [95% CI, -0.5 to 0.2%]; P = 0.378). CONCLUSIONS: In a large population of intraabdominal surgical patients, there was no differential risk between sexes in the composite outcome of all-cause death, hospital readmission, or major postoperative complications, all within 30 postoperative days.

Seven years on from the Canadian Airway Focus Group Difficult Airway Guidelines: an observational survey.

PURPOSE: Numerous clinical guidelines are available for management of the unanticipated difficult airway. It is unclear if practice recommendations are endorsed on regional, local, or individual levels. The objective of this observational study was to examine local and regional use of airway guidelines by anesthesiologists within a hospital partnership in Southwestern Ontario. METHODS: Using a paper survey, distributed locally to consultant and trainee anesthesiologists in a tertiary hospital, we examined individual clinical and educational practices regarding guideline use in airway management. Respondents were asked to report which published guideline they used for unanticipated airway difficulty. The effectiveness of dissemination of the national Canadian airway guidelines-the Canadian Airway Focus Group (CAFG) Difficult Airway Guidelines-was examined. We invited anesthesia department heads within the regional hospital partnership to complete an electronic survey investigating departmental adoption of guidelines. RESULTS: The response rate was 70% locally (79/112 anesthesiologists) and 52% regionally (11/21 department heads). Approximately 80% (64/79) of respondents reported using a formal clinical guideline if unanticipated difficulty with airway management was encountered. Seventy-two per cent of respondents (57/79) were aware of the published CAFG guidelines. Approximately 30% (16/51) of consultant anesthesiologists reported using the CAFG guidelines in clinical practice. Within the hospital partnership, 36% (4/11) of departments formally endorsed use of a specific airway management guideline. CONCLUSIONS: Despite widespread awareness of the national CAFG Difficult Airway Guidelines, they are not widely adopted in clinical practice. Further research is warranted to explore barriers to adoption of airway management guidelines for both individual anesthesiologists and anesthesia departments.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: De nombreuses lignes directrices cliniques sont disponibles pour la prise en charge des voies aériennes difficiles non anticipées. Nous ne savons pas si ces recommandations de pratique sont suivies aux niveaux régional, local ou individuel. L'objectif de cette étude observationnelle était d'examiner l'utilisation locale et régionale des lignes directrices sur les voies aériennes par des anesthésiologistes provenant d'un partenariat hospitalier dans le sud-ouest de l'Ontario. MéTHODE: À l'aide d'une enquête papier, distribuée localement aux anesthésiologistes et aux résidents en anesthésiologie d'un hôpital de soins tertiaires, nous avons examiné les pratiques cliniques et éducatives individuelles concernant l'utilisation des lignes directrices dans la prise en charge des voies aériennes. On a demandé aux répondants de divulguer les lignes directrices publiées qu'ils utilisaient lorsqu'ils étaient confrontés à des difficultés imprévues au niveau des voies aériennes. L'efficacité de diffusion des lignes directrices nationales canadiennes sur les voies aériennes­les Lignes directrices sur les voies aériennes difficiles du Canadian Airway Focus Group (CAFG)­a été examinée. Nous avons invité les chefs des départements d'anesthésiologie au sein du partenariat hospitalier régional à remplir un sondage électronique sur l'adoption des lignes directrices par leur département. RéSULTATS: Le taux de réponse était de 70 % au niveau local (79/112) et de 52 % au niveau régional (11/21 chefs de département). Environ 80 % (64/79) des répondants ont déclaré avoir utilisé des lignes directrices cliniques officielles en cas de difficultés imprévues dans la prise en charge des voies aériennes. Soixante-douze pour cent des répondants (57/79) avaient connaissance des lignes directrices publiées par le CAFG. Environ 30 % (16/51) des anesthésiologistes ont déclaré avoir utilisé les lignes directrices du CAFG dans leur pratique clinique. Au sein du partenariat hospitalier, 36 % (4/11) des départements ont officiellement appuyé l'utilisation d'une ligne directrice spécifique pour la prise en charge des voies aériennes. CONCLUSION: Malgré une importante sensibilisation aux Lignes directrices nationales sur les voies aériennes difficiles du CAFG, ces dernières ne sont pas largement adoptées dans la pratique clinique. D'autres recherches sont nécessaires pour explorer les obstacles à l'adoption de lignes directrices pour la prise en charge des voies aériennes tant par les anesthésiologistes que par les départements d'anesthésie.

Canadian Airway Focus Group updated consensus-based recommendations for management of the difficult airway: part 1. Difficult airway management encountered in an unconscious patient.

PURPOSE: Since the last Canadian Airway Focus Group (CAFG) guidelines were published in 2013, the literature on airway management has expanded substantially. The CAFG therefore re-convened to examine this literature and update practice recommendations. This first of two articles addresses difficulty encountered with airway management in an unconscious patient. SOURCE: Canadian Airway Focus Group members, including anesthesia, emergency medicine, and critical care physicians, were assigned topics to search. Searches were run in the Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL databases. Results were presented to the group and discussed during video conferences every two weeks from April 2018 to July 2020. These CAFG recommendations are based on the best available published evidence. Where high-quality evidence was lacking, statements are based on group consensus. FINDINGS AND KEY RECOMMENDATIONS: Most studies comparing video laryngoscopy (VL) with direct laryngoscopy indicate a higher first attempt and overall success rate with VL, and lower complication rates. Thus, resources allowing, the CAFG now recommends use of VL with appropriately selected blade type to facilitate all tracheal intubations. If a first attempt at tracheal intubation or supraglottic airway (SGA) placement is unsuccessful, further attempts can be made as long as patient ventilation and oxygenation is maintained. Nevertheless, total attempts should be limited (to three or fewer) before declaring failure and pausing to consider "exit strategy" options. For failed intubation, exit strategy options in the still-oxygenated patient include awakening (if feasible), temporizing with an SGA, a single further attempt at tracheal intubation using a different technique, or front-of-neck airway access (FONA). Failure of tracheal intubation, face-mask ventilation, and SGA ventilation together with current or imminent hypoxemia defines a "cannot ventilate, cannot oxygenate" emergency. Neuromuscular blockade should be confirmed or established, and a single final attempt at face-mask ventilation, SGA placement, or tracheal intubation with hyper-angulated blade VL can be made, if it had not already been attempted. If ventilation remains impossible, emergency FONA should occur without delay using a scalpel-bougie-tube technique (in the adult patient). The CAFG recommends all institutions designate an individual as "airway lead" to help institute difficult airway protocols, ensure adequate training and equipment, and help with airway-related quality reviews.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Depuis la dernière publication des lignes directrices du Canadian Airway Focus Group (CAFG) en 2013, la littérature sur la prise en charge des voies aériennes s'est considérablement étoffée. Le CAFG s'est donc réuni à nouveau pour examiner la littérature et mettre à jour ses recommandations de pratique. Ce premier article de deux traite de la prise en charge des voies aériennes difficiles chez un patient inconscient. SOURCES: Des sujets de recherche ont été assignés aux membres du Canadian Airway Focus Group, qui compte des médecins anesthésistes, urgentologues et intensivistes. Les recherches ont été menées dans les bases de données Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials et CINAHL. Les résultats ont été présentés au groupe et discutés lors de vidéoconférences toutes les deux semaines entre avril 2018 et juillet 2020. Les recommandations du CAFG sont fondées sur les meilleures données probantes publiées. Si les données probantes de haute qualité manquaient, les énoncés se fondent alors sur le consensus du groupe. CONSTATATIONS ET RECOMMANDATIONS CLéS: La plupart des études comparant la vidéolaryngoscopie à la laryngoscopie directe indiquent un taux de réussite plus élevé à la première tentative et globalement avec la vidéolaryngoscopie, ainsi que des taux de complication inférieurs. Ainsi, les ressources le permettant, le CAFG recommande dorénavant l'utilisation de vidéolaryngoscopes avec le type de lame convenablement sélectionné pour faciliter toutes les intubations trachéales. En cas d'échec de la première tentative d'intubation trachéale ou d'échec de positionnement du dispositif supraglottique (DSG), d'autres tentatives peuvent être entreprises tant que la ventilation et l'oxygénation du patient le permettent. Néanmoins, le nombre total de tentatives devrait être limité, à trois ou moins, avant de déclarer un échec et de considérer les options de « stratégie de retrait ¼. En cas d'échec de l'intubation, les options de stratégie de retrait chez un patient toujours oxygéné comprennent l'éveil (si possible), la temporisation avec un DSG, une dernière tentative d'intubation trachéale à l'aide d'une technique différente, ou une cricothyroïdotomie. L'échec de l'intubation trachéale, de la ventilation au masque facial et de la ventilation via un DSG accompagné d'une hypoxémie présente ou imminente, définit une urgence « impossible de ventiler, impossible d'oxygéner ¼. Le bloc neuromusculaire doit alors être confirmé ou mis en place, et une tentative finale de ventilation au masque, de positionnement du DSG ou d'intubation trachéale avec une lame de vidéolaryngoscopie hyper-angulée peut être réalisée, si cette approche n'a pas encore été essayée. Si la ventilation demeure impossible, une cricothyroïdotomie d'urgence devrait être réalisée sans délai utilisant une technique de scalpel-bougie-tube (chez le patient adulte). Le CAFG recommande à toutes les institutions de désigner une personne comme « leader des voies aériennes ¼ afin d'assister à la mise en place de protocoles pour les voies aériennes difficiles, d'assurer une formation et un équipement adéquats et d'aider aux examens de la qualité en rapport avec les voies aériennes.

Canadian Airway Focus Group updated consensus-based recommendations for management of the difficult airway: part 2. Planning and implementing safe management of the patient with an anticipated difficult airway.

PURPOSE: Since the last Canadian Airway Focus Group (CAFG) guidelines were published in 2013, the published airway management literature has expanded substantially. The CAFG therefore re-convened to examine this literature and update practice recommendations. This second of two articles addresses airway evaluation, decision-making, and safe implementation of an airway management strategy when difficulty is anticipated. SOURCE: Canadian Airway Focus Group members, including anesthesia, emergency medicine, and critical care physicians were assigned topics to search. Searches were run in the Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and CINAHL databases. Results were presented to the group and discussed during video conferences every two weeks from April 2018 to July 2020. These CAFG recommendations are based on the best available published evidence. Where high-quality evidence is lacking, statements are based on group consensus. FINDINGS AND KEY RECOMMENDATIONS: Prior to airway management, a documented strategy should be formulated for every patient, based on airway evaluation. Bedside examination should seek predictors of difficulty with face-mask ventilation (FMV), tracheal intubation using video- or direct laryngoscopy (VL or DL), supraglottic airway use, as well as emergency front of neck airway access. Patient physiology and contextual issues should also be assessed. Predicted difficulty should prompt careful decision-making on how most safely to proceed with airway management. Awake tracheal intubation may provide an extra margin of safety when impossible VL or DL is predicted, when difficulty is predicted with more than one mode of airway management (e.g., tracheal intubation and FMV), or when predicted difficulty coincides with significant physiologic or contextual issues. If managing the patient after the induction of general anesthesia despite predicted difficulty, team briefing should include triggers for moving from one technique to the next, expert assistance should be sourced, and required equipment should be present. Unanticipated difficulty with airway management can always occur, so the airway manager should have a strategy for difficulty occurring in every patient, and the institution must make difficult airway equipment readily available. Tracheal extubation of the at-risk patient must also be carefully planned, including assessment of the patient's tolerance for withdrawal of airway support and whether re-intubation might be difficult.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Depuis la dernière publication des lignes directrices du Canadian Airway Focus Group (CAFG) en 2013, la littérature sur la prise en charge des voies aériennes s'est considérablement étoffée. Le CAFG s'est donc réuni à nouveau pour examiner la littérature et mettre à jour ses recommandations de pratique. Ce deuxième article traite de l'évaluation des voies aériennes, de la prise de décision et de la mise en œuvre sécuritaire d'une stratégie de prise en charge des voies aériennes lorsque des difficultés sont anticipées. SOURCES: Des sujets de recherche ont été assignés aux membres du Canadian Airway Focus Group, qui compte des médecins anesthésistes, urgentologues et intensivistes. Les recherches ont été réalisées dans les bases de données Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials et CINAHL. Les résultats ont été présentés au groupe et discutés lors de vidéoconférences toutes les deux semaines entre avril 2018 et juillet 2020. Les recommandations du CAFG sont fondées sur les meilleures données probantes publiées. Si les données probantes de haute qualité manquaient, les énoncés se fondent alors sur le consensus du groupe. CONSTATATIONS ET RECOMMANDATIONS CLéS: Avant d'amorcer la prise en charge des voies aériennes, une stratégie documentée devrait être formulée pour chaque patient, en fonction de l'évaluation de ses voies aériennes. L'examen au chevet devrait rechercher les prédicteurs de difficultés pour la ventilation au masque, l'intubation trachéale utilisant la vidéolaryngoscopie ou la laryngoscopie directe, l'utilisation d'un dispositif supraglottique, ainsi que pour la cricothyroïdotomie d'urgence. La physiologie du patient et ses problématiques contextuelles devraient également être évaluées. Les difficultés anticipées devraient inciter à prendre des décisions éclairées sur la façon la plus sécuritaire de procéder à la prise en charge des voies aériennes. L'intubation trachéale éveillée peut procurer une marge de sécurité supplémentaire lorsqu'on s'attend à ce que la vidéolaryngoscopie ou la laryngoscopie directe soient impossibles, lorsqu'on prévoit des difficultés pour plus d'un mode de prise en charge des voies aériennes (p. ex., intubation trachéale et ventilation au masque), ou lorsque la difficulté prévue coïncide avec des problèmes physiologiques ou contextuels importants. En cas de choix de prise en charge des voies respiratoires du patient après induction de l'anesthésie générale malgré les difficultés prévues, les directives à l'équipe devraient inclure les déclencheurs pour passer d'une technique à l'autre, l'aide d'experts disponibles et l'équipement requis disponible. Des difficultés imprévues lors de la prise en charge des voies aériennes peuvent toujours survenir, de sorte que la personne responsable de la prise en charge des voies aériennes devrait avoir une stratégie pour chaque patient, et l'établissement doit rendre facilement disponible le matériel pour la prise en charge des voies aériennes difficiles. L'extubation trachéale du patient à risque doit également être soigneusement planifiée, y compris l'évaluation de la tolérance du patient lors du retrait du dispositif de soutien des voies aériennes et d'une ré-intubation potentiellement difficile.

Exploring and reconciling discordance between documented and preferred resuscitation preferences for hospitalized patients: a quality improvement study.

PURPOSE: A discordance, predominantly towards overtreatment, exists between patients' expressed preferences for life-sustaining interventions and those documented at hospital admission. This quality improvement study sought to assess this discordance at our institution. Secondary objectives were to explore if internal medicine (IM) teams could identify patients who might benefit from further conversations and if the discordance can be reconciled in real-time. METHODS: Two registered nurses were incorporated into IM teams at a tertiary hospital to conduct resuscitation preference conversations with inpatients either specifically referred to them (group I, n = 165) or randomly selected (group II, n = 164) from 1 August 2016 to 31 August 2018. Resuscitation preferences were documented and communicated to teams prompting revised resuscitation orders where appropriate. Multivariable logistic regression was used to determine potential risk factors for discordance. RESULTS: Three hundred and twenty-nine patients were evaluated with a mean (standard deviation) age of 80 (12) and Charlson Comorbidity Index Score of 6.8 (2.6). Discordance was identified in 63/165 (38%) and 27/164 (16%) patients in groups I and II respectively. 42/194 patients (21%) did not want cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) and 15/36 (41%) did not prefer intensive care unit (ICU) admission, despite these having been indicated in their initial preferences. 93% (84/90) of patients with discordance preferred de-escalation of care. Discordance was reconciled in 77% (69/90) of patients. CONCLUSION: Hospitalized patients may have preferences documented for CPR and ICU interventions contrary to their preferences. Trained nurses can identify inpatients who would benefit from further in-depth resuscitation preference conversations. Once identified, discordance can be reconciled during the index admission.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Il existe une discordance, qui tend surtout vers un sur-traitement, entre les préférences exprimées par les patients pour les interventions de maintien de la vie et celles documentées lors de l'admission à l'hôpital. Cette étude d'amélioration de la qualité avait pour objectif d'évaluer cette discordance au sein de notre institution. Les objectifs secondaires de notre étude étaient d'explorer la possibilité que les équipes de médecine interne (MI) identifient les patients qui pourraient bénéficier de conversations approfondies et de voir si la discordance pouvait être corrigée en temps réel. MéTHODE: Deux infirmières ont intégré des équipes de MI dans un hôpital tertiaire pour discuter avec les patients hospitalisés de leurs préférences en matière de réanimation entre le 1er août 2016 et le 31 août 2018; les patients leur étaient soit spécifiquement référés (groupe I, n = 165), ou sélectionnés au hasard (groupe II, n = 164). Les préférences en matière de réanimation ont été documentées et communiquées aux équipes, entraînant une révision des ordonnances de réanimation, le cas échéant. La régression logistique multivariée a été utilisée afin de déterminer les facteurs de risque potentiels de discordance. RéSULTATS: Trois cent vingt-neuf patients ont été évalués, d'un âge moyen (écart type) de 80 ans (12) et avec un score de 6,8 (2,6) à l'Indice de comorbidité de Charlson. Une discordance a été identifiée chez 63/165 (38 %) et 27/164 (16 %) patients dans les groupes I et II, respectivement. Au total, 42/194 patients (21 %) ne souhaitaient pas de réanimation cardiorespiratoire (RCR) et 15/36 (41 %) préféraient ne pas être admis à l'unité de soins intensifs (USI), malgré une mention dans leurs préférences initiales. Parmi les patients chez lesquels une discordance a été notée, 93 % (84/90) ont préféré une désescalade des soins. La discordance a pu être corrigée pour 77 % (69/90) des patients. CONCLUSION: La documentation des patients hospitalisés pourrait indiquer des préférences pour des interventions de RCR et d'admission à l'USI contraires aux véritables préférences. Des infirmières formées à cet effet peuvent identifier les patients hospitalisés qui bénéficieraient d'une conversation approfondie sur leurs préférences en matière de réanimation. Une fois identifiée, une discordance peut être corrigée lors de l'admission initiale.