Perioperative and anesthesia-related cardiac arrest and mortality rates in Brazil: A systematic review and proportion meta-analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Studies have shown that both perioperative and anesthesia-related cardiac arrest (CA) and mortality rates are much higher in developing countries than in developed countries. This review aimed to compare the rates of perioperative and anesthesia-related CA and mortality during 2 time periods in Brazil. METHODS: A systematic review with meta-analysis of full-text Brazilian observational studies was conducted by searching the Medline, EMBASE, LILACS and SciELO databases up to January 29, 2020. The primary outcomes were perioperative CA and mortality rates and the secondary outcomes included anesthesia-related CA and mortality events rates up to 48 postoperative hours. RESULTS: Eleven studies including 719,273 anesthetic procedures, 962 perioperative CAs, 134 anesthesia-related CAs, 1,239 perioperative deaths and 29 anesthesia-related deaths were included. The event rates were evaluated in 2 time periods: pre-1990 and 1990-2020. Perioperative CA rates (per 10,000 anesthetics) decreased from 39.87 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 34.60-45.50) before 1990 to 17.61 (95% CI: 9.21-28.68) in 1990-2020 (P < 0.0001), while the perioperative mortality rate did not alter (from 19.25 [95% CI: 15.64-23.24] pre-1990 to 25.40 [95% CI: 13.01-41.86] in 1990-2020; P = 0.1984). Simultaneously, the anesthesia-related CA rate decreased from 14.39 (95% CI: 11.29-17.86) to 3.90 (95% CI: 2.93-5.01; P < 0.0001), while there was no significant difference in the anesthesia-related mortality rate (from 1.75 [95% CI: 0.76-3.11] to 0.67 [95% CI: 0.09-1.66; P = 0.5404). CONCLUSIONS: This review demonstrates an important reduction in the perioperative CA rate over time in Brazil, with a large and consistent decrease in the anesthesia-related CA rate; however, there were no significant differences in perioperative and anesthesia-related mortality rates between the assessed time periods.

Perioperative and Anesthesia-Related Mortality: An 8-Year Observational Survey From a Tertiary Teaching Hospital.

In 2006, a previous study at our institution reported high perioperative and anesthesia-related mortality rates of 21.97 and 1.12 per 10,000 anesthetics, respectively. Since then, changes in surgical practices may have decreased these rates. However, the actual perioperative and anesthesia-related mortality rates in Brazil remains unknown. The study aimed to reexamine perioperative and anesthesia-related mortality rates in one Brazilian tertiary teaching hospital.In this observational study, deaths occurring in the operation room and postanesthesia care unit between April 2005 and December 2012 were identified from an anesthesia database. The data included patient characteristics, surgical procedures, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status, and medical specialty teams, as well as the types of surgery and anesthesia. All deaths were reviewed and grouped by into 1 of 4 triggering factors groups: totally anesthesia-related, partially anesthesia-related, surgery-related, or disease/condition-related. The mortality rates are expressed per 10,000 anesthetics with 95% confidence intervals (CIs).A total of 55,002 anesthetics and 88 deaths were reviewed, representing an overall mortality rate of 16.0 per 10,000 anesthetics (95% CI: 13.0-19.7). There were no anesthesia-related deaths. The major causes of mortality were patient disease/condition-related (13.8, 95% CI: 10.7-16.9) followed by surgery-related (2.2, 95% CI: 1.0-3.4). The major risks of perioperative mortality were children younger than 1-year-old, older patients, patients with poor ASA physical status (III-V), emergency, cardiac or vascular surgeries, and multiple surgeries performed under the same anesthetic technique (P < 0.0001).There were no anesthesia-related deaths. However, the high mortality rate caused by the poor physical conditions of some patients suggests that primary prevention might be the key to reducing perioperative mortality. These findings demonstrate the need to improve medical perioperative practices for high-risk patients in under-resourced settings.

Dexmedetomidine on renal ischemia-reperfusion injury in rats: assessment by means of NGAL and histology.

BACKGROUND: Ischemic acute kidney injury is a common occurrence in the perioperative period and in critical patients admitted to intensive care units. The reestablishment of blood supply may worsen injury through the ischemia-reperfusion (I/R) mechanism. We investigated the effect of dexmedetomidine on the kidneys of rats subjected to an experimental I/R model. METHODS: 34 rats anesthetized with isoflurane was undergone right nephrectomy and randomly assigned to four groups: Control C (saline solution); Dexmedetomidine D (dexmedetomidine); Sham S (saline solution); Sham with Dexmedetomidine SD (dexmedetomidine). The serum levels of neutrophil gelatinase-associated lipocalin (NGAL) were measured at time-points T1 (following stabilization), T2 (ischemia), T3 (reperfusion), T4 (12 h after of I/R). The kidneys were subjected to histological examination. RESULTS: The NGAL levels were significantly higher at T4 compared with T1. Upon histological examination, the left kidneys in groups C and D exhibited a similar extent of cell injury. CONCLUSION: The levels of NGAL did not indicate either protection against or worsening of kidney injury. Histological examination for acute tubular necrosis showed that dexmedetomidine did not protect the kidneys from I/R.

Pediatric perioperative cardiac arrest and mortality: a study from a tertiary teaching hospital.

OBJECTIVES: A previous survey performed in our institution demonstrated perioperative pediatric cardiac arrest and mortality rates of 22.9 and 9.8 per 10,000 anesthetics, respectively, and an anesthesia-related cardiac arrest rate of 4.58 per 10,000 anesthetics. Changes in pediatric practices (i.e., safer anesthesia techniques and change in population) may have altered cardiac arrest rates. The aim of this investigation was to reexamine the perioperative and anesthesia-related cardiac arrest rates, causes, and outcomes in a Brazilian institution. DESIGN: Observational study. SETTING: Tertiary teaching hospital. PATIENTS: Children less than 18 years old, who were administered an anesthetic between January 1, 2005, and December 31, 2010, were included in this study. The cardiac arrest cases were identified from an anesthesia database. The data included children's characteristics, surgical procedures, American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status classification, surgical areas, and surgery type. The outcomes were perioperative cardiac arrest and mortality and anesthesia-related (totally or partially) cardiac arrest and mortality. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: There were 10,649 anesthetics during the study period, with 22 perioperative cardiac arrests and 11 deaths (20.65 and 10.32 per 10,000 anesthetics, respectively). A high incidence of perioperative cardiac arrest occurred in American Society of Anesthesiologists IV-V neonates and infants who underwent emergency surgery. There were no perioperative cardiac arrests in children aged 13 through 17, no anesthesia-related cardiac arrest in American Society of Anesthesiologists I-III children, and no totally anesthesia-related cardiac arrest. The anesthesia-related cardiac arrest rate was 2.81 per 10,000 anesthetics, with no anesthesia-related mortality. Respiratory events accounted for all of the anesthesia-related cardiac arrests. CONCLUSIONS: Despite the improvements achieved in the pediatric anesthesia safety in our institution, the perioperative cardiac arrest rates are still high and similar to the developing countries rates, with the child's disease or condition being the most important trigger for cardiac arrest. Airway management continues to be the greatest cause of anesthesia-related cardiac arrest.

Intravenous versus inhalation anaesthesia for one-lung ventilation.

BACKGROUND: This is an update of a Cochrane Review first published in The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2008.The technique called one-lung ventilation can confine bleeding or infection to one lung, prevent rupture of a lung cyst or, more commonly, facilitate surgical exposure of the unventilated lung. During one-lung ventilation, anaesthesia is maintained either by delivering an inhalation anaesthetic to the ventilated lung or by infusing an intravenous anaesthetic. It is possible that the method chosen to maintain anaesthesia may affect patient outcomes. Inhalation anaesthetics may impair hypoxic pulmonary vasoconstriction (HPV) and increase intrapulmonary shunt and hypoxaemia. OBJECTIVES: The objective of this review was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of intravenous versus inhalation anaesthesia for one-lung ventilation. SEARCH METHODS: We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL); The Cochrane Library (2012, Issue 11); MEDLINE (1966 to November 2012); EMBASE (1980 to November 2012); Literatura Latino-Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS, 1982 to November 2012) and ISI web of Science (1945 to November 2012), reference lists of identified trials and bibliographies of published reviews. We also contacted researchers in the field. No language restrictions were applied. The date of the most recent search was 19 November 2012. The original search was performed in June 2006. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included randomized controlled trials and quasi-randomized controlled trials of intravenous (e.g. propofol) versus inhalation (e.g. isoflurane, sevoflurane, desflurane) anaesthesia for one-lung ventilation in both surgical and intensive care participants. We excluded studies of participants who had only one lung (i.e. pneumonectomy or congenital absence of one lung). DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: Two review authors independently assessed trial quality and extracted data. We contacted study authors for additional information. MAIN RESULTS: We included in this updated review 20 studies that enrolled 850 participants, all of which assessed surgical participants－no studies investigated one-lung ventilation performed outside the operating theatre. No evidence indicated that the drug used to maintain anaesthesia during one-lung ventilation affected participant outcomes. The methodological quality of the included studies was difficult to assess as it was reported poorly, so the predominant classification of bias was 'unclear'. AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS: Very little evidence from randomized controlled trials suggests differences in participant outcomes with anaesthesia maintained by intravenous versus inhalational anaesthesia during one-lung ventilation. If researchers believe that the type of drug used to maintain anaesthesia during one-lung ventilation is important, they should design randomized controlled trials with appropriate participant outcomes, rather than report temporary fluctuations in physiological variables.