Assessing the correct inflation of the endotracheal tube cuff: a larger pilot balloon increases the sensitivity of the 'finger-pressure' technique, but it remains poorly reliable in clinical practice.

The pilot balloon palpation (or 'finger-pressure') method is still widely used to assess the endotracheal tube cuff inflation, despite consistent evidence of its poor sensitivity in recognizing cuff overinflation. It was recently speculated that this may be related to the lower wall tension (due to the smaller radius) of the pilot balloon as compared with the cuff, according to Laplace's law. To verify this hypothesis and, secondarily, to assess whether the use of a 'large' pilot balloon (identical to the cuff) increases the reliability of this technique, 62 anesthetists (41 experienced anesthesiologists and 21 residents) were asked to estimate the pressure of a cuff inflated to 88 mmHg into a simulated trachea by feeling both a usual and a modified 'large' pilot balloon. A similar test was repeated at 40 mmHg. After palpation of the usual pilot balloon, only 35% of participants (49% of experienced anesthesiologists and 10% of residents) recognized considerable overinflation (88 mmHg), as compared with 87% of participants (95% of experienced anesthesiologists and 71% of residents) after palpation of the 'large' pilot balloon. Moreover, 89% of participants (85% of experienced anesthesiologists and 95% of residents) believed that pressure was higher in the 'large' balloon than in the normal one. However, only 32% of participants (51% of experienced anesthesiologists and none of residents) recognized slight overinflation (40 mmHg) after feeling the 'large' balloon. The pilot balloon size affects the sensitivity of the 'finger-pressure' technique, but it remains poorly reliable with a larger pilot balloon.

Levosimendan for Hemodynamic Support after Cardiac Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Acute left ventricular dysfunction is a major complication of cardiac surgery and is associated with increased mortality. Meta-analyses of small trials suggest that levosimendan may result in a higher rate of survival among patients undergoing cardiac surgery. METHODS: We conducted a multicenter, randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial involving patients in whom perioperative hemodynamic support was indicated after cardiac surgery, according to prespecified criteria. Patients were randomly assigned to receive levosimendan (in a continuous infusion at a dose of 0.025 to 0.2 µg per kilogram of body weight per minute) or placebo, for up to 48 hours or until discharge from the intensive care unit (ICU), in addition to standard care. The primary outcome was 30-day mortality. RESULTS: The trial was stopped for futility after 506 patients were enrolled. A total of 248 patients were assigned to receive levosimendan and 258 to receive placebo. There was no significant difference in 30-day mortality between the levosimendan group and the placebo group (32 patients [12.9%] and 33 patients [12.8%], respectively; absolute risk difference, 0.1 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], -5.7 to 5.9; P=0.97). There were no significant differences between the levosimendan group and the placebo group in the durations of mechanical ventilation (median, 19 hours and 21 hours, respectively; median difference, -2 hours; 95% CI, -5 to 1; P=0.48), ICU stay (median, 72 hours and 84 hours, respectively; median difference, -12 hours; 95% CI, -21 to 2; P=0.09), and hospital stay (median, 14 days and 14 days, respectively; median difference, 0 days; 95% CI, -1 to 2; P=0.39). There was no significant difference between the levosimendan group and the placebo group in rates of hypotension or cardiac arrhythmias. CONCLUSIONS: In patients who required perioperative hemodynamic support after cardiac surgery, low-dose levosimendan in addition to standard care did not result in lower 30-day mortality than placebo. (Funded by the Italian Ministry of Health; CHEETAH ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT00994825 .).

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...