Update of the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care Medicine evidence-based and consensus-based guideline on postoperative delirium in adult patients.

Postoperative delirium (POD) remains a common, dangerous and resource-consuming adverse event but is often preventable. The whole peri-operative team can play a key role in its management. This update to the 2017 ESAIC Guideline on the prevention of POD is evidence-based and consensus-based and considers the literature between 01 April 2015, and 28 February 2022. The search terms of the broad literature search were identical to those used in the first version of the guideline published in 2017. POD was defined in accordance with the DSM-5 criteria. POD had to be measured with a validated POD screening tool, at least once per day for at least 3 days starting in the recovery room or postanaesthesia care unit on the day of surgery or, at latest, on postoperative day 1. Recent literature confirmed the pathogenic role of surgery-induced inflammation, and this concept reinforces the positive role of multicomponent strategies aimed to reduce the surgical stress response. Although some putative precipitating risk factors are not modifiable (length of surgery, surgical site), others (such as depth of anaesthesia, appropriate analgesia and haemodynamic stability) are under the control of the anaesthesiologists. Multicomponent preoperative, intra-operative and postoperative preventive measures showed potential to reduce the incidence and duration of POD, confirming the pivotal role of a comprehensive and team-based approach to improve patients' clinical and functional status.

Documento multidisciplinar de consenso sobre el manejo de la hemorragia masiva. Primera actualización 2023 (documento HEMOMAS-II) / Multidisciplinary consensus document on the management of massive haemorrhage. First update 2023 (document HEMOMAS-II)

El presente documento supone una puesta al día del documento multidisciplinar HEMOMAS, publicado en el año 2016 con el aval de las Sociedades Científicas Españolas de Anestesiología y Reanimación (SEDAR), Medicina Intensiva, Crítica y Unidades Coronarias (SEMICYUC) y de Trombosis y Hemostasia (SETH). El objetivo de este documento fue revisar y actualizar las recomendaciones existentes sobre el manejo de la hemorragia masiva (HM). Se siguió una metodología basada en elementos del método ADAPTE (búsqueda y adaptación de guías publicadas en el ámbito específico de la HM desde 2014, más búsqueda bibliográfica en PubMed y EMBASE desde enero-2014 hasta junio-2021). Tras la revisión de nueve guías y 207 artículos seleccionados, se actualizaron las 47 recomendaciones existentes en el artículo original, manteniendo, suprimiendo o modificando cada una de ellas y sus grados de recomendación y evidencia. Consensuadamente, los autores aprobaron la redacción final del artículo y las 41 recomendaciones resultantes.(AU)

This document is an update of the multidisciplinary document HEMOMAS, published in 2016 with the endorsement of the Spanish Scientific Societies of Anaesthesiology (SEDAR), Intensive Care (SEMICYUC) and Thrombosis and Haemostasis (SETH). The aim of this document was to review and update existing recommendations on the management of massive haemorrhage. The methodology of the update was based on several elements of the ADAPTE method by searching and adapting guidelines published in the specific field of massive bleeding since 2014, plus a literature search performed in PubMed and EMBASE from January 2014 to June 2021. Based on the review of 9 guidelines and 207 selected articles, the 47 recommendations in the original article were reviewed, maintaining, deleting, or modifying each of them and the accompanying grades of recommendation and evidence. Following a consensus process, the final wording of the article and the resulting 41 recommendations were approved by all authors.(AU)

Multidisciplinary consensus document on the management of massive haemorrhage. First update 2023 (document HEMOMAS-II).

This document is an update of the multidisciplinary document HEMOMAS, published in 2016 with the endorsement of the Spanish Scientific Societies of Anaesthesiology (SEDAR), Intensive Care (SEMICYUC) and Thrombosis and Haemostasis (SETH). The aim of this document was to review and update existing recommendations on the management of massive haemorrhage. The methodology of the update was based on several elements of the ADAPTE method by searching and adapting guidelines published in the specific field of massive bleeding since 2014, plus a literature search performed in PubMed and EMBASE from January 2014 to June 2021. Based on the review of 9 guidelines and 207 selected articles, the 47 recommendations in the original article were reviewed, maintaining, deleting, or modifying each of them and the accompanying grades of recommendation and evidence. Following a consensus process, the final wording of the article and the resulting 41 recommendations were approved by all authors.

Multidisciplinary consensus document on the management of massive haemorrhage. First update 2023 (document HEMOMAS-II).

This document is an update of the multidisciplinary document HEMOMAS, published in 2016 with the endorsement of the Spanish Scientific Societies of Anaesthesiology (SEDAR), Intensive Care (SEMICYUC) and Thrombosis and Haemostasis (SETH). The aim of this document was to review and update existing recommendations on the management of massive haemorrhage. The methodology of the update was based on several elements of the ADAPTE method by searching and adapting guidelines published in the specific field of massive bleeding since 2014, plus a literature search performed in PubMed and EMBASE from January 2014 to June 2021. Based on the review of 9 guidelines and 207 selected articles, the 47 recommendations in the original article were reviewed, maintaining, deleting, or modifying each of them and the accompanying grades of recommendation and evidence. Following a consensus process, the final wording of the article and the resulting 41 recommendations were approved by all authors.

Postoperative Critical Care Admission Was Not Associated with Improved Postoperative Outcomes in Elective Colorectal Surgery: Secondary Analysis Of POWER Trial.

BACKGROUND: The efficacy of routine admission of high-risk patients to a critical care unit after surgery is not clear. The aim of our study was to investigate the association between critical care admission after scheduled colorectal surgery and postoperative complications, 30-day mortality, and length of stay in hospital. METHODS: A pre-defined secondary substudy of POWER study was performed. POWER study was a prospective multicenter observational study of patients undergoing elective primary colorectal surgery during a single period of two months of recruitment between September and December 2017. RESULTS: A total of 2084 patients from 80 Spanish hospitals were included, of which 722 (34.6%) were admitted to critical care unit (CCU) after elective surgery. After adjusting for confounding factors in the multivariate analysis, postoperative CCU admission was independently associated with a higher incidence of moderate-to-severe postoperative complications (adjusted OR 1.951, 95% CI 1.570, 2.425; p < 0.001). Regarding secondary outcomes, postoperative critical care admission was independently associated with higher 30-day mortality (adjusted OR 6.736; 95% CI 2.507, 18.101; p < 0.001) and independently associated with an increased hospital length of stay (adjusted OR 1.143, 95% CI 1.112, 1.175; p < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Direct admission to CCU after scheduled colorectal surgery was not associated with a reduction in moderate-to-severe postoperative complications.

Documento multidisciplinar de consenso sobre el manejo de la hemorragia masiva. Primera actualización 2023 (documento HEMOMAS-II) / Multidisciplinary consensus document on the management of massive haemorrhage. First update 2023 (document HEMOMAS-II)

El presente documento supone una puesta al día del documento multidisciplinar HEMOMAS, publicado en el año 2016 con el aval de las Sociedades Científicas Españolas de Anestesiología y Reanimación (SEDAR), Medicina Intensiva, Crítica y Unidades Coronarias (SEMICYUC) y de Trombosis y Hemostasia (SETH). El objetivo de este documento fue revisar y actualizar las recomendaciones existentes sobre el manejo de la hemorragia masiva (HM). Se siguió una metodología basada en elementos del método ADAPTE (búsqueda y adaptación de guías publicadas en el ámbito específico de la HM desde 2014, más búsqueda bibliográfica en PubMed y EMBASE desde enero-2014 hasta junio-2021). Tras la revisión de nueve guías y 207 artículos seleccionados, se actualizaron las 47 recomendaciones existentes en el artículo original, manteniendo, suprimiendo o modificando cada una de ellas y sus grados de recomendación y evidencia. Consensuadamente, los autores aprobaron la redacción final del artículo y las 41 recomendaciones resultantes (AU)

This document is an update of the multidisciplinary document HEMOMAS, published in 2016 with the endorsement of the Spanish Scientific Societies of Anaesthesiology (SEDAR), Intensive Care (SEMICYUC) and Thrombosis and Haemostasis (SETH). The aim of this document was to review and update existing recommendations on the management of massive haemorrhage. The methodology of the update was based on several elements of the ADAPTE method by searching and adapting guidelines published in the specific field of massive bleeding since 2014, plus a literature search performed in PubMed and EMBASE from January 2014 to June 2021. Based on the review of 9 guidelines and 207 selected articles, the 47 recommendations in the original article were reviewed, maintaining, deleting, or modifying each of them and the accompanying grades of recommendation and evidence. Following a consensus process, the final wording of the article and the resulting 41 recommendations were approved by all authors (AU)

Association between use of enhanced recovery after surgery protocols and postoperative complications after gastric surgery for cancer (POWER 4): a nationwide, prospective multicentre study.

INTRODUCTION: The effectiveness of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) protocols in gastric cancer surgery remains controversial. METHODS: Multicentre prospective cohort study of adult patients undergoing surgery for gastric cancer. Adherence with 22 individual components of ERAS pathways were assessed in all patients, regardless of whether they were treated in a self-designed ERAS centre. Each centre had a three-month recruitment period between October 2019 and September 2020. The primary outcome was moderate-to-severe postoperative complications within 30 days after surgery. Secondary outcomes were overall postoperative complications, adherence to the ERAS pathway, 30 day-mortality and hospital length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: A total of 743 patients in 72 Spanish hospitals were included, 211 of them (28.4 %) from self-declared ERAS centres. A total of 245 patients (33 %) experienced postoperative complications, graded as moderate-to-severe complications in 172 patients (23.1 %). There were no differences in the incidence of moderate-to-severe complications (22.3% vs. 23.5%; OR, 0.92 (95% CI, 0.59 to 1.41); P = 0.068), or overall postoperative complications between the self-declared ERAS and non-ERAS groups (33.6% vs. 32.7%; OR, 1.05 (95 % CI, 0.70 to 1.56); P = 0.825). The overall rate of adherence to the ERAS pathway was 52% [IQR 45 to 60]. There were no differences in postoperative outcomes between higher (Q1, > 60 %) and lower (Q4, ≤ 45 %) ERAS adherence quartiles. CONCLUSIONS: Neither the partial application of perioperative ERAS measures nor treatment in self-designated ERAS centres improved postoperative outcomes in patients undergoing gastric surgery for cancer. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier NCT03865810.

Management of severe peri-operative bleeding: Guidelines from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care: Second update 2022.

BACKGROUND: Management of peri-operative bleeding is complex and involves multiple assessment tools and strategies to ensure optimal patient care with the goal of reducing morbidity and mortality. These updated guidelines from the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) aim to provide an evidence-based set of recommendations for healthcare professionals to help ensure improved clinical management. DESIGN: A systematic literature search from 2015 to 2021 of several electronic databases was performed without language restrictions. Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) was used to assess the methodological quality of the included studies and to formulate recommendations. A Delphi methodology was used to prepare a clinical practice guideline. RESULTS: These searches identified 137 999 articles. All articles were assessed, and the existing 2017 guidelines were revised to incorporate new evidence. Sixteen recommendations derived from the systematic literature search, and four clinical guidances retained from previous ESAIC guidelines were formulated. Using the Delphi process on 253 sentences of guidance, strong consensus (>90% agreement) was achieved in 97% and consensus (75 to 90% agreement) in 3%. DISCUSSION: Peri-operative bleeding management encompasses the patient's journey from the pre-operative state through the postoperative period. Along this journey, many features of the patient's pre-operative coagulation status, underlying comorbidities, general health and the procedures that they are undergoing need to be taken into account. Due to the many important aspects in peri-operative nontrauma bleeding management, guidance as to how best approach and treat each individual patient are key. Understanding which therapeutic approaches are most valuable at each timepoint can only enhance patient care, ensuring the best outcomes by reducing blood loss and, therefore, overall morbidity and mortality. CONCLUSION: All healthcare professionals involved in the management of patients at risk for surgical bleeding should be aware of the current therapeutic options and approaches that are available to them. These guidelines aim to provide specific guidance for bleeding management in a variety of clinical situations.

Identification of the haemoglobin level associated with a lower risk of complications after total hip and knee arthroplasty.

BACKGROUND: Preoperative anaemia is associated with poor outcomes in surgical patients, but the preoperative haemoglobin cut-off that determines lower morbidity in total knee arthroplasty (TKA) and total hip arthroplasty (THA) is not well established. METHODS: Planned secondary analysis of data collected during a multicentre cohort study of patients undergoing THA and TKA in 131 Spanish hospitals during a single 2-month recruitment period. Anaemia was defined as haemoglobin <12 g dl-1 for females and < 13 g dl-1 for males. The primary outcome was the number of patients with 30-day in-hospital postoperative complications according to European Perioperative Clinical Outcome definitions and specific surgical TKA and THA complications. Secondary outcomes included the number of patients with 30-day moderate-to-severe complications, red blood cell transfusion, mortality, and length of hospital stay. Binary logistic regression models were constructed to assess association between preoperative Hb concentrations and postoperative complications, and variables significantly associated with the outcome were included in the multivariate model. The study sample was divided into 11 groups based on preoperative Hb values in an effort to identify the threshold at which increased postoperative complications occurred. RESULTS: A total of 6099 patients were included in the analysis (3818 THA and 2281 TKA), of whom 8.8% were anaemic. Patients with preoperative anaemia were more likely to suffer overall complications (111/539, 20.6% vs. 563/5560, 10.1%, p < .001) and moderate-to-severe complications (67/539, 12.4% vs. 284/5560, 5.1%, p < .001). Multivariable analysis showed preoperative haemoglobin ≥14 g dl-1 was associated with fewer postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: Preoperative haemoglobin ≥14 g dl-1 is associated with a lower risk of postoperative complications in patients undergoing primary TKA and THA.

Early mobilization after total hip or knee arthroplasty: a substudy of the POWER. 2 study

Abstract Background Early mobilization after surgery is a cornerstone of the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) programs in total hip arthroplasty (THA) or total knee arthroplasty (TKA). Our goal was to determine the time to mobilization after this surgery and the factors associated with early mobilization. Methods This was a predefined substudy of the POWER.2 study, a prospective cohort study conducted in patients undergoing THA and TKA at 131 Spanish hospitals. The primary outcome was the time until mobilization after surgery as well as determining those perioperative factors associated with early mobilization after surgery. Results A total of 6093 patients were included. The median time to achieve mobilization after the end of the surgery was 24 hours [16-30]. 4,222 (69.3%) patients moved in ≤ 24 hours after surgery. Local anesthesia [OR = 0.80 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.72-0.90); p= 0.001], surgery performed in a self-declared ERAS center [OR = 0.57 (95% CI: 0.55-0.60); p< 0.001], mean adherence to ERAS items [OR = 0.93 (95% CI: 0.92-0.93); p< 0.001], and preoperative hemoglobin [OR = 0.97 (95% CI: 0.96-0.98); p< 0.001] were associated with shorter time to mobilization. Conclusions Most THA and TKA patients mobilize in the first postoperative day, early time to mobilization was associated with the compliance with ERAS protocols, preoperative hemoglobin, and local anesthesia, and with the absence of a urinary catheter, surgical drains, epidural analgesia, and postoperative complications. The perioperative elements that are associated with early mobilization are mostly modifiable, so there is room for improvement.

Airway Management of Patients with Suspected or Confirmed COVID-19: Survey Results from Physicians from 19 Countries in Latin America.

Airway management during the COVID-19 pandemic has been one of the most challenging aspects of care that anesthesiologists and intensivists face. This study was conducted to evaluate the management of tracheal intubation in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 infection. This is a cross-sectional and international multicenter study based on a 37-item questionnaire. The survey was available to physicians who had performed intubations and tracheostomies in patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 and had provided informed consent to participate. The primary outcome is the preference to use a specific device for tracheal intubation. Secondary outcomes are clinical practice variables, use of video laryngoscopes, difficult airway management, and safety features to prevent cross-infection. This study included 2411 physicians who performed an average of 11.90 and 20.67 tracheal intubations in patients diagnosed or suspected of having COVID-19 disease, respectively. Physicians were mainly from the specialties of Anesthesiology (61.2%) and Intensive Care (7.4%). COVID-19 infection diagnosed by positive PCR or serology in physicians participating in intubation in this study was 15.1%. Respondents considered preoxygenation for more than three minutes very useful (75.7%). The preferred device for tracheal intubation was the video laryngoscope (64.8%). However, the direct laryngoscope (57.9%) was the most commonly used, followed by the video laryngoscope (37.5%). The preferred device to facilitate intubation was the Eschmann guide (34.2%). Percutaneous tracheostomy was the preferred technique (39.5%) over the open tracheostomy (22%). The predicted or unpredicted difficult airway management in these patients was preferably performed with a video laryngoscope (61.7% or 63.7, respectively). Intubation was mostly performed by two or more expert airway physicians (61.6%). The use of personal protective equipment increased the practitioners' discomfort during intubation maneuvers. The video laryngoscope is the preferred device for intubating patients with COVID-19, combined with the Eschmann guide, flexible stylet within the endotracheal tube, or Frova guide to facilitate intubation. The sub-analysis of the two groups of physicians by the level of intubation experience showed a higher use of the video laryngoscope (63.4%) in the experts group and no significant differences between the two groups in terms of cross-infection rates in physicians, in their preference for the use of the video laryngoscope or in the number of intubations performed in confirmed or suspected COVID-19 patients.

Association between use of enhanced recovery after surgery protocols and postoperative complications in colorectal surgery in Europe: The EuroPOWER international observational study.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: Assess the relationship between the Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS®) pathway and routine care and 30-day postoperative outcomes. DESIGN: Prospective cohort study. SETTING: European centers (185 hospitals) across 21 countries. PATIENTS: A total of 2841 adult patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery. Each hospital had a 1-month recruitment period between October 2019 and September 2020. INTERVENTIONS: Routine perioperative care. MEASUREMENTS: Twenty-four components of the ERAS pathway were assessed in all patients regardless of whether they were treated in a formal ERAS pathway. A multivariable and multilevel logistic regression model was used to adjust for baseline risk factors, ERAS elements and country-based differences. RESULTS: A total of 1835 patients (65%) received perioperative care at a self-declared ERAS center, 474 (16.7%) developed moderate-to-severe postoperative complications, and 63 patients died (2.2%). There was no difference in the primary outcome between patients who were or were not treated in self-declared ERAS centers (17.1% vs. 16%; OR 1.00; 95%CI, 0.79-1.27; P = 0.986). Hospital stay was shorter among patients treated in self-declared ERAS centers (6 [5-9] vs. 8 [6-10] days; OR 0.82; 95%CI, 0.78-0.87; P < 0.001). Median adherence to 24 ERAS elements was 57% [48%-65%]. Adherence to ERAS-pathway quartiles (≥65% vs. <48%) suggested that patients with the highest adherence rates experienced a lower risk of moderate-to-severe complications (15.9% vs. 17.8%; OR 0.71; 95%CI, 0.53-0.96; P = 0.027), lower risk of death (0.3% vs. 2.9%; OR 0.10; 95%CI, 0.02-0.42; P = 0.002) and shorter hospital stay (6 [4-8] vs. 7 [5-10] days; OR 0.74; 95%CI, 0.69-0.79; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Treatment in a self-declared ERAS center does not improve outcome after colorectal surgery. Increased adherence to the ERAS pathway is associated with a significant reduction in overall postoperative complications, lower risk of moderate-to-severe complications, shorter length of hospital stay and lower 30-day mortality.

Higher Adherence to ERAS Society® Recommendations is Associated with Shorter Hospital Stay Without an Increase in Postoperative Complications or Readmissions in Bariatric Surgery: the Association Between Use of Enhanced Recovery After Surgery Protocols and Postoperative Complications after Bariatric Surgery (POWER 3) Multicenter Observational Study.

PURPOSE: The effectiveness of enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) pathways in patients undergoing bariatric surgery remains unclear. Our objective was to determine the effect of the ERAS elements on patient outcomes following elective bariatric surgery. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Prospective cohort study in adult patients undergoing elective bariatric surgery. Each participating center selected a single 3-month data collection period between October 2019 and September 2020. We assessed the 24 individual components of the ERAS pathways in all patients. We used a multivariable and multilevel logistic regression model to adjust for baseline risk factors, ERAS elements, and center differences RESULTS: We included 1419 patients. One hundred and fourteen patients (8%) developed postoperative complications. There were no differences in the incidence of overall postoperative complications between the self-designated ERAS and non-ERAS groups (54 (8.7%) vs. 60 (7.6%); OR, 1.14; 95% CI, 0.73-1.79; P = .56), neither for moderate-to-severe complications, readmissions, re-interventions, mortality, or hospital stay (2 [IQR 2-3] vs. 3 [IQR 2-4] days, 0.85; 95% CI, 0.62-1.17; P = .33) Adherence to the ERAS elements in the highest adherence quartile (Q1) was greater than 72.2%, while in the lowest adherence quartile (Q4) it was less than 55%. Patients with the highest adherence rates had shorter hospital stay (2 [IQR 2-3] vs. 3 [IQR 2-4] days, 1.54; 95% CI, 1.09-2.17; P = .015), while there were no differences in the other outcomes CONCLUSIONS: Higher adherence to ERAS Society® recommendations was associated with a shorter hospital stay without an increase in postoperative complications or readmissions. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03864861.

Low anti-SARS-CoV-2 S antibody levels predict increased mortality and dissemination of viral components in the blood of critical COVID-19 patients.

BACKGROUND: Anti-SARS-CoV-2 S antibodies prevent viral replication. Critically ill COVID-19 patients show viral material in plasma, associated with a dysregulated host response. If these antibodies influence survival and viral dissemination in ICU-COVID patients is unknown. PATIENTS/METHODS: We studied the impact of anti-SARS-CoV-2 S antibodies levels on survival, viral RNA-load in plasma, and N-antigenaemia in 92 COVID-19 patients over ICU admission. RESULTS: Frequency of N-antigenaemia was >2.5-fold higher in absence of antibodies. Antibodies correlated inversely with viral RNA-load in plasma, representing a protective factor against mortality (adjusted HR [CI 95%], p): (S IgM [AUC ≥ 60]: 0.44 [0.22; 0.88], 0.020); (S IgG [AUC ≥ 237]: 0.31 [0.16; 0.61], <0.001). Viral RNA-load in plasma and N-antigenaemia predicted increased mortality: (N1-viral load [≥2.156 copies/ml]: 2.25 [1.16; 4.36], 0.016); (N-antigenaemia: 2.45 [1.27; 4.69], 0.007). CONCLUSIONS: Low anti-SARS-CoV-2 S antibody levels predict mortality in critical COVID-19. Our findings support that these antibodies contribute to prevent systemic dissemination of SARS-CoV-2.

Circulating microRNA profiles predict the severity of COVID-19 in hospitalized patients.

We aimed to examine the circulating microRNA (miRNA) profile of hospitalized COVID-19 patients and evaluate its potential as a source of biomarkers for the management of the disease. This was an observational and multicenter study that included 84 patients with a positive nasopharyngeal swab Polymerase chain reaction (PCR) test for SARS-CoV-2 recruited during the first pandemic wave in Spain (March-June 2020). Patients were stratified according to disease severity: hospitalized patients admitted to the clinical wards without requiring critical care and patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). An additional study was completed including ICU nonsurvivors and survivors. Plasma miRNA profiling was performed using reverse transcription polymerase quantitative chain reaction (RT-qPCR). Predictive models were constructed using least absolute shrinkage and selection operator (LASSO) regression. Ten circulating miRNAs were dysregulated in ICU patients compared to ward patients. LASSO analysis identified a signature of three miRNAs (miR-148a-3p, miR-451a and miR-486-5p) that distinguishes between ICU and ward patients [AUC (95% CI) = 0.89 (0.81-0.97)]. Among critically ill patients, six miRNAs were downregulated between nonsurvivors and survivors. A signature based on two miRNAs (miR-192-5p and miR-323a-3p) differentiated ICU nonsurvivors from survivors [AUC (95% CI) = 0.80 (0.64-0.96)]. The discriminatory potential of the signature was higher than that observed for laboratory parameters such as leukocyte counts, C-reactive protein (CRP) or D-dimer [maximum AUC (95% CI) for these variables = 0.73 (0.55-0.92)]. miRNA levels were correlated with the duration of ICU stay. Specific circulating miRNA profiles are associated with the severity of COVID-19. Plasma miRNA signatures emerge as a novel tool to assist in the early prediction of vital status deterioration among ICU patients.

Neuromuscular blockade management and postoperative outcomes in enhanced recovery colorectal surgery: secondary analysis of POWER trial.

BACKGROUND: We evaluated the impact of neuromuscular blockade (NMB) management, monitoring and reversal on postoperative outcomes in colorectal surgical patients included in an enhanced recovery program. METHODS: We performed a predefined analysis in 2084 patients undergoing elective colorectal surgery who participated in POWER study. We analyzed them for complications, length of hospital stay and mortality. Two groups were defined: 1) monitoring + reversal of the neuromuscular blockade (M+R) group: all patients receiving neuromuscular blockade monitoring plus reversal of it with any drug (neostigmine or sugammadex) were included; and 2) no monitoring nor reversal (noM+noR) group. In this group all the patients who did not receive monitoring and reversal of the neuromuscular blockade were allocated. RESULTS: Multivariate analysis found no statistically significant differences in moderate-severe complications (174 [25.7%] vs. 124 [27.1%]; P=0.607), length of hospital stay (10.8±11.1 vs. 11.0 ±12.6 days; P=0.683) and mortality (6 [0.9%] vs. 5 [1.1%]; P=0.840) between the group receiving optimal neuromuscular management (M+R) and the one did not receive it (noM+noR). Univariate analysis showed patients reversed with neostigmine died more than those reversed with sugammadex (3 [2.7%] vs. 3 [0.5%]; P=0.048). CONCLUSIONS: Our data suggest optimal neuromuscular blockade management in colorectal surgery is not associated with less moderate-severe complications, length of hospital stay or death during postoperative period in an enhanced recovery program. Neostigmine reversal seems to be linked to higher rate of mortality than sugammadex.

Goal-Directed Fluid Therapy and Postoperative Outcomes in an Enhanced Recovery Program for Colorectal Surgery: A Propensity Score-Matched Multicenter Study.

INTRODUCTION: Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) has increasingly been utilized in major surgery as a key component to ensure fluid optimization and adequate tissue perfusion, showing improvements in the rate of morbidity and mortality under conventional care. It is unclear if patients derive similar benefit as part of an enhanced recovery program (ERP). Our group sought to assess the association between GDFT and postoperative outcomes within an ERP for colorectal surgery. METHODS: A propensity score-matched analysis, based upon demographic characteristics, comorbidities, and ERP components, was utilized to assess the association between GDFT and outcomes in a multicenter prospective ERP for colorectal surgery cohort study. Outcomes included pulmonary edema, acute kidney injury (AKI), ileus, surgical site infection (SSI), and anastomotic dehiscence. The calipmatch module was used to match patients who received GDFT to non-GDFT in a 1-to-1 propensity score fashion. RESULTS: A total of 151 matched pairs were included in the analysis (n = 302, 23%). Both groups had comparable baseline demographics, as well as similar rates of compliance with enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) components. Goal-directed fluid therapy patients received significantly more colloid (237 ± 320 mL vs. 140 ± 245 mL, P < .01) than non-GDFT counterparts. Goal-directed fluid therapy was not associated with improved rates of postoperative AKI (odds ratios (OR) 1.00, 95% confidence intervals (CI) .39-2.59, P = 1.00), ileus (OR 1.40, 95% CI .82-2.41, P = .22), SSI (OR 1.06, 95% CI .54-2.08, P = .86), or length of hospital stay (LOS) (10.8 ± 8.9 vs. 11.1±13.2 days, P = .84). CONCLUSIONS: There was no associated between GDFT and major postoperative outcomes within an ERAS program for colorectal surgery. Additional large-scale or pragmatic randomized trials are necessary to determine whether GDFT has a role in ERP for colorectal surgery.

Viral RNA load in plasma is associated with critical illness and a dysregulated host response in COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: COVID-19 can course with respiratory and extrapulmonary disease. SARS-CoV-2 RNA is detected in respiratory samples but also in blood, stool and urine. Severe COVID-19 is characterized by a dysregulated host response to this virus. We studied whether viral RNAemia or viral RNA load in plasma is associated with severe COVID-19 and also to this dysregulated response. METHODS: A total of 250 patients with COVID-19 were recruited (50 outpatients, 100 hospitalized ward patients and 100 critically ill). Viral RNA detection and quantification in plasma was performed using droplet digital PCR, targeting the N1 and N2 regions of the SARS-CoV-2 nucleoprotein gene. The association between SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia and viral RNA load in plasma with severity was evaluated by multivariate logistic regression. Correlations between viral RNA load and biomarkers evidencing dysregulation of host response were evaluated by calculating the Spearman correlation coefficients. RESULTS: The frequency of viral RNAemia was higher in the critically ill patients (78%) compared to ward patients (27%) and outpatients (2%) (p < 0.001). Critical patients had higher viral RNA loads in plasma than non-critically ill patients, with non-survivors showing the highest values. When outpatients and ward patients were compared, viral RNAemia did not show significant associations in the multivariate analysis. In contrast, when ward patients were compared with ICU patients, both viral RNAemia and viral RNA load in plasma were associated with critical illness (OR [CI 95%], p): RNAemia (3.92 [1.183-12.968], 0.025), viral RNA load (N1) (1.962 [1.244-3.096], 0.004); viral RNA load (N2) (2.229 [1.382-3.595], 0.001). Viral RNA load in plasma correlated with higher levels of chemokines (CXCL10, CCL2), biomarkers indicative of a systemic inflammatory response (IL-6, CRP, ferritin), activation of NK cells (IL-15), endothelial dysfunction (VCAM-1, angiopoietin-2, ICAM-1), coagulation activation (D-Dimer and INR), tissue damage (LDH, GPT), neutrophil response (neutrophils counts, myeloperoxidase, GM-CSF) and immunodepression (PD-L1, IL-10, lymphopenia and monocytopenia). CONCLUSIONS: SARS-CoV-2 RNAemia and viral RNA load in plasma are associated with critical illness in COVID-19. Viral RNA load in plasma correlates with key signatures of dysregulated host responses, suggesting a major role of uncontrolled viral replication in the pathogenesis of this disease.

Awake prone positioning does not reduce the risk of intubation in COVID-19 treated with high-flow nasal oxygen therapy: a multicenter, adjusted cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Awake prone positioning (awake-PP) in non-intubated coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients could avoid endotracheal intubation, reduce the use of critical care resources, and improve survival. We aimed to examine whether the combination of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy (HFNO) with awake-PP prevents the need for intubation when compared to HFNO alone. METHODS: Prospective, multicenter, adjusted observational cohort study in consecutive COVID-19 patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) receiving respiratory support with HFNO from 12 March to 9 June 2020. Patients were classified as HFNO with or without awake-PP. Logistic models were fitted to predict treatment at baseline using the following variables: age, sex, obesity, non-respiratory Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, APACHE-II, C-reactive protein, days from symptoms onset to HFNO initiation, respiratory rate, and peripheral oxyhemoglobin saturation. We compared data on demographics, vital signs, laboratory markers, need for invasive mechanical ventilation, days to intubation, ICU length of stay, and ICU mortality between HFNO patients with and without awake-PP. RESULTS: A total of 1076 patients with COVID-19 ARF were admitted, of which 199 patients received HFNO and were analyzed. Fifty-five (27.6%) were pronated during HFNO; 60 (41%) and 22 (40%) patients from the HFNO and HFNO + awake-PP groups were intubated. The use of awake-PP as an adjunctive therapy to HFNO did not reduce the risk of intubation [RR 0.87 (95% CI 0.53-1.43), p = 0.60]. Patients treated with HFNO + awake-PP showed a trend for delay in intubation compared to HFNO alone [median 1 (interquartile range, IQR 1.0-2.5) vs 2 IQR 1.0-3.0] days (p = 0.055), but awake-PP did not affect 28-day mortality [RR 1.04 (95% CI 0.40-2.72), p = 0.92]. CONCLUSION: In patients with COVID-19 ARF treated with HFNO, the use of awake-PP did not reduce the need for intubation or affect mortality.