Alternatives to the in-person anaesthetist-led preoperative assessment in adults undergoing low-risk or intermediate-risk surgery: A scoping review.

BACKGROUND: The design of the optimal preoperative evaluation is a much debated topic, with the anaesthetist-led in-person evaluation being most widely used. This approach is possibly leading to overuse of a valuable resource, especially in low-risk patients. Without compromising patient safety, we hypothesised that not all patients would require this type of elaborate evaluation. OBJECTIVE: The current scoping review aims to critically appraise the range and nature of the existing literature investigating alternatives to the anaesthetist-led preoperative evaluation and their impact on outcomes, to inform future knowledge translation and ultimately improve perioperative clinical practice. DESIGN: A scoping review of the available literature. DATA SOURCES: Embase, Medline, Web-of-Science, Cochrane Library and Google Scholar. No date restriction was used. ELIGIBILITY CRITERIA: Studies in patients scheduled for elective low-risk or intermediate-risk surgery, which compared anaesthetist-led in-person preoperative evaluation with non-anaesthetist-led preoperative evaluation or no outpatient evaluation. The focus was on outcomes, including surgical cancellation, perioperative complications, patient satisfaction and costs. RESULTS: Twenty-six studies with a total of 361 719 patients were included, reporting on various interventions: telephone evaluation, telemedicine evaluation, evaluation by questionnaire, surgeon-led evaluation, nurse-led evaluation, other types of evaluation and no evaluation up to the day of surgery. Most studies were conducted in the United States and were either pre/post or one group post-test-only studies, with only two randomised controlled trials. Studies differed largely in outcome measures and were of moderate quality overall. CONCLUSIONS: A number of alternatives to the anaesthetists-led in-person preoperative evaluation have already been researched: that is telephone evaluation, telemedicine evaluation, evaluation by questionnaire and nurse-led evaluation. However, more high-quality research is needed to assess viability in terms of intraoperative or early postoperative complications, surgical cancellation, costs, and patient satisfaction in the form of Patient-Reported Outcome Measures and Patient-Reported Experience Measures.

Further improvement of circuit survival in citrate based continuous renal replacement therapy.

Background: Continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT) is the most frequently used modality of renal replacement therapy (RRT) in critical care patients with acute kidney injury (AKI). Adequate CRRT delivery can be challenging, due to problems with circuit patency. To improve circuit patency, we developed a new CRRT protocol using continuous veno-venous hemodiafiltration (CVVHDF) with 3.0 mmol/l regional citrate anticoagulation (CVVHDF/RCA3.0) as our first choice RRT modality. Methods: Retrospective comparison of efficacy and safety of a CVVHDF/RCA3.0 protocol with our former continuous veno-venous hemofiltration protocol with 2.2 regional citrate anticoagulation (CVVH/RCA2.2) in adult critically ill patients with AKI requiring CRRT between 25 April 2020 and 24 October 2021. Results: In total, 56 patients (257 circuits) and 66 patients (290 circuits) were included in the CVVH/RCA2.2 and CVVHDF/RCA3.0 groups, respectively. Median circuit survival was significantly higher in patients treated with CVVHDF/RCA3.0 (39.6 (IQR 19.5-67.3) hours) compared to patients treated with CVVH/RCA2.2 (22.9 (IQR 11.3-48.6) hours) (P < .001). Higher body weight and higher convective flow were associated with a lower circuit survival. Metabolic control was similar, except for metabolic alkalosis that occurred less frequently during CVVHDF/RCA3.0 (19% of patients) compared to CVVH/RCA2.2 (46% of patients) (P = .006). Conclusions: CRRT circuit survival was longer with CVVHDF/RCA3.0 compared to CVVH/RCA2.2. CRRT circuit survival was negatively associated with higher body weight and higher convective flow.