Perioperative Fluid and Vasopressor Therapy in 2050: From Experimental Medicine to Personalization Through Automation.

Intravenous (IV) fluids and vasopressor agents are key components of hemodynamic management. Since their introduction, their use in the perioperative setting has continued to evolve, and we are now on the brink of automated administration. IV fluid therapy was first described in Scotland during the 1832 cholera epidemic, when pioneers in medicine saved critically ill patients dying from hypovolemic shock. However, widespread use of IV fluids only began in the 20th century. Epinephrine was discovered and purified in the United States at the end of the 19th century, but its short half-life limited its implementation into patient care. Advances in venous access, including the introduction of the central venous catheter, and the ability to administer continuous infusions of fluids and vasopressors rather than just boluses, facilitated the use of fluids and adrenergic agents. With the advent of advanced hemodynamic monitoring, most notably the pulmonary artery catheter, the role of fluids and vasopressors in the maintenance of tissue oxygenation through adequate cardiac output and perfusion pressure became more clearly established, and hemodynamic goals could be established to better titrate fluid and vasopressor therapy. Less invasive hemodynamic monitoring techniques, using echography, pulse contour analysis, and heart-lung interactions, have facilitated hemodynamic monitoring at the bedside. Most recently, advances have been made in closed-loop fluid and vasopressor therapy, which apply computer assistance to interpret hemodynamic variables and therapy. Development and increased use of artificial intelligence will likely represent a major step toward fully automated hemodynamic management in the perioperative environment in the near future. In this narrative review, we discuss the key events in experimental medicine that have led to the current status of fluid and vasopressor therapies and describe the potential benefits that future automation has to offer.

Closing the loop: automation in anesthesiology is coming.

Anesthesiology and intensive care medicine provide fertile ground for innovation in automation, but to date we have only achieved preliminary studies in closed-loop intravenous drug administration. Anesthesiologists have yet to implement these tools on a large scale despite clear evidence that they outperform manual titration. Closed-loops continuously assess a predefined variable as input into a controller and then attempt to establish equilibrium by administering a treatment as output. The aim is to decrease the error between the closed-loop controller's input and output. In this editorial we consider the available intravenous anesthesia closed-loop systems, try to clarify why they have not yet been implemented on a large scale, see what they offer, and propose the future steps towards automation in anesthesia.

Closed-loop anesthesia: foundations and applications in contemporary perioperative medicine.

A closed-loop automatically controls a variable using the principle of feedback. Automation within anesthesia typically aims to improve the stability of a controlled variable and reduce workload associated with simple repetitive tasks. This approach attempts to limit errors due to distractions or fatigue while simultaneously increasing compliance to evidence based perioperative protocols. The ultimate goal is to use these advantages over manual care to improve patient outcome. For more than twenty years, clinical studies in anesthesia have demonstrated the superiority of closed-loop systems compared to manual control for stabilizing a single variable, reducing practitioner workload, and safely administering therapies. This research has focused on various closed-loops that coupled inputs and outputs such as the processed electroencephalogram with propofol, blood pressure with vasopressors, and dynamic predictors of fluid responsiveness with fluid therapy. Recently, multiple simultaneous independent closed-loop systems have been tested in practice and one study has demonstrated a clinical benefit on postoperative cognitive dysfunction. Despite their advantages, these tools still require that a well-trained practitioner maintains situation awareness, understands how closed-loop systems react to each variable, and is ready to retake control if the closed-loop systems fail. In the future, multiple input multiple output closed-loop systems will control anesthetic, fluid and vasopressor titration and may perhaps integrate other key systems, such as the anesthesia machine. Human supervision will nonetheless always be indispensable as situation awareness, communication, and prediction of events remain irreplaceable human factors.

Control of mean arterial pressure using a closed-loop system for norepinephrine infusion in severe brain injury patients: the COMAT randomized controlled trial.

Brain injury patients require precise blood pressure (BP) management to maintain cerebral perfusion pressure (CPP) and avoid intracranial hypertension. Nurses have many tasks and norepinephrine titration has been shown to be suboptimal. This can lead to limited BP control in patients that are in critical need of cerebral perfusion optimization. We have designed a closed-loop vasopressor (CLV) system capable of maintaining mean arterial pressure (MAP) in a narrow range and we aimed to assess its performance when treating severe brain injury patients. Within the first 48 h of intensive care unit (ICU) admission, 18 patients with a severe brain injury underwent either CLV or manual norepinephrine titration. In both groups, the objective was to maintain MAP in target (within ± 5 mmHg of a predefined target MAP) to achieve optimal CPP. Fluid administration was standardized in the two groups. The primary objective was the percentage of time patients were in target. Secondary outcomes included time spent over and under target. Over the four-hour study period, the mean percentage of time with MAP in target was greater in the CLV group than in the control group (95.8 ± 2.2% vs. 42.5 ± 27.0%, p < 0.001). Severe undershooting, defined as MAP < 10 mmHg of target value was lower in the CLV group (0.2 ± 0.3% vs. 7.4 ± 14.2%, p < 0.001) as was severe overshooting defined as MAP > 10 mmHg of target (0.0 ± 0.0% vs. 22.0 ± 29.0%, p < 0.001). The CLV system can maintain MAP in target better than nurses caring for severe brain injury patients.

Tight control of mean arterial pressure using a closed loop system for norepinephrine infusion after high-risk abdominal surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

Intensive care unit (ICU) nurses frequently manually titrate norepinephrine to maintain a predefined mean arterial pressure (MAP) target after high-risk surgery. However, achieving this task is often suboptimal. We have developed a closed-loop vasopressor (CLV) controller to better maintain MAP within a narrow range. After ethical committee approval, fifty-three patients admitted to the ICU following high-risk abdominal surgery were randomized to CLV or manual norepinephrine titration. In both groups, the aim was to maintain MAP in the predefined target of 80-90 mmHg. Fluid administration was standardized in the two groups using an advanced hemodynamic monitoring device. The primary outcome of our study was the percentage of time patients were in the MAP target. Over the 2-hour study period, the percentage of time with MAP in target was greater in the CLV group than in the control group (median: IQR25-75: 80 [68-88]% vs. 42 [22-65]%), difference 37.2, 95% CI (23.0-49.2); p < 0.001). Percentage time with MAP under 80 mmHg (1 [0-5]% vs. 26 [16-75]%, p < 0.001) and MAP under 65 mmHg (0 [0-0]% vs. 0 [0-4]%, p = 0.017) were both lower in the CLV group than in the control group. The percentage of time with a MAP > 90 mmHg was not statistically different between groups. In patients admitted to the ICU after high-risk abdominal surgery, closed-loop control of norepinephrine infusion better maintained a MAP target of 80 to 90 mmHg and significantly decreased postoperative hypotensive when compared to manual norepinephrine titration.

Assessing the discriminative ability of the respiratory exchange ratio to detect hyperlactatemia during intermediate-to-high risk abdominal surgery.

BACKGROUND: A mismatch between oxygen delivery (DO2) and consumption (VO2) is associated with increased perioperative morbidity and mortality. Hyperlactatemia is often used as an early screening tool, but this non-continuous measurement requires intermittent arterial line sampling. Having a non-invasive tool to rapidly detect inadequate DO2 is of great clinical relevance. The respiratory exchange ratio (RER) can be easily measured in all intubated patients and has been shown to predict postoperative complications. We therefore aimed to assess the discriminative ability of the RER to detect an inadequate DO2 as reflected by hyperlactatemia in patients having intermediate-to-high risk abdominal surgery. METHODS: This historical cohort study included all consecutive patients who underwent intermediate-to-high risk surgery from January 1st, 2014, to April 30th, 2019 except those who did not have RER and/or arterial lactate measured. Blood lactate levels were measured routinely at the beginning and end of surgery and RER was calculated at the same moment as the blood gas sampling. The present study tested the hypothesis that RER measured at the end of surgery could detect hyperlactatemia at that time. A receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve was constructed to assess if RER calculated at the end of the surgery could detect hyperlactatemia. The chosen RER threshold corresponded to the highest value of the sum of the specificity and the sensitivity (Youden Index). RESULTS: Among the 996 patients available in our study cohort, 941 were included and analyzed. The area under the ROC curve was 0.73 (95% CI: 0.70 to 0.76; p < 0.001), with a RER threshold of 0.75, allowing to discriminate a lactate > 1.5 mmol/L with a sensitivity of 87.5% and a specificity of 49.5%. CONCLUSION: In mechanically ventilated patients undergoing intermediate to high-risk abdominal surgery, the RER had moderate discriminative abilities to detect hyperlactatemia. Increased values should prompt clinicians to investigate for the presence of hyperlactatemia and treat any potential causes of DO2/VO2 mismatch as suggested by the subsequent presence of hyperlactatemia.

Intraoperative measurement of the respiratory exchange ratio predicts postoperative complications after liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: During surgery, any mismatch between oxygen delivery (DO2) and consumption (VO2) can promote the development of postoperative complications. The respiratory exchange ratio (RER), defined as the ratio of carbon dioxide (CO2) production (VCO2) to VO2, may be a useful noninvasive tool for detecting inadequate DO2. The primary objective of this study was to test the hypothesis that RER measured during liver transplantation may predict postoperative morbidity. Secondary objectives were to assess the ability of other variables used to assess the DO2/VO2 relationship, including arterial lactate, mixed venous oxygen saturation, and veno-arterial difference in the partial pressure of carbon dioxide (VAPCO2gap), to predict postoperative complications. METHODS: This retrospective study included consecutive adult patients who underwent liver transplantation for end stage liver disease from June 27th, 2020, to September 5th, 2021. Patients with acute liver failure were excluded. All patients were routinely equipped with a pulmonary artery catheter. The primary analysis was a receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve constructed to investigate the discriminative ability of the mean RER measured during surgery to predict postoperative complications. RER was calculated at five standardized time points during the surgery, at the same time as measurement of blood lactate levels and arterial and mixed venous blood gases, which were compared as a secondary analysis. RESULTS: Of the 115 patients included, 57 developed at least one postoperative complication. The mean RER (median [25-75] percentiles) during surgery was significantly higher in patients with complications than in those without (1.04[0.96-1.12] vs 0.88[0.84-0.94]; p < 0.001). The area under the ROC curve was 0.87 (95%CI: 0.80-0.93; p < 0.001) with a RER value (Youden index) of 0.92 giving a sensitivity of 91% and a specificity of 74% for predicting the occurrence of postoperative complications. The RER outperformed all other measured variables assessing the DO2/VO2 relationship (arterial lactate, SvO2, and VAPCO2gap) in predicting postoperative complications. CONCLUSION: During liver transplantation, the RER can reliably predict postoperative complications. Implementing this measure intraoperatively may provide a warning for physicians of impending complications and justify more aggressive optimization of oxygen delivery. Further studies are required to determine whether correcting the RER is feasible and could reduce the incidence of complications.

Long-Term Outcome After Venoarterial Extracorporeal Membrane Oxygenation as Bridge to Left Ventricular Assist Device Preceding Heart Transplantation.

OBJECTIVES: To determine if venoarterial extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (VA ECMO) as a bridge to left ventricular assist device (LVAD) in heart transplant (HT) candidates (ie, double bridge to HT) was associated with increased morbidity and mortality when compared to LVAD bridging to HT (ie, single bridge to HT). DESIGN: A retrospective analysis of patients undergoing LVAD support from 2011 to 2020. A Kaplan-Meier survival curve and Cox-Mantel hazard ratios (HR) were calculated during LVAD support and after HT. Postoperative complications were collected. SETTING: University Hospital Erasme. PARTICIPANTS: HT candidates requiring LVAD. INTERVENTIONS: VA ECMO bridging to LVAD (ECMO-LVAD group [n = 24]) versus LVAD (LVAD group [n = 64]). MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Eighty-eight patients underwent HeartWare LVAD (HVAD, Medtronic) placement. Survival to hospital discharge and during the entire study period were lower in the ECMO-LVAD group (66.7% v 92.2%; p = 0.0027, and 37.5% v 62.5%; p = 0.035, respectively). Overall HR of death was 2.46 (95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.13-5.37; p = 0.005) in the ECMO-LVAD group and remained elevated throughout their time on LVAD support (HR 3.24 [95% CI: 1.15-9.14]; p = 0.0036). However, in patients who underwent HT (n = 50), mortality was similar between groups (HR 1.33 [95% CI: 0.33-5.31]; p = 0.66). Postoperative complications were more frequent in the ECMO-LVAD group (infection = 83.3% v 51.6%, p = 0.007; renal replacement therapy = 45.8% v 9.4%, p = 0.0001; post-LVAD ECMO = 25.0% v 1.6%; p = 0.0003). CONCLUSIONS: VA ECMO as a bridge to LVAD support before HT was associated with increased morbidity and mortality during LVAD support. However, in patients who underwent HT, outcomes were similar regardless of VA ECMO bridging.

Predicting personalised remifentanil effect site concentration for surgical incision using the nociception level index: A prospective calibration and validation study.

BACKGROUND: Inadequate antinociception can cause haemodynamic instability. The nociception level (NOL) index measures response to noxious stimuli, but its capacity to predict optimal antinociception is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To determine if NOL index change to a tetanic stimulus in cardiac and noncardiac surgery patients could predict the required remifentanil concentration for haemodynamic stability at skin incision. DESIGN: A prospective two-phase cohort study. SETTING: University hospital. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing remifentanil-propofol target controlled infusion (TCI) anaesthesia. INTERVENTIONS: During the calibration phase, investigators evaluated the tetanic stimulus induced NOL index change under standardised TCI remifentanil-propofol anaesthesia during a no-touch period [bispectral index (BIS) between 40 and 60, NOL index under 15]. If the NOL index change was 20 or greater following tetanic stimulation, investigators repeated the tetanus at higher remifentanil concentrations until the response was blunted. Surgeons incised the skin at this remifentanil concentration. The investigators derived a prediction model and in the validation phase calculated, using the NOL response to a single tetanus, the required incision remifentanil concentration for the start of surgery. MAIN OUTCOME: Haemodynamic stability at incision [i.e. maximum heart rate (HR) < 20% increase from baseline, minimum HR (40 bpm) and mean arterial pressure (MAP) ± <20% of baseline]. RESULTS: During the calibration phase, no patient had hypertension. Two patients had a HR increase slightly greater than 20% (25.4 and 26.7%) within the first 2 min of surgery, but neither of these two patients had a HR above 76 bpm. Two patients were slightly hypotensive after incision (MAP 64 and 73 mmHg). During the validation phase, neither tachycardia nor hypotension occurred, but MAP increased to 21.5% above baseline for one patient. CONCLUSION: During a no-touch period in patients under steady-state general anaesthesia [propofol effect site concentration (Ce) required for BIS between 40 and 60], the NOL index response to a tetanic stimulus under remifentanil antinociception can be used to personalise remifentanil Ce for the start of surgery and ensure stable haemodynamics. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT03324269.

Impact of conventional vs. goal-directed fluid therapy on urethral tissue perfusion in patients undergoing liver surgery: A pilot randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Although fluid administration is a key strategy to optimise haemodynamic status and tissue perfusion, optimal fluid administration during liver surgery remains controversial. OBJECTIVE: To test the hypothesis that a goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) strategy, when compared with a conventional fluid strategy, would better optimise systemic blood flow and lead to improved urethral tissue perfusion (a new variable to assess peripheral blood flow), without increasing blood loss. DESIGN: Single-centre prospective randomised controlled superiority study. SETTING: Erasme Hospital. PATIENTS: Patients undergoing liver surgery. INTERVENTION: Forty patients were randomised into two groups: all received a basal crystalloid infusion (maximum 2 ml kg-1 h-1). In the conventional fluid group, the goal was to maintain central venous pressure (CVP) as low as possible during the dissection phase by giving minimal additional fluid, while in the posttransection phase, anaesthetists were free to compensate for any presumed fluid deficit. In the GDFT group, patients received in addition to the basal infusion, multiple minifluid challenges of crystalloid to maintain stroke volume (SV) variation less than 13%. Noradrenaline infusion was titrated to keep mean arterial pressure more than 65 mmHg in all patients. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURE: The mean intra-operative urethral perfusion index. RESULTS: The mean urethral perfusion index was significantly higher in the GDFT group than in the conventional fluid group (8.70 [5.72 to 13.10] vs. 6.05 [4.95 to 8.75], P = 0.046). SV index (ml m-2) and cardiac index (l min-1 m-2) were higher in the GDFT group (48 ±â€Š9 vs. 33 ±â€Š7 and 3.5 ±â€Š0.7 vs. 2.4 ±â€Š0.4, respectively; P < 0.001). Although CVP was higher in the GDFT group (9.3 ±â€Š2.5 vs. 6.5 ±â€Š2.9 mmHg; P = 0.003), intra-operative blood loss was not significantly different in the two groups. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing liver surgery, a GDFT strategy resulted in a higher mean urethral perfusion index than did a conventional fluid strategy and did not increase blood loss despite higher CVP. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04092608.

Current trends in anesthetic depth and antinociception monitoring: an international survey.

Current trends in anesthetic depth (i.e., hypnosis) and antinociception monitoring are unclear. We thus aimed to determine contemporary perspectives on monitoring these components of anesthesia during general anesthesia. Participants received and responded anonymously to an internet-based international survey supported by the European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care. Comparisons, when applicable, were carried out using Chi2 analysis or Fischer's exact test. A total of 564 respondents, predominantly from Europe (80.1%), participated. There was a strong participation from Belgium (11.5%). A majority (70.9%) of anesthetists considered hypnotic monitoring important on most occasions to always. In contrast, a majority (62.6%) never or only occasionally considered antinociception monitoring important. This difference in the perceived importance of anesthetic depth versus antinociception monitoring was significant (p < 0.0001). A majority of respondents (70.1%) believed that guiding hypnosis and antinociception using these monitors would improve patient care on most occasions to always. Nonetheless, a substantial number of participants were unsure if hypnotic (23%) or antinociception (32%) monitoring were recommended and there was a lack of knowledge (58%) of any published algorithms to titrate hypnotic and/or antinociceptive drugs based on the information provided by the monitors. In conclusion, current trends in European academic centers prioritize anesthesia depth over antinociception monitoring. Despite an agreement among respondents that applying strategies that optimize anesthetic depth and antinociception could improve outcome, there remains a lack of knowledge of appropriate algorithms. Future studies and recommendations should focus on clarifying goal-directed anesthetic strategies and determine their impact on perioperative patient outcome.

Effect of dexmedetomidine on Nociception Level Index-guided remifentanil antinociception: A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: The effect of dexmedetomidine on Nociception Level Index-guided (Medasense, Israel) antinociception to reduce intra-operative opioid requirements has not been previously investigated. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to determine if low-dose dexmedetomidine would reduce remifentanil requirements during Nociception Level Index-guided antinociception without increasing complications associated with dexmedetomidine. DESIGN: Double-blind randomised controlled trial. SETTING: Two university teaching hospitals in Brussels, Belgium. PATIENTS: American Society of Anesthesiologists 1 and 2 patients (n = 58) undergoing maxillofacial or cervicofacial surgery under propofol--remifentanil target-controlled infusion anaesthesia. INTERVENTIONS: A 30 min infusion of dexmedetomidine, or equal volume of 0.9% NaCl, was infused at 1.2 µg kg-1 h-1 immediately preceding induction and then decreased to 0.6 µg kg-1 h-1 until 30 min before ending surgery. Nociception Level Index and frontal electroencephalogram guided the remifentanil and propofol infusions, respectively. MAIN OUTCOMES: The primary outcome was the remifentanil requirement. Other outcomes included the propofol requirement, cardiovascular status and postoperative outcome. RESULTS: Mean ±â€ŠSD remifentanil (3.96 ±â€Š1.95 vs. 4.42 ±â€Š2.04 ng ml-1; P = 0.0024) and propofol (2.78 ±â€Š1.36 vs. 3.06 ±â€Š1.29 µg ml-1; P = 0.0046) TCI effect site concentrations were lower in the dexmedetomidine group at 30 min postincision and remained lower throughout surgery. When remifentanil (0.133 ±â€Š0.085 vs. 0.198 ±â€Š0.086 µg kg-1 min-1; P = 0.0074) and propofol (5.7 ±â€Š2.72 vs. 7.4 ±â€Š2.80 mg kg-1 h-1; P = 0.0228) requirements are represented as infusion rates, this effect became statistically significant at 2 h postincision. CONCLUSION: In ASA 1 and 2 patients receiving Nociception Level Index-guided antinociception, dexmedetomidine decreases intra-operative remifentanil requirements. Combined frontal electroencephalogram and Nociception Level Index monitoring can measure dexmedetomidine's hypnotic and opioid-sparing effects during remifentanil-propofol target-controlled infusion anaesthesia. TRIAL REGISTRATIONS: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03912740, EudraCT: 2018-004512-22.

Hydroxyethyl starch for perioperative goal-directed fluid therapy in 2020: a narrative review.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative fluid management - including the type, dose, and timing of administration -directly affects patient outcome after major surgery. The objective of fluid administration is to optimize intravascular fluid status to maintain adequate tissue perfusion. There is continuing controversy around the perioperative use of crystalloid versus colloid fluids. Unfortunately, the importance of fluid volume, which significantly influences the benefit-to-risk ratio of each chosen solution, has often been overlooked in this debate. MAIN TEXT: The volume of fluid administered during the perioperative period can influence the incidence and severity of postoperative complications. Regrettably, there is still huge variability in fluid administration practices, both intra-and inter-individual, among clinicians. Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT), aimed at optimizing flow-related variables, has been demonstrated to have some clinical benefit and has been recommended by multiple professional societies. However, this approach has failed to achieve widespread adoption. A closed-loop fluid administration system designed to assist anesthesia providers in consistently applying GDFT strategies has recently been developed and tested. Such an approach may change the crystalloid versus colloid debate. Because colloid solutions have a more profound effect on intravascular volume and longer plasma persistence, their use in this more "controlled" context could be associated with a lower fluid balance, and potentially improved patient outcome. Additionally, most studies that have assessed the impact of a GDFT strategy on the outcome of high-risk surgical patients have used hydroxyethyl starch (HES) solutions in their protocols. Some of these studies have demonstrated beneficial effects, while none of them has reported severe complications. CONCLUSIONS: The type and volume of fluid used for perioperative management need to be individualized according to the patient's hemodynamic status and clinical condition. The amount of fluid given should be guided by well-defined physiologic targets. Compliance with a predefined hemodynamic protocol may be optimized by using a computerized system. The type of fluid should also be individualized, as should any drug therapy, with careful consideration of timing and dose. It is our perspective that HES solutions remain a valid option for fluid therapy in the perioperative context because of their effects on blood volume and their reasonable benefit/risk profile.

Automated systems for perioperative goal-directed hemodynamic therapy.

Perioperative goal-directed hemodynamic therapy (GDHT) has evolved from invasive "supra-physiological" maximization of oxygen delivery to minimally or even noninvasively guided automated stroke volume optimization. Over the past four decades, investigators have simultaneously developed novel monitors, updated strategies, and automated technologies to improve GDHT. Decision support technology, which proposes an intervention based on the patient's real time physiologic status, was an important step towards automation. Closed-loop systems have now been created to both increase GDHT compliance and decrease physician workload. These automated systems offer an elegant approach to optimize cardiac output and end-organ perfusion during the perioperative period. Most notably, automated preload optimization guided by dynamic indicators of fluid responsiveness has shown its feasibility, safety, and impact. Making the leap into fully automated GDHT has been accomplished on a small scale, but there are considerable challenges that must be surpassed before integrating all hemodynamic components into an automated system during general anesthesia. In this review, we will discuss the evolution and potential future of automated GDHT during the perioperative period.

Personalized Versus Protocolized Fluid Management Using Noninvasive Hemodynamic Monitoring (Clearsight System) in Patients Undergoing Moderate-Risk Abdominal Surgery.

Advances in noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring systems allow delivery of goal-directed fluid therapy and could therefore be used in less-invasive surgical procedures. In this randomized controlled trial, we compared closed-loop-assisted goal-directed fluid therapy using a noninvasive cardiac output (Clearsight system) monitor (personalized approach) to a protocolized fluid therapy approach in 40 patients undergoing moderate-risk laparoscopic abdominal surgery. Cardiac output and stroke volume variations were not significantly different in both groups and remained within predefined target values >90% of the study time. Personalized fluid therapy does not seem to offer any hemodynamic advantage over a protocolized approach in this population.

Sepsis is frequent in initially non-critical hypotensive emergency department patients and is associated with increased mortality.

OBJECTIVE: Hypotension, defined as a mean arterial pressure of maximum 70 mmHg, is associated with significant morbidity and mortality. The objective of this study was to determine in initially non-critical hypotensive adult patients the proportion of sepsis and if septic patients had different outcome and clinical factors than non-septic patients. METHODS: This retrospective observational study was conducted over a year on adult hypotensive emergency department patients initially considered by triage as non-critical. Patients were separated into three groups: hypotensive septic patients (HSP), hypotensive non-septic infected patients (HNSIP), and other hypotensive patients (OHP). Clinical scores, signs, length of stay (LOS), and mortality were compared using analysis of variance for continuous variables and chi-square analysis for categorical variables. RESULTS: There were 136 (35.5%) septic patients, 37 (9.7%) with non-septic infection, and 210 (54.8%) with another cause of hypotension. Overall in-hospital mortality was 12.0% and total mortality was greater in HSP than in HNSIP (20.6% vs. 5.4%, p = 0.031) or OHP (20.6 vs. 7.6%, p < 0.001). LOS was greater for HSP when compared to HNSIP (median(IQR): 9(6-17) vs. 6(1-13), p = 0.004) and OHP (median(IQR): 9(6-17) vs. 3(1-8) days, p < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Sepsis in a priori non-critical hypotensive adult patients, when compared with other causes of hypotension, is associated with significantly higher mortality and increased LOS. Patients that present to the emergency department and have a MAP of 70mmHg or less must be rigorously evaluated and have consistent follow-up.

Pleth variability index versus pulse pressure variation for intraoperative goal-directed fluid therapy in patients undergoing low-to-moderate risk abdominal surgery: a randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Goal-directed fluid therapy (GDFT) based on dynamic indicators of fluid responsiveness has been shown to decrease postoperative complications and hospital length of stay (LOS) in patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. The usefulness of this approach still needs to be clarified in low-to-moderate risk abdominal surgery. Both pulse-pressure variation (PPV) and pleth variability index (PVI) can be used to guide GDFT strategies. The objective of this prospective randomized controlled trial was to determine if the use of PVI guided GDFT, when compared to PPV guided GDFT, would lead to similar hospital LOS in patients undergoing low-to-moderate risk surgery. Secondary outcomes included amount of fluid administered and incidence of postoperative complications. METHODS: Patients were randomized into either PVI or PPV guided GDFT groups. Both received a baseline 2 ml kg- 1 h- 1 Lactated Ringer infusion. Additional fluid boluses consisted of 250 mL of colloid that was infused over a 10 min period if PVI was > 15% or PPV was > 13% for at least five minutes. The primary outcome was to determine if hospital LOS, which was defined as the number of days from surgery up to the day the surgeon authorized hospital discharge, was equivalent between the two groups. RESULTS: A total of 76 patients were included and they were randomized into two groups of 38 patients. Baseline characteristics were similar in both groups. Both PVI and PPV guided GDFT strategies were equivalent for the primary outcome of LOS (median [interquartile range]) (days) 2.5 [2.0-3.3] vs. 3.0 [2.0-5.0], p = 0.230, respectively. Fluids infused, postoperative complications, and all other outcomes were not different between groups. CONCLUSION: In patients undergoing low-to-moderate risk abdominal surgery, PVI seems to guide GDFT similarly to PPV in regards to hospital LOS, amount of fluid, and incidence of postoperative complications. However, in low-risk patients undergoing these surgical procedures optimizing stroke volume may have limited impact on outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02908256 , September 2016, retrospectively registered.

Synchronized mandibular movement and capnography: a novel approach to obstructive airway detection during procedural sedation-a post hoc analysis of a prospective study.

Perioperative complications related to obstructive sleep apnea still occur despite the use of partial pressure end-tidal CO2[Formula: see text] and pulse oximetry. Airway obstruction can complicate propofol sedation and a novel monitor combining mandibular movement analysis with capnography may facilitate its detection. Patients scheduled for sleep endoscopy were recruited and monitored with standard monitoring, [Formula: see text] and Jaw Activity (JAWAC) mandibular movement sensors. A post hoc analysis investigated airway obstruction prediction using a Respiratory Effort Sequential Detection Algorithm (RESDA) based on [Formula: see text] and mandibular movement signals. 21 patients were recruited and 54 episodes of airway obstruction occurred. RESDA detected obstructive apnea [mean ± SD (median)] 29 ± 29 (21) s, p < 0.0001, before [Formula: see text] alone. This prolonged the time between obstructive apnea detection and decrease to 90% oxygen saturation 64 ± 38 (54) versus 38 ± 20 (35) s, p < 0.0001. It predicted airway obstruction with a sensitivity and specificity of 81% and 93%, respectively. The RESDA algorithm, which is based on the combination of capnography with mandibular movement assessment of respiratory effort, can more rapidly alarm anesthetists of airway obstruction during propofol sedation than [Formula: see text] alone. However, [Formula: see text] pulse oximetry, and clinical monitoring are still required.Trial Registry numbers: ClinicalTrial.gov (NCT02909309) https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02909309 .