Dexamethasone and Surgical-Site Infection.

BACKGROUND: The glucocorticoid dexamethasone prevents nausea and vomiting after surgery, but there is concern that it may increase the risk of surgical-site infection. METHODS: In this pragmatic, international, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned 8880 adult patients who were undergoing nonurgent, noncardiac surgery of at least 2 hours' duration, with a skin incision length longer than 5 cm and a postoperative overnight hospital stay, to receive 8 mg of intravenous dexamethasone or matching placebo while under anesthesia. Randomization was stratified according to diabetes status and trial center. The primary outcome was surgical-site infection within 30 days after surgery. The prespecified noninferiority margin was 2.0 percentage points. RESULTS: A total of 8725 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat population (4372 in the dexamethasone group and 4353 in the placebo group), of whom 13.2% (576 in the dexamethasone group and 572 in the placebo group) had diabetes mellitus. Of the 8678 patients included in the primary analysis, surgical-site infection occurred in 8.1% (354 of 4350 patients) assigned to dexamethasone and in 9.1% (394 of 4328) assigned to placebo (risk difference adjusted for diabetes status, -0.9 percentage points; 95.6% confidence interval [CI], -2.1 to 0.3; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The results for superficial, deep, and organ-space surgical-site infections and in patients with diabetes were similar to those of the primary analysis. Postoperative nausea and vomiting in the first 24 hours after surgery occurred in 42.2% of patients in the dexamethasone group and in 53.9% in the placebo group (risk ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.82). Hyperglycemic events in patients without diabetes occurred in 22 of 3787 (0.6%) in the dexamethasone group and in 6 of 3776 (0.2%) in the placebo group. CONCLUSIONS: Dexamethasone was noninferior to placebo with respect to the incidence of surgical-site infection within 30 days after nonurgent, noncardiac surgery. (Funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and others; PADDI Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12614001226695.).

Intraoperative dexamethasone and chronic postsurgical pain: a propensity score-matched analysis of a large trial.

BACKGROUND: Dexamethasone has been shown to reduce acute pain after surgery, but there is uncertainty as to its effects on chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP). We hypothesised that in patients undergoing major noncardiac surgery, a single intraoperative dose of dexamethasone increases the incidence of CPSP. METHODS: We devised a propensity score-matched analysis of the ENIGMA-II trial CPSP dataset, aiming to compare the incidence of CPSP in patients who had received dexamethasone or not 12 months after major noncardiac surgery. The primary outcome was the incidence of CPSP. We used propensity score matching and inverse probability weighting to balance baseline variables to estimate the average marginal effect of dexamethasone on patient outcomes, accounting for confounding to estimate the average treatment effect on those treated with dexamethasone. RESULTS: We analysed 2999 patients, of whom 116 of 973 (11.9%) receiving dexamethasone reported CPSP, and 380 of 2026 (18.8%) not receiving dexamethasone reported CPSP, unadjusted odds ratio 0.76 (95% confidence interval 0.78-1.00), P=0.052. After propensity score matching, CPSP occurred in 116 of 973 patients (12.2%) receiving dexamethasone and 380 of 2026 patients (13.8%) not receiving dexamethasone, adjusted risk ratio 0.88 (95% confidence interval 0.61-1.27), P=0.493. There was no difference between groups in quality of life or pain interference with daily activities, but 'least pain' (P=0.033) and 'pain right now' (P=0.034) were higher in the dexamethasone group. CONCLUSIONS: Dexamethasone does not increase the risk of chronic postsurgical pain after major noncardiac surgery. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Open Science Framework Registration DOI https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/ZDVB5.

Dexamethasone and persistent wound pain: a prespecified analysis of the randomised Perioperative Administration of Dexamethasone and Infection (PADDI) trial.

BACKGROUND: Dexamethasone is commonly administered intraoperatively to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting and is believed to have analgesic properties. It is unknown whether it has an impact on chronic wound pain. METHODS: In this prespecified embedded superiority substudy of the randomised PADDI trial, patients undergoing non-urgent noncardiac surgery received dexamethasone 8 mg or placebo intravenously after induction of anaesthesia, and were followed up for 6 months postoperatively. The primary outcome was the incidence of pain in the surgical wound at 6 months. Secondary outcomes included acute postoperative pain and correlates of chronic postsurgical pain. RESULTS: We included 8478 participants in the modified intention-to-treat population (4258 in the dexamethasone group and 4220 in the matched placebo group). The primary outcome occurred in 491 subjects (11.5%) in the dexamethasone arm and 404 (9.6%) subjects in the placebo arm (relative risk 1.2, 95% confidence interval 1.06-1.41, P=0.003). Maximum pain scores at rest and on movement in the first 3 postoperative days were lower in the dexamethasone group compared with the control group {median 5 (inter-quartile range [IQR] 3.0-8.0) vs 6 (IQR 3.0-8.0) and median 7 (IQR 5.0-9.0) vs 8 (IQR 6.0-9.0), P<0.001 for both}. Severity of postoperative pain was not predictive of chronic postsurgical pain. The severity of chronic postsurgical pain and the frequency of neuropathic features did not differ between treatment groups. CONCLUSION: Administration of dexamethasone 8 mg i.v. was associated with an increase in the risk of pain in the surgical wound 6 months after surgery. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12614001226695.

A Multicenter Trial of Vena Cava Filters in Severely Injured Patients.

BACKGROUND: Whether early placement of an inferior vena cava filter reduces the risk of pulmonary embolism or death in severely injured patients who have a contraindication to prophylactic anticoagulation is not known. METHODS: In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial, we assigned 240 severely injured patients (Injury Severity Score >15 [scores range from 0 to 75, with higher scores indicating more severe injury]) who had a contraindication to anticoagulant agents to have a vena cava filter placed within the first 72 hours after admission for the injury or to have no filter placed. The primary end point was a composite of symptomatic pulmonary embolism or death from any cause at 90 days after enrollment; a secondary end point was symptomatic pulmonary embolism between day 8 and day 90 in the subgroup of patients who survived at least 7 days and did not receive prophylactic anticoagulation within 7 days after injury. All patients underwent ultrasonography of the legs at 2 weeks; patients also underwent mandatory computed tomographic pulmonary angiography when prespecified criteria were met. RESULTS: The median age of the patients was 39 years, and the median Injury Severity Score was 27. Early placement of a vena cava filter did not result in a significantly lower incidence of symptomatic pulmonary embolism or death than no placement of a filter (13.9% in the vena cava filter group and 14.4% in the control group; hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.51 to 1.94; P = 0.98). Among the 46 patients in the vena cava filter group and the 34 patients in the control group who did not receive prophylactic anticoagulation within 7 days after injury, pulmonary embolism developed in none of those in the vena cava filter group and in 5 (14.7%) in the control group, including 1 patient who died (relative risk of pulmonary embolism, 0; 95% CI, 0.00 to 0.55). An entrapped thrombus was found in the filter in 6 patients. CONCLUSIONS: Early prophylactic placement of a vena cava filter after major trauma did not result in a lower incidence of symptomatic pulmonary embolism or death at 90 days than no placement of a filter. (Funded by the Medical Research Foundation of Royal Perth Hospital and others; Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12614000963628.).

Dexamethasone and clinically significant postoperative nausea and vomiting: a prespecified substudy of the randomised perioperative administration of dexamethasone and infection (PADDI) trial.

BACKGROUND: Clinically significant postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a patient-reported outcome which reflects patient experience. Although dexamethasone prevents PONV, it is unknown what impact it has on this experience. METHODS: In this prespecified embedded superiority substudy of the randomised Perioperative Administration of Dexamethasone and Infection (PADDI) trial, patients undergoing non-urgent noncardiac surgery received dexamethasone 8 mg or placebo intravenously after induction of anaesthesia, and completed a validated PONV questionnaire. The primary outcome was the incidence of clinically significant PONV on day 1 or day 2 postoperatively. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of clinically significant PONV and severe PONV on days 1 and 2 considered separately. RESULTS: A total of 1466 participants were included, with 733 patients allocated to the dexamethasone arm and 733 to matched placebo. The primary outcome occurred in 52 patients (7.1%) in the dexamethasone arm and 66 (9%) patients in the placebo arm (relative risk [RR]=0.79; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.56-1.11; P=0.18). Severe PONV occurred on day 2 in 27 patients (3.9%) in the dexamethasone arm and 47 patients (6.7%) in the placebo arm (RR=0.58; 95% CI, 0.37-0.92; P=0.02; number needed-to-treat (NNT)=36.7; 95% CI, 20-202). In the entire cohort of 8880 PADDI patients, lower nausea scores, less frequent administration of antiemetics, and fewer vomiting events were recorded by patients in the dexamethasone arm up to day 2 after surgery. CONCLUSIONS: Administration of dexamethasone 8 mg i.v. did not influence clinically significant PONV. Dexamethasone administration did, however, decrease the incidence and severity of PONV, and was associated with less frequent administration of antiemetic agents. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: ACTRN12614001226695.

Inclusion, characteristics, and outcomes of male and female participants in large international perioperative studies.

BACKGROUND: We compared baseline characteristics and outcomes and evaluated the subgroup effects of randomised interventions by sex in males and females in large international perioperative trials. METHODS: Nine randomised trials and two cohort studies recruiting adult patients, conducted between 1995 and 2020, were included. Baseline characteristics and outcomes common to six or more studies were evaluated. Regression models included terms for sex, study, and an interaction between the two. Comparing outcomes without adjustment for baseline characteristics represents the 'total effect' of sex on the outcome. RESULTS: Of 54 626 participants, 58% were male and 42% were female. Females were less likely to have ASA physical status ≥3 (56% vs 64%), to smoke (15% vs 23%), have coronary artery disease (21% vs 32%), or undergo vascular surgery (10% vs 23%). The pooled incidence of death was 1.6% in females and 1.8% in males (risk ratio [RR] 0.92; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.81-1.05; P=0.20), of myocardial infarction was 4.2% vs 4.5% (RR 0.92; 95% CI: 0.81-1.03; P=0.10), of stroke was 0.5% vs 0.6% (RR 1.03; 95% CI: 0.79-1.35; P=0.81), and of surgical site infection was 8.6% vs 8.3% (RR 1.03; 95% CI: 0.79-1.35; P=0.70). Treatment effects of three interventions demonstrated statistically significant effect modification by sex. CONCLUSIONS: Females were in the minority in all included studies. They were healthier than males, but outcomes were comparable. Further research is needed to understand the reasons for this discrepancy. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: International Registry of Meta-Research (UID: IRMR_000011; 5 January 2021).

Postoperative anaemia and patient-centred outcomes after major abdominal surgery: a retrospective cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Compared with anaemia before surgery, the underlying pathogenesis and implications of postoperative anaemia are largely unknown. METHODS: This retrospective cohort study analysed prospective data obtained from 2983 adult patients across 47 centres enrolled in a clinical trial evaluating restrictive and liberal intravenous fluids. The primary endpoint was persistent disability or death up to 90 days after surgery. Secondary endpoints included major septic complications, hospital stay, and patient quality of recovery using a 15-item quality of recovery (QoR-15) score, hospital re-admissions, and disability-free survival up to 12 months after surgery. Anaemia and disability were defined according to the WHO definitions. Multivariable regression was used to adjust for baseline risk and surgery. RESULTS: A total of 2983 patients met inclusion criteria for this study, of which 78.5% (95% confidence interval [CI], 76.7-80.1%) had postoperative anaemia. Patients with postoperative anaemia had a higher adjusted risk of death or disability up to 90 days after surgery when compared with those without anaemia: 18.2% vs 9.2% (risk ratio [RR]=1.51; 95% CI, 1.10-2.07, P=0.011); lower QoR-15 scores on Day 3 and Day 30, 105 (95% CI, 87-119) vs 114 (95% CI, 99-128; P<0.001), and 130 (95% CI, 112-140) vs 139 (95% CI, 121-144; P<0.011), respectively; higher adjusted risk of a composite of mortality/septic complications, 2.01 (95% CI, 1.55-42.67; P<0.001); unplanned admission to ICU (RR=2.65; 95% CI, 1.65-4.23; P<0.001); and longer median (inter-quartile range [IQR]) hospital stays, 6.6 (4.4-12.4) vs 3.7 (2.5-6.5) days (P<0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Postoperative anaemia is common and is independently associated with poor outcomes after surgery. Optimal prevention and treatment strategies need to be investigated. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04978285 (ClinicalTrials.gov).

Restrictive versus Liberal Fluid Therapy for Major Abdominal Surgery.

BACKGROUND: Guidelines to promote the early recovery of patients undergoing major surgery recommend a restrictive intravenous-fluid strategy for abdominal surgery. However, the supporting evidence is limited, and there is concern about impaired organ perfusion. METHODS: In a pragmatic, international trial, we randomly assigned 3000 patients who had an increased risk of complications while undergoing major abdominal surgery to receive a restrictive or liberal intravenous-fluid regimen during and up to 24 hours after surgery. The primary outcome was disability-free survival at 1 year. Key secondary outcomes were acute kidney injury at 30 days, renal-replacement therapy at 90 days, and a composite of septic complications, surgical-site infection, or death. RESULTS: During and up to 24 hours after surgery, 1490 patients in the restrictive fluid group had a median intravenous-fluid intake of 3.7 liters (interquartile range, 2.9 to 4.9), as compared with 6.1 liters (interquartile range, 5.0 to 7.4) in 1493 patients in the liberal fluid group (P<0.001). The rate of disability-free survival at 1 year was 81.9% in the restrictive fluid group and 82.3% in the liberal fluid group (hazard ratio for death or disability, 1.05; 95% confidence interval, 0.88 to 1.24; P=0.61). The rate of acute kidney injury was 8.6% in the restrictive fluid group and 5.0% in the liberal fluid group (P<0.001). The rate of septic complications or death was 21.8% in the restrictive fluid group and 19.8% in the liberal fluid group (P=0.19); rates of surgical-site infection (16.5% vs. 13.6%, P=0.02) and renal-replacement therapy (0.9% vs. 0.3%, P=0.048) were higher in the restrictive fluid group, but the between-group difference was not significant after adjustment for multiple testing. CONCLUSIONS: Among patients at increased risk for complications during major abdominal surgery, a restrictive fluid regimen was not associated with a higher rate of disability-free survival than a liberal fluid regimen and was associated with a higher rate of acute kidney injury. (Funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and others; RELIEF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01424150 .).

Perioperative ADministration of Dexamethasone And blood Glucose concentrations in patients undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery - the randomised controlled PADDAG trial.

BACKGROUND: The hyperglycaemic effect of dexamethasone in diabetic and nondiabetic patients in the peri-operative period is unknown. OBJECTIVE: To assess the effect of a single dose of intra-operative dexamethasone on peri-operative blood glucose. DESIGN: Multicentre, stratified, randomised trial. SETTING: University hospitals in Australia and Hong Kong. PATIENTS: A total of 302 adults scheduled for elective, noncardiac and nonobstetric surgical procedures under general anaesthesia, stratified by diabetes mellitus status, were randomised to receive placebo, 4 or 8 mg dexamethasone administered intravenously after induction of anaesthesia. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Maximum blood glucose within 24 h of surgery, and the interaction between glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and dexamethasone were the primary and secondary outcomes. RESULTS: The median [IQR] baseline blood glucose in the nondiabetes stratum in the placebo (n=81), 4 mg (n=81) and 8 mg dexamethasone (n=77) trial arms were respectively 5.3 [4.6 to 5.8], 5.0 [4.7 to 5.4] and 5.0 [4.2 to 5.9] mmol l-1. In the diabetes stratum these values were 6.6 [6.0 to 8.3]; (n=22), 6.1 [5.5 to 10.4]; (n=22) and 6.7 [5.6 to 8.3]; (n=19) mmol l-1. The median [IQR] maximum peri-operative blood glucose values in the nondiabetes stratum were 6.0 [5.3 to 6.8], 6.3 [5.5 to 7.3] and 6.3 [5.8 to 7.4] mmol l-1 in the control, dexamethasone 4 mg and dexamethasone 8 mg arms, respectively. In the diabetes stratum these values were 10.3 [8.1 to 12.4], 12.6 [10.3 to 18.3] and 13.6 [11.2 to 20.1] mmol l-1. There was a significant interaction between pre-operative HbA1c value and 8 mg dexamethasone: every 1% increment in HbA1c produced a 4.0 mmol l-1 elevation in maximal peri-operative glucose concentration. CONCLUSION: Dexamethasone 4 mg or 8 mg did not induce greater hyperglycaemia compared with placebo for nondiabetic and well controlled diabetic patients. Maximal peri-operative blood glucose concentrations in patients with diabetes were related to baseline HbA1c values in a concentration-dependent fashion after 8 mg of dexamethasone. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12614001145695): URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=367272.

Anaesthetic depth and complications after major surgery: an international, randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: An association between increasing anaesthetic depth and decreased postoperative survival has been shown in observational studies; however, evidence from randomised controlled trials is lacking. Our aim was to compare all-cause 1-year mortality in older patients having major surgery and randomly assigned to light or deep general anaesthesia. METHODS: In an international trial, we recruited patients from 73 centres in seven countries who were aged 60 years and older, with significant comorbidity, having surgery with expected duration of more than 2 h, and an anticipated hospital stay of at least 2 days. We randomly assigned patients who had increased risk of complications after major surgery to receive light general anaesthesia (bispectral index [BIS] target 50) or deep general anaesthesia (BIS target 35). Anaesthetists also nominated an appropriate range for mean arterial pressure for each patient during surgery. Patients were randomly assigned in permuted blocks by region immediately before surgery, with the patient and assessors masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was 1-year all-cause mortality. The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12612000632897, and is closed to accrual. FINDINGS: Patients were enrolled between Dec 19, 2012, and Dec 12, 2017. Of the 18 026 patients screened as eligible, 6644 were enrolled, randomly assigned to treatment or control, and formed the intention-to-treat population (3316 in the BIS 50 group and 3328 in the BIS 35 group). The median BIS was 47·2 (IQR 43·7 to 50·5) in the BIS 50 group and 38·8 (36·3 to 42·4) in the BIS 35 group. Mean arterial pressure was 3·5 mm Hg (4%) higher (median 84·5 [IQR 78·0 to 91·3] and 81·0 [75·4 to 87·6], respectively) and volatile anaesthetic use was 0·26 minimum alveolar concentration (30%) lower (0·62 [0·52 to 0·73] and 0·88 [0·74 to 1·04], respectively) in the BIS 50 than the BIS 35 group. 1-year mortality was 6·5% (212 patients) in the BIS 50 group and 7·2% (238 patients) in the BIS 35 group (hazard ratio 0·88, 95% CI 0·73 to 1·07, absolute risk reduction 0·8%, 95% CI -0·5 to 2·0). Grade 3 adverse events occurred in 954 (29%) patients in the BIS 50 group and 909 (27%) patients in the BIS 35 group; and grade 4 adverse events in 265 (8%) and 259 (8%) patients, respectively. The most commonly reported adverse events were infections, vascular disorders, cardiac disorders, and neoplasms. INTERPRETATION: Among patients at increased risk of complications after major surgery, light general anaesthesia was not associated with lower 1-year mortality than deep general anaesthesia. Our trial defines a broad range of anaesthetic depth over which anaesthesia may be safely delivered when titrating volatile anaesthetic concentrations using a processed electroencephalographic monitor. FUNDING: Health Research Council of New Zealand; National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia; Research Grant Council of Hong Kong; National Institute for Health and Research, UK; and National Institutes of Health, USA.

Effects of antiemetic doses of dexamethasone on plasma mediators of inflammation resolution and pain after surgery in women.

BACKGROUND: Dexamethasone is commonly given as an antiemetic during surgical procedures. It has immunosuppressive effects and can affect key enzymes involved in the synthesis of specialised lipid mediators of inflammation resolution (SPM) that direct inflammation resolution and have anti-nociceptive actions. This study examined the effect of dexamethasone on plasma SPM, and the relationship between SPM and perceived pain in women undergoing surgery. METHODS: Plasma SPM were measured in samples obtained from two double-blind controlled interventions. The first, included 51 women mean age 53 ± 1.5 years, undergoing breast surgery allocated to either intravenous saline, or dexamethasone (4 mg or 8 mg) after induction of anaesthesia. The second study included 31 women of mean age 44 ± 0.5 years undergoing laparoscopic gynecological surgery that were allocated to either saline, or dexamethasone (4 mg). SPM (18-HEPE, 17-HDHA, RvE2, RvD1 17R-RvD1 and RvD2) were measured in plasma collected prior to induction of anaesthesia and at 24 h, and 6 weeks post-surgery. Pain was assessed using a verbal analogue scale at discharge from the post-anaesthesia recovery unit. The data from each study was combined to examine the effect of dexamethasone on plasma SPM. The relationship between pain score and SPM was examined using ordinal logistic regression. RESULTS: The SPM 18-HEPE, 17-HDHA, RvE2, RvD1 17R-RvD1 and RvD2 were detectable in all plasma samples. There was no significant difference in any SPM due to dexamethasone over the duration of the study. There was a fall in 17-HDHA between baseline and 24 h in both the dexamethasone and saline groups (P = 0.003) but no change in the downstream SPM (RvD1, 17R-RvD1 and RvD2) or 18-HEPE and RvE2. Pain score was negatively related to levels of RvE2 measured prior to induction of anaesthesia (rho = -0.2991, P = 0.006) and positively related to BMI (rho = 0.279, P = 0.011). In ordinal logistic regression the odds ratio for RvE2 was 0.931 (CI 0.880, 0.986; P = 0.014); after adjusting for the effect of BMI indicating that an increase in RvE2 of 1 pg/ml would result in a 6.9 % fall in pain score. Allocation to a dexamethasone group did not influence the pain score or the relationship between RvE2 and pain score. CONCLUSION: Dexamethasone administered as an anti-emetic does not affect plasma SPM levels. An elevated RvE2 level prior to surgery is predictive of a lower perceived pain score post-anaesthesia.

Systematic review and consensus definitions for the Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine (StEP) initiative: infection and sepsis.

BACKGROUND: Perioperative infection and sepsis are of fundamental concern to perioperative clinicians. However, standardised endpoints are either poorly defined or not routinely implemented. The Standardised Endpoints in Perioperative Medicine (StEP) initiative was established to derive a set of standardised endpoints for use in perioperative clinical trials. METHODS: We undertook a systematic review to identify measures of infection and sepsis used in the perioperative literature. A multi-round Delphi consensus process that included more than 60 clinician researchers was then used to refine a recommended list of outcome measures. RESULTS: A literature search yielded 1857 titles of which 255 met inclusion criteria for endpoint extraction. A long list of endpoints, with definitions and timescales, was generated and those potentially relevant to infection and sepsis circulated to the theme subgroup and then the wider StEP-COMPAC working group, undergoing a three-stage Delphi process. The response rates for Delphi rounds 1, 3, and 3 were 89% (n=8), 67% (n=62), and 80% (n=8), respectively. A set of 13 endpoints including fever, surgical site, and organ-specific infections as defined by the US Centres for Disease Control and Sepsis-3 are proposed for future use. CONCLUSIONS: We defined a consensus list of standardised endpoints related to infection and sepsis for perioperative trials using an established and rigorous approach. Each endpoint was evaluated with respect to validity, reliability, feasibility, and patient centredness. One or more of these should be considered for inclusion in future perioperative clinical trials assessing infection, sepsis, or both, thereby permitting synthesis and comparison of future results.

Safety of Perioperative Glucocorticoids in Elective Noncardiac Surgery: A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Glucocorticoids are increasingly used perioperatively, principally to prevent nausea and vomiting. Safety concerns focus on the potential for hyperglycemia and increased infection. The authors hypothesized that glucocorticoids predispose to such adverse outcomes in a dose-dependent fashion after elective noncardiac surgery. METHODS: The authors conducted a systematic literature search of the major medical databases from their inception to April 2016. Randomized glucocorticoid trials in adults specifically reporting on a safety outcome were included and meta-analyzed with Peto odds ratio method or the quality effects model. Subanalyses were performed according to a dexamethasone dose equivalent of low (less than 8 mg), medium (8 to 16 mg), and high (more than 16 mg). The primary endpoints of any wound infection and peak perioperative glucose concentrations were subject to meta-regression. RESULTS: Fifty-six trials from 18 countries were identified, predominantly assessing dexamethasone. Glucocorticoids did not impact on any wound infection (odds ratio, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 1.2) but did result in a clinically unimportant increase in peak perioperative glucose concentration (weighted mean difference, 20.0 mg/dl; CI, 11.4 to 28.6; P < 0.001 or 1.1 mM; CI, 0.6 to 1.6). Glucocorticoids reduced peak postoperative C-reactive protein concentrations (weighted mean difference, -22.1 mg/l; CI, -31.7 to -12.5; P < 0.001), but other adverse outcomes and length of stay were unchanged. No dose-effect relationships were apparent. CONCLUSIONS: The evidence at present does not highlight any safety concerns with respect to the use of perioperative glucocorticoids and subsequent infection, hyperglycemia, or other adverse outcomes. Nevertheless, collated trials lacked sufficient surveillance and power to detect clinically important differences in complications such as wound infection.

Determinants of Urinary Output Response to IV Furosemide in Acute Kidney Injury: A Pharmacokinetic/Pharmacodynamic Study.

OBJECTIVES: This study assessed the determinants of urinary output response to furosemide in acute kidney injury; specifically, whether the response is related to altered pharmacokinetics or pharmacodynamics. DESIGN: Prospective cohort. SETTING: Tertiary ICU. PATIENTS: Thirty critically ill patients with acute kidney injury without preexisting renal impairment or recent diuretic exposure. INTERVENTION: A single dose of IV furosemide. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Baseline markers of intravascular volume status were obtained prior to administering furosemide. Six-hour creatinine clearance, hourly plasma/urinary furosemide concentrations, and hourly urinary output were used to assess furosemide pharmacokinetics/pharmacodynamics parameters. Of 30 patients enrolled, 11 had stage-1 (37%), nine had stage-2 (30%), and 10 had stage-3 (33%) Acute Kidney Injury Network acute kidney injury. Seventy-three percent were septic, 47% required norepinephrine, and 53% were mechanically ventilated. Urinary output doubled in 20 patients (67%) following IV furosemide. Measured creatinine clearance was strongly associated with the amount of urinary furosemide excreted and was the only reliable predictor of the urinary output after furosemide (area under the receiver-operating-characteristic curve, 0.75; 95% CI, 0.57-0.93). In addition to an altered pharmacokinetics (p < 0.01), a reduced pharmacodynamics response to furosemide also became important when creatinine clearance was reduced to less than 40 mL/min/1.73 m (p = 0.01). Acute kidney injury staging and markers of intravascular volume, including central venous pressure, brain-natriuretic-peptide concentration, and fractional urinary sodium excretion were not predictive of urinary output response to furosemide. CONCLUSIONS: The severity of acute kidney injury, as reflected by the measured creatinine clearance, alters both pharmacokinetics and pharmacodynamics of furosemide in acute kidney injury, and was the only reliable predictor of the urinary output response to furosemide in acute kidney injury.

Controlled moderate hypovolaemia in healthy volunteers is not associated with the development of oxidative stress assessed by plasma F2-isoprostanes and isofurans.

Hypovolaemia can be associated with substantial morbidity, particularly when it occurs in the setting of trauma and in patients with comorbid diseases. Hypovolaemia and inflammation such as occur in the setting of trauma and surgery, are associated with systemic oxidative stress and free-radical injury. Free-radical injury that results from hypovolaemia-induced organ reperfusion may further augment inflammatory processes. It is unknown exactly what proportion of free-radical injury is associated with isolated hypovolaemia as opposed to the contribution from inflammation from surgery or trauma. In the first human study of its kind, we exposed 8 adult male volunteers to venesection-induced hypovolaemia in progressive aliquots of 5% of total blood volume until 20% had been removed. This blood was subsequently reinfused. Plasma F2-isoprostanes and isofurans, markers of in vivo lipid oxidation, were measured by gas chromatography-mass spectrometry at each 5% aliquot venesected and at each 5% reinfused. Between baseline and maximal blood loss there was a minor fall in haemoglobin concentration from 143.9g/l to 138.8g/l (p=0.004, 95% CI 2.2, 8.0g/L). No significant change from baseline occurred in the concentrations of either plasma F2-isoprostanes or isofurans during venesection (p=0.116 and p=0.152, respectively) or blood reinfusion (p=0.553 and p=0.736, respectively). We can conclude that in healthy adult volunteers, isolated hypovolaemia to 20% total blood volume loss is not associated with detectable systemic oxidative stress. The free-radical injury identified in surgical and trauma patients may represent the effects of tissue damage and inflammation, with an uncertain contribution from tissue ischemia as may occur with hypovolaemia.

A pilot study for a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial of the influence of anesthetic depth on long-term outcome.

BACKGROUND: Deep general anesthesia has been associated with increased mortality in 5 observational studies. The association may be causal or an epiphenomenon due to increased anesthetic sensitivity in high-risk patients. We conducted a pilot study to assess the feasibility of performing a definitive randomized controlled trial. The aims of the study were to determine whether anesthetic depth targeting in a high-risk group was feasible and to document anesthetic doses and arterial blood pressures associated with "deep" and "light" general anesthesia. METHODS: ASA physical status III and IV patients, aged ≥60 years, having surgery lasting ≥2 hours, with expected hospital stay ≥2 days, and receiving general anesthesia were randomly allocated to a Bispectral Index (BIS) or spectral entropy (SE) target of 35 ("low" group) or 50 ("high" group). The primary end point was mean BIS or SE. Secondary end points were postanesthesia care unit length of stay and pain scores, quality of recovery score, hospital length of stay, postoperative complications, and death. A composite end point of postoperative complications (pneumonia, myocardial infarction, stroke, pulmonary embolism, heart failure, and death) was determined at 1 year. RESULTS: One hundred twenty-five patients were recruited. The mean of the median BIS/SE values for each patient during the maintenance phase of anesthesia in the low and high groups was significantly different: 39 vs 48 (mean difference 8 [95% confidence interval {CI95}, 6 to 10], P < 0.001). There was also a significant difference in mean volatile anesthetic administration (minimum alveolar concentration): 0.98 vs 0.64 (mean difference -0.35 [CI95, -0.44 to -0.26], P < 0.001) and target propofol concentrations: 4.0 vs 3.1 µg/mL (mean difference -0.8 [CI95, -1.2 to -0.3], P = 0.004). Intraoperative mean arterial blood pressures were similar (85 vs 87 mm Hg; mean difference 2 [CI95, -2 to 6], P = 0.86), and there were no differences in short-term recovery characteristics or hospital length of stay. There was a significant difference in the incidence of wound infection at 30 days (13% vs 3%; risk difference -10% [CI95, -21 to -0.1], P = 0.04). At 1 year, the composite rates of complications in the low and high groups were 28% and 17% (risk difference -11 [CI95, -25 to 4], P = 0.15) and mortality rates were 12% and 9%, respectively (risk difference -2 [CI95, -14 to 9], P = 0.70). CONCLUSIONS: This pilot study demonstrated that depth of anesthesia targeting with BIS or SE was achievable in a high-risk population with adequate separation of processed electroencephalogram monitor targets. The expected incidence of postoperative complications and mortality occurred. We conclude that a large, multicenter, randomized controlled trial is feasible.

Inflammation risk before cardiac surgery and the treatment effect of intraoperative dexamethasone.

Patients who exhibit high systemic inflammation after cardiac surgery may benefit most from pre-emptive anti-inflammatory treatments. In this secondary analysis (n = 813) of the randomised, double-blind Intraoperative High-Dose Dexamethasone for Cardiac Surgery trial, we set out to develop an inflammation risk prediction model and assess whether patients at higher risk benefit from a single intraoperative dose of dexamethasone (1 mg/kg). Inflammation risk before surgery was quantified from a linear regression model developed in the placebo arm, relating preoperatively available covariates to peak postoperative C-reactive protein. The primary endpoint was the interaction between inflammation risk and the peak postoperative C-reactive protein reduction associated with dexamethasone treatment. The impact of dexamethasone on the main clinical outcome (a composite of death, myocardial infarction, stroke, renal failure, or respiratory failure within 30 days) was also explored in relation to inflammation risk. Preoperatively available covariates explained a minority of peak postoperative C-reactive protein variation and were not suitable for clinical application (R2 = 0.058, P = 0.012); C-reactive protein before surgery (excluded above 10 mg/L) was the most predictive covariate (P < 0.001). The anti-inflammatory effect of dexamethasone increased as the inflammation risk increased (-0.689 mg/L per unit predicted peak C-reactive protein, P = 0.002 for interaction). No treatment-effect heterogeneity was detected for the main clinical outcome (P = 0.167 for interaction). Overall, risk predictions from a model of inflammation after cardiac surgery were associated with the degree of peak postoperative C-reactive protein reduction derived from dexamethasone treatment. Future work should explore the impact of this phenomenon on clinical outcomes in larger surgical populations.

Variation in prescribing for the prevention of postoperative nausea, vomiting, and pain following abdominal surgery: A retrospective study.

Background and Aims: Adequate postoperative analgesia and prevention of post-op nausea and vomiting (PONV) are core components of modern day anaesthesia and peri-operative care. As well as contributing to overall morbidity, postoperative pain and PONV are frequently cited as one of the most unpleasant and distressing aspects of surgery for patients. Variation in healthcare delivery is known to exist but has often been poorly described. A first step to understanding the consequences of variation is to describe the extent of variation. We aimed to assess variation in pharmacological strategies to prevent postoperative pain, nausea and vomiting in patients undergoing elective major abdominal surgery at a tertiary hospital in Perth, Western Australia, over a three-month period. Methods: Retrospective cross-sectional study. Results: We observed considerable variation in prescribing of postoperative analgesia and PONV prophylaxis and suggest that despite adequate evidence based guidelines, they are often overlooked in practice. Conclusion: Measurement of the consequences of variation requires randomised clinical trials that evaluate differences in outcome and cost, associated with the strategies that exist within the spectrum of variation.

Serum lidocaine (lignocaine) concentrations during prolonged perioperative infusion in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery: A secondary analysis of a randomised controlled trial.

Perioperative lidocaine (lignocaine) infusions are being employed with increasing frequency. The determinants of systemic lidocaine concentrations during prolonged administration are unclear. In the Long-term Outcomes after Lidocaine Infusions for PostOperative Pain (LOLIPOP) pilot trial, the impact of infusion duration and body size metrics on serum lidocaine concentrations was examined with regression models in 48 women undergoing breast cancer surgery. Lidocaine was delivered as an intravenous bolus (1.5 mg/kg) and infusion (2 mg/kg per h) intraoperatively, followed by a 12-h subcutaneous infusion (1.33 mg/kg per h) postoperatively. Dosing was based on total body weight. Wound infiltration with other long-acting local anaesthetics was permitted. Protein binding and pharmacogenomic data were also collected. Lidocaine concentrations (median (interquartile range) (range)) during prolonged administration were in the safe and potentially therapeutic range: post-anaesthesia care unit 2.16 (1.73-2.82) (1.12-6.06) µg/ml; ward 1.41 (1.22-1.75) (0.64-2.81) µg/ml. Concentrations increased non-linearly during the early intravenous phase of administration (mean rise 1.21 µg/ml per hour of infusion, P = 0.007) but reached a pseudo steady-state during the later subcutaneous phase. Higher dose rates received per kilogram of lean (P = 0.004), adjusted (P = 0.006) and ideal body weight (P = 0.009) were associated with higher steady-state concentrations. The lidocaine free fraction was unaffected by the presence of ropivacaine, and phenotypes linked to slow metabolism were infrequent. Serum lidocaine concentrations reached a pseudo steady-state during a 12-h postoperative infusion. Greater precision in steady-state concentrations can be achieved by dosing on lean body weight versus adjusted or ideal body weight (equivalent lean body weight doses: intravenous bolus 2.5 mg/kg; intravenous infusion 3.33 mg/kg per h; subcutaneous infusion 2.22 mg/kg per h.