Stroke units could be a valid alternative to intensive care units for patients with low-grade aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage.

BACKGROUND AND PURPOSE: According to current guidelines, patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid haemorrhage (aSAH) are mostly managed in intensive care units (ICUs) regardless of baseline severity. We aimed to assess the prognostic and economic implications of initial admission of patients with low-grade aSAH into a stroke unit (SU) compared to initial ICU admission. METHODS: We reviewed prospectively registered data from consecutive aSAH patients with a World Federation of Neurosurgery Societies grade <3, admitted to our Comprehensive Stroke Centre between April 2013 and September 2018. Clinical and radiological baseline traits, in-hospital complications, length of stay (LOS) and poor outcome at 90 days (modified Rankin Scale score > 2) were compared between the ICU and SU groups in the whole population and in a propensity-score-matched cohort. RESULTS: Of 131 patients, 74 (56%) were initially admitted to the ICU and 57 (44%) to the SU. In-hospital complication rates were similar in the ICU and SU groups and included rebleeding (10% vs. 7%; P = 0.757), angiographic vasospasm (61% vs. 60%; P = 0.893), delayed cerebral ischaemia (12% vs. 12%; P = 0.984), pneumonia (6% vs. 4%; P = 0.697) and death (10% vs. 5%; P = 0.512). LOS did not differ between groups (median [interquartile range] 22 [16-30] vs. 19 [14-26] days; P = 0.160). In adjusted multivariate models, the location of initial admission was not associated with long-term poor outcome either in the whole population (odds ratio [OR] 1.16, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.32-4.19; P = 0.825) or in the matched cohort (OR 0.98, 95% CI 0.24-4.06; P = 0.974). CONCLUSIONS: A dedicated SU, with care from a multidisciplinary team, might be an optimal alternative to ICU for initial admission of patients with low-risk aSAH.

High D dimers and low global fibrinolysis coexist in COVID19 patients: what is going on in there?

BACKGROUD: COVID-19 coagulopathy linked to increased D-dimer levels has been associated with high mortality (Fei Z et al. in Clinical course and risk factors for mortality of adult inpatients with COVID-19 in Wuhan, China: a retrospective cohort study. Lancet (London, England) 395(10229):1054-62, 2020). While D-dimer is accepted as a disseminated intravascular coagulation marker, rotational thromboelastometry (ROTEM) also detects fibrinolysis (Wright FL et al. in Fibrinolysis shutdown correlates to thromboembolic events in severe COVID-19 infection. J Am Coll Surg (2020). Available from https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32422349/ [cited 14 Jun 2020]; Schmitt FCF et al. in Acute fibrinolysis shutdown occurs early in septic shock and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality: results of an observational pilot study. Ann Intensive Care 9(1):19, 2019). We describe the ROTEM profile in severely ill COVID-19 patients and compare it with the standard laboratory coagulation test. METHODS: Adult patients diagnosed with COVID-19 admitted to the ICU were prospectively enrolled after Ethics Committee approval (HCB/2020/0371). All patients received venous thromboembolism prophylaxis; those on therapeutic anticoagulation were excluded. The standard laboratory coagulation test and ROTEM were performed simultaneously at 24-48 h after ICU admission. Sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA), disseminated intravascular coagulation (DIC) and sepsis-induced coagulopathy (SIC) scores were calculated at sample collection. RESULTS: Nineteen patients were included with median SOFA-score of 4 (2-6), DIC-score of 1 (0-3) and SIC-score of 1.8 (0.9). Median fibrinogen, D-dimer levels and platelet count were 6.2 (4.8-7.6 g/L), 1000 (600-4200 ng/ml) and 236 (136-364 109/L), respectively. Clot firmness was above the normal range in the EXTEM and FIBTEM tests while clot lysis was decreased. There was no significant correlation between ROTEM or D-dimer parameters and the SOFA score. CONCLUSION: In COVID-19 patients, the ROTEM pattern was characterized by a hypercoagulable state with decreased fibrinolytic capacity despite a paradoxical increase in D-dimer levels. We suggest that, in COVID-19 patients, the lungs could be the main source of D-dimer, while a systemic hypofibrinolytic state coexists. This hypothesis should be confirmed by future studies.

Individualized lung recruitment maneuver guided by pulse-oximetry in anesthetized patients undergoing laparoscopy: a feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: We conducted this study to test whether pulse-oximetry hemoglobin saturation (SpO2 ) can personalize the implementation of an open-lung approach during laparoscopy. Thirty patients with SpO2  ≥ 97% on room-air before anesthesia were studied. After anesthesia and capnoperitoneum the FIO2 was reduced to 0.21. Those patients whose SpO2 decreased below 97% - an indication of shunt related to atelectasis - completed the following phases: (1) First recruitment maneuver (RM), until reaching lung's opening pressure, defined as the inspiratory pressure level yielding a SpO2 ≥ 97%; (2) decremental positive end-expiratory (PEEP) titration trial until reaching lung's closing pressure defined as the PEEP level yielding a SpO2  < 97%; (3) second RM and, (4) ongoing ventilation with PEEP adjusted above the detected closing pressure. RESULTS: When breathing air, in 24 of 30 patients SpO2 was < 97%, PaO2 /FIO2  Ë‚ 53.3 kPa and negative end-expiratory transpulmonary pressure (PTP-EE ). The mean (SD) opening pressures were found at 40 (5) and 33 (4) cmH2 O during the first and second RM, respectively (P < 0.001; 95% CI: 3.2-7.7). The closing pressure was found at 11 (5) cmH2 O. This SpO2 -guided approach increased PTP-EE (from -6.4 to 1.2 cmH2 O, P < 0.001) and PaO2 /FIO2 (from 30.3 to 58.1 kPa, P < 0.001) while decreased driving pressure (from 18 to 10 cmH2 O, P < 0.001). SpO2 discriminated the lung's opening and closing pressures with accuracy taking the reference parameter PTP-EE (area under the receiver-operating-curve of 0.89, 95% CI: 0.80-0.99). CONCLUSION: The non-invasive SpO2 monitoring can help to individualize an open-lung approach, including all involved steps, from the identification of those patients who can benefit from recruitment, the identification of opening and closing pressures to the subsequent monitoring of an open-lung condition.

Effectiveness of a specific follow up program for the management of the mental components of post-intensive care syndrome and chronic pain after COVID-19: results from the PAIN-COVID randomized clinical trial.

BACKGROUND: Critical COVID-19 survivors are at risk of developing Post-intensive Care Syndrome (PICS) and Chronic ICU-Related Pain (CIRP). We determined whether a specific care program improves the quality of life (QoL) of patients at risk of developing PICS and CIRP after COVID-19. METHODS: The PAIN-COVID trial was a parallel-group, single-centre, single-blinded, randomized controlled trial. The intervention consisted of a follow up program, patient education on PICS and pain, and a psychological intervention based on Rehm's self-control model in patients with abnormal depression scores (≥8) in the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS) at the baseline visit. QoL was evaluated with the 5-level EQ 5D (EQ 5D 5 L), mood disorders with the HADS, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD) with the PCL-5 checklist, and pain with the Brief Pain Inventory short form, the Douleur Neuropathique 4 questionnaire, and the Pain Catastrophizing Scale. The primary outcome was to determine if the program was superior to standard-of-care on the EQ visual analogue scale (VAS) at 6 months after the baseline visit. The secondary outcomes were EQ VAS at 3 months, and EQ index, CIRP incidence and characteristics, and anxiety, depression, and PTSD at 3 and 6 months after baseline visits. CONCLUSIONS: This program was not superior to standard care in improving QoL in critical COVID-19 survivors as measured by the EQ VAS. However, our data can help establish better strategies for the study and management of PICS and CIRP in this population. TRIAL REGISTRATION: # NCT04394169, registered on 5/19/2020.

Rationale and study design for an Individualized PeriopeRative Open lung VEntilatory approach in Emergency Abdominal Laparotomy/scopy: study protocol for a prospective international randomized controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative pulmonary complications (PPC) are the most frequent postoperative complications, with an estimated prevalence in elective surgery ranging from 20% in observational cohort studies to 40% in randomized clinical trials. However, the prevalence of PPCs in patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery is not well defined. Lung-protective ventilation aims to minimize ventilator-induced lung injury and reduce PPCs. The open lung approach (OLA), which combines recruitment manoeuvres (RM) and positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) titration, aims to minimize areas of atelectasis and the development of PPCs; however, there is no conclusive evidence in the literature that OLA can prevent PPCs. The purpose of this study is to compare an individualized perioperative OLA with conventional standardized lung-protective ventilation in patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery with clinical signs of intraoperative lung collapse. METHODS: Randomized international clinical trial to compare an individualized perioperative OLA (RM plus individualized PEEP and individualized postoperative respiratory support) with conventional lung-protective ventilation (standard PEEP of 5 cmH2O and conventional postoperative oxygen therapy) in patients undergoing emergency abdominal surgery with clinical signs of lung collapse. Patients will be randomised to open-label parallel groups. The primary outcome is any severe PPC during the first 7 postoperative days, including: acute respiratory failure, pneumothorax, weaning failure, acute respiratory distress syndrome, and pulmonary infection. The estimated sample size is 732 patients (366 per group). The final sample size will be readjusted during the interim analysis. DISCUSSION: The Individualized Perioperative Open-lung Ventilatory Strategy in emergency abdominal laparotomy (iPROVE-EAL) is the first multicentre, randomized, controlled trial to investigate whether an individualized perioperative approach prevents PPCs in patients undergoing emergency surgery.

[Effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin in critically ill patients with COVID-19. An observational prospective, multicenter study]. / Eficacia de la tromboprofilaxis con heparina de bajo peso molecular en pacientes críticos con COVID-19: estudio observacional, prospectivo y multicéntrico.

Introduction: COVID-19 induces coagulopathy associated with an increase of thromboembolic events. Due to the lack of agreement on recommendations for thromboprophylactic management, the aim of this study was to study the dosages of LMWH used in critically ill COVID-19 patients assessing the effect on their outcome. Metohds: We evaluated data of the Reg-COVID19. According to LMWH dose two groups were analyzed: prophylaxis and treatment. Primary outcome was the relationship of LMWH dosage with mortality. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of thrombotic and bleeding events, length of ICU stay, invasive mechanical ventilation, and thrombotic and inflammatory parameters. Results: Data of 720 patients were analyzed, 258 in the prophylaxis group and 462 in the treatment group. C Reactive Protein, invasive mechanical ventilation, tocilizumab and corticosteroid treatments were related with the choice of LMWH dose. Hemorrhagic events (66/720, 9.2%) and thrombotic complications (69/720, 9.6%) were similar in both groups (P=.819 and P=.265), as was the time course of the thrombotic events, earlier than hemorrhagic ones (9 [3-18] and 12 [6-19] days respectively). Mortality was lower in prophylaxis group (25.2% versus 35.1%), but once an inverse probability weighting model was applied, we found no effect of LMWH dose. Conclusion: We found no benefit or harm with the administration of therapeutic or prophylactic LMWH dose in COVID19 critically ill patients. With a similar rate of hemorrhagic or thrombotic events, the LMWH dose had no influence on mortality. More studies are needed to determine the optimal thromboprophylaxis protocol for critically ill patients.

Perioperative neuromuscular blockade. 2020 update of the SEDAR (Sociedad Española de Anestesiología y Reanimación) recommendations.

We present an update of the 2020 Recommendations on neuromuscular blockade of the SEDAR. The previous ones dated 2009. A modified Delphi consensus analysis (experts, working group, and previous extensive bibliographic revision) 10 recommendations were produced1: neuromuscular blocking agents were recommended for endotracheal intubation and to avoid faringo-laryngeal and tracheal lesions, including critical care patients.2 We recommend not to use neuromuscular blocking agents for routine insertion of supraglotic airway devices, and to use it only in cases of airway obstruction or endotracheal intubation through the device.3 We recommend to use a rapid action neuromuscular blocking agent with an hypnotic in rapid sequence induction of anesthesia.4 We recommend profound neuromuscular block in laparoscopic surgery.5 We recommend quantitative monitoring of neuromuscular blockade during the whole surgical procedure, provided neuromuscular blocking agents have been used.6 We recommend quantitative monitoring through ulnar nerve stimulation and response evaluation of the adductor pollicis brevis, acceleromyography being the clinical standard.7 We recommend a recovery of neuromuscular block of at least TOFr ≥ 0.9 to avoid postoperative residual neuromuscular blockade.8 We recommend drug reversal of neuromuscular block at the end of general anesthetic, before extubation, provided a TOFr ≥ 0.9 has not been reached.9 We recommend to choose anticholinesterases for neuromuscular block reversal only if TOF≥2 and a TOFr ≥ 0.9 has not been attained.10 We recommend to choose sugammadex instead of anticholinesterases for reversal of neuromuscular blockade induced with rocuronium.

Effectiveness of thromboprophylaxis with low molecular weight heparin in critically ill patients with COVID-19. An observational prospective, multicenter study.

INTRODUCTION: COVID-19 induces coagulopathy associated with an increase of thromboembolic events. Due to the lack of agreement on recommendations for thromboprophylactic management, the aim of this study was to study the dosages of LMWH used in critically ill COVID-19 patients assessing the effect on their outcome. METHODS: We evaluated data of the Reg-COVID19. According to LMWH dose two groups were analyzed: prophylaxis and treatment. Primary outcome was the relationship of LMWH dosage with mortality. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of thrombotic and bleeding events, length of ICU stay, invasive mechanical ventilation, and thrombotic and inflammatory parameters. RESULTS: Data of 720 patients were analyzed, 258 in the prophylaxis group and 462 in the treatment group. C Reactive Protein, invasive mechanical ventilation, tocilizumab and corticosteroid treatments were related with the choice of LMWH dose. Hemorrhagic events (66/720, 9.2%) and thrombotic complications (69/720, 9.6%) were similar in both groups (p = .819 and p = .265), as was the time course of the thrombotic events, earlier than hemorrhagic ones (9 [3-18] and 12 [6-19] days respectively). Mortality was lower in prophylaxis group (25.2% versus 35.1%), but once an inverse probability weighting model was applied, we found no effect of LMWH dose. CONCLUSION: We found no benefit or harm with the administration of therapeutic or prophylactic LMWH dose in COVID19 critically ill patients. With a similar rate of hemorrhagic or thrombotic events, the LMWH dose had no influence on mortality. More studies are needed to determine the optimal thromboprophylaxis protocol for critically ill patients.

Clinical guide to perioperative management for videothoracoscopy lung resection (Section of Cardiac, Vascular and Thoracic Anesthesia, SEDAR; Spanish Society of Thoracic Surgery, SECT; Spanish Society of Physiotherapy).

The introduction of video-assisted thoracoscopic (VATS) techniques has led to a new approach in thoracic surgery. VATS is performed by inserting a thoracoscope through a small incisions in the chest wall, thus maximizing the preservation of muscle and tissue. Because of its low rate of morbidity and mortality, VATS is currently the technique of choice in most thoracic procedures. Lung resection by VATS reduces prolonged air leaks, arrhythmia, pneumonia, postoperative pain and inflammatory markers. This reduction in postoperative complications shortens hospital length of stay, and is particularly beneficial in high-risk patients with low tolerance to thoracotomy. Compared with conventional thoracotomy, the oncological results of VATS surgery are similar or even superior to those of open surgery. This aim of this multidisciplinary position statement produced by the thoracic surgery working group of the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology and Reanimation (SEDAR), the Spanish Society of Thoracic Surgery (SECT), and the Spanish Association of Physiotherapy (AEF) is to standardize and disseminate a series of perioperative anaesthesia management guidelines for patients undergoing VATS lung resection surgery. Each recommendation is based on an in-depth review of the available literature by the authors. In this document, the care of patients undergoing VATS surgery is organized in sections, starting with the surgical approach, and followed by the three pillars of anaesthesia management: preoperative, intraoperative, and postoperative anaesthesia.

Disseminated intravascular coagulation as a form of presentation of coronavirus-19 disease. Clinical case. / Coagulación intravascular diseminada como forma de presentación de la enfermedad por coronavirus-19. Caso clínico.

The covid-19 disease (coronavirus disease 2019) is a novel disease causing a world pandemic. Its presentation varies from an asymptomatic infection to a pneumonia with acute respiratory distress syndrome. We present a case presenting initially as a covid-19 pneumonia together with a disseminated intravascular coagulopathy consisting of arterial and venous thrombosis in different locations and a shock requiring admission in the intensive care unit. The abnormal coagulation test in covid-19 patients have been described since the first cases observed in Wuhan, China, as well as an increased incidence of venous thrombosis. On the contrary, a higher incidence of arterial thrombosis has not been described in these patients. The unusual case we present could be a manifestation of this altered tests.