Andrew Steel

Evidence basis for regional anesthesia in multidisciplinary fast-track surgical care pathways.

Fast-track programs have been developed with the aim to reduce perioperative surgical stress and facilitate patients recovery after surgery. Potentially, regional anesthesia and analgesia techniques may offer physiological advantages to support fast-track methodologies in different type of surgeries. The aim of this article was to identify and discuss potential advantages offerred by regional anesthesia and analgesia techniques to fast-track programs. In the first section, the impact of regional anesthesia on the main elements of fast-track surgery is addressed. In the second section, procedure-specific fast-track programs for colorectal, hernia, esophageal, cardiac, vascular, and orthopedic surgeries are presented. For each, regional anesthesia and analgesia techniques more frequently used are discussed. Furthermore, clinical studies, which included regional techniques as elements of fast-track methodologies, were identified. The impact of epidural and paravertebral blockade, spinal analgesia, peripheral nerve blocks, and new regional anesthesia techniques on main procedure-specific postoperative outcomes is discussed. Finally, in the last section, implementations required to improve the role of regional anesthesia in the context of fast-track programs are suggested, and issues not yet addressed are presented.

Changes in end of life care 5 years after the introduction of a rapid response team: A multicentre retrospective study

RATIONALE Rapid response teams (RRTs) are intended to stabilize deteriorating patients on the ward, but recent studies suggest that RRTs may also improve end-of-life care (EOLC). We sought to study the effect of introducing an RRT on EOLC at our institutions, and compare the EOLC care received by patients who were consulted by the RRT with that of patients who were not consulted by the RRT. METHODS Retrospective review of 450 consecutive deaths at 3 institutions. We compared demographic factors and EOLC received before (2005) and 5 years after (2010) the introduction of an RRT. We also compared these same factors for patients who died in 2010 with and without RRT consultation. RESULTS There were no differences in the proportion of patients who had Patient/Family Conferences or orders to limit life support on the ward between 2005 and 2010. Although the RRT was consulted for 30% of patients eligible to be seen by the RRT, the RRT was involved in only 11.1% of Patient/Family Conferences that took place on the ward. The prevalence of palliative care consultation and orders for opioids as needed was higher in 2010 than 2005, but those seen by the RRT were less likely to receive a palliative care consultation (30.2% vs. 55.9%), spiritual care consultation (25.4% vs. 41.3%) or an order for sedatives as needed (44.4% vs. 65.0%) than those who were not seen by the RRT. There was no change in the proportion of patients admitted to the ICU in 2010 compared with 2005, and multivariable logistic regression showed that the year of death did not influence the likelihood of ICU admission based on any comorbid or demographic factors. CONCLUSIONS The introduction of an RRT was not associated with significant improvements in EOLC at our institutions. However, almost 1/3 of dying patients were consulted by the RRT, suggesting that the RRT could play a role in facilitating improved EOLC for some inpatients.

The Growth of Rapid Response Systems

This conference report presents highlights from the recent Fourth International Conference on Rapid Response Systems (RRSs) and Medical Emergency Teams.

Safety and Efficacy of Volatile Anesthetic Agents Compared With Standard Intravenous Midazolam/propofol Sedation in Ventilated Critical Care Patients: A Meta-analysis and Systematic Review of Prospective Trials.

BACKGROUND: Inhalation agents are being used in place of intravenous agents to provide sedation in some intensive care units. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of prospective randomized controlled trials, which compared the use of volatile agents versus intravenous midazolam or propofol in critical care units. METHODS: A search was conducted using MEDLINE (1946–2015), EMBASE (1947–2015), Web of Science index (1900–2015), and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials. Eligible studies included randomized controlled trials comparing inhaled volatile (desflurane, sevoflurane, and isoflurane) sedation to intravenous midazolam or propofol. Primary outcome assessed the effect of volatile-based sedation on extubation times (time between discontinuing sedation and tracheal extubation). Secondary outcomes included time to obey verbal commands, proportion of time spent in target sedation, nausea and vomiting, mortality, length of intensive care unit, and length of hospital stay. Heterogeneity was assessed using the I2 statistic. Outcomes were assessed using a random or fixed-effects model depending on heterogeneity. RESULTS: Eight trials with 523 patients comparing all volatile agents with intravenous midazolam or propofol showed a reduction in extubation times using volatile agents (difference in means, −52.7 minutes; 95% confidence interval [CI], −75.1 to −30.3; P < .00001). Reductions in extubation time were greater when comparing volatiles with midazolam (difference in means, −292.2 minutes; 95% CI, −384.4 to −200.1; P < .00001) than propofol (difference in means, −29.1 minutes; 95% CI, −46.7 to −11.4; P = .001). There was no significant difference in time to obey verbal commands, proportion of time spent in target sedation, adverse events, death, or length of hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS: Volatile-based sedation demonstrates a reduction in time to extubation, with no increase in short-term adverse outcomes. Marked study heterogeneity was present, and the results show marked positive publication bias. However, a reduction in extubation time was still evident after statistical correction of publication bias. Larger clinical trials are needed to further evaluate the role of these agents as sedatives for critically ill patients.

The Sedative Effect of Propranolol on Critically Ill Patients: A Case Series

Introduction Recent studies have examined the effectiveness of alpha-2 adrenergic agonists for controlling delirium and agitation. Propranolol, a non-selective beta-adrenergic antagonist with good penetration of the blood–brain barrier, has not been investigated for this purpose. Materials and methods We retrospectively reviewed the medical records of all patients who were prescribed propranolol in our Medical Surgical ICU from January 1, 2010, to December 31, 2013. We recorded the sedation level and daily dose of sedatives, analgesics, and antipsychotics administered each day for 6 days after starting propranolol, and compared them to the day before starting propranolol. Results Sixty-four patients met inclusion criteria. Thirty-eight episodes met exclusion criteria, leaving 27 patients (31 episodes). The administration of propranolol was associated with significant reductions in fentanyl equivalents (65%, p = 0.009), midazolam equivalents (57%, p = 0.048), propofol (16%, p = 0.009), and haloperidol (44%, p = 0.024) on day 2 after starting propranolol compared with baseline. A stratified analysis showed that these decreases were seen regardless of clinical improvement or deterioration. Conclusion The use of propranolol was associated with a significant reduction in doses of sedatives and analgesia. Further studies are needed to determine whether propranolol may be a useful adjuvant for managing delirium and agitation in the ICU.