Laura Ruggeri

Randomized Evidence for Reduction of Perioperative Mortality

OBJECTIVE With more than 220 million major surgical procedures performed annually, perioperative interventions leading to even minor mortality reductions would save thousands of lives per year. This international consensus conference aimed to identify all nonsurgical interventions that increase or reduce perioperative mortality as suggested by randomized evidence. DESIGN AND SETTING A web-based international consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS More than 1,000 physicians from 77 countries participated in this web-based consensus conference. INTERVENTIONS Systematic literature searches (MEDLINE/PubMed, June 8, 2011) were used to identify the papers with a statistically significant effect on mortality together with contacts with experts. Interventions were considered eligible for evaluation if they (1) were published in peer-reviewed journals, (2) dealt with a nonsurgical intervention (drug/technique/strategy) in adult patients undergoing surgery, and (3) provided a statistically significant mortality increase or reduction as suggested by a randomized trial or meta-analysis of randomized trials. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Fourteen interventions that might change perioperative mortality in adult surgery were identified. Interventions that might reduce mortality include chlorhexidine oral rinse, clonidine, insulin, intra-aortic balloon pump, leukodepletion, levosimendan, neuraxial anesthesia, noninvasive respiratory support, hemodynamic optimization, oxygen, selective decontamination of the digestive tract, and volatile anesthetics. In contrast, aprotinin and extended-release metoprolol might increase mortality. CONCLUSIONS Future research and health care funding should be directed toward studying and evaluating these interventions.

Mortality reduction in cardiac anesthesia and intensive care: results of the first International Consensus Conference

There is no consensus on which drugs/techniques/strategies can affect mortality in the perioperative period of cardiac surgery. With the aim of identifying these measures, and suggesting measures for prioritized future investigation we performed the first International Consensus Conference on this topic. The consensus was a continuous international internet‐based process with a final meeting on 28 June 2010 in Milan at the Vita‐Salute University. Participants included 340 cardiac anesthesiologists, cardiac surgeons, and cardiologists from 65 countries all over the world. A comprehensive literature review was performed to identify topics that subsequently generated position statements for discussion, voting, and ranking. Of the 17 major topics with a documented mortality effect, seven were subsequently excluded after further evaluation due to concerns about clinical applicability and/or study methodology. The following topics are documented as reducing mortality: administration of insulin, levosimendan, volatile anesthetics, statins, chronic β‐blockade, early aspirin therapy, the use of pre‐operative intra‐aortic balloon counterpulsation, and referral to high‐volume centers. The following are documented as increasing mortality: administration of aprotinin and aged red blood cell transfusion. These interventions were classified according to the level of evidence and effect on mortality and a position statement was generated. This International Consensus Conference has identified the non‐surgical interventions that merit urgent study to achieve further reductions in mortality after cardiac surgery: insulin, intra‐aortic balloon counterpulsation, levosimendan, volatile anesthetics, statins, chronic β‐blockade, early aspirin therapy, and referral to high‐volume centers. The use of aprotinin and aged red blood cells may result in increased mortality.

Mortality in multicenter critical care trials: An analysis of interventions with a significant effect

Objectives:We aimed to identify all treatments that affect mortality in adult critically ill patients in multicenter randomized controlled trials. We also evaluated the methodological aspects of these studies, and we surveyed clinicians’ opinion and usual practice for the selected interventions. Data Sources:MEDLINE/PubMed, Scopus, and Embase were searched. Further articles were suggested for inclusion from experts and cross-check of references. Study Selection:We selected the articles that fulfilled the following criteria: publication in a peer-reviewed journal; multicenter randomized controlled trial design; dealing with nonsurgical interventions in adult critically ill patients; and statistically significant effect in unadjusted landmark mortality. A consensus conference assessed all interventions and excluded those with lack of reproducibility, lack of generalizability, high probability of type I error, major baseline imbalances between intervention and control groups, major design flaws, contradiction by subsequent larger higher quality trials, modified intention to treat analysis, effect found only after adjustments, and lack of biological plausibility. Data Extraction:For all selected studies, we recorded the intervention and its comparator, the setting, the sample size, whether enrollment was completed or interrupted, the presence of blinding, the effect size, and the duration of follow-up. Data Synthesis:We found 15 interventions that affected mortality in 24 multicenter randomized controlled trials. Median sample size was small (199 patients) as was median centers number (10). Blinded trials enrolled significantly more patients and involved more centers. Multicenter randomized controlled trials showing harm also involved significantly more centers and more patients (p = 0.016 and p = 0.04, respectively). Five hundred fifty-five clinicians from 61 countries showed variable agreement on perceived validity of such interventions. Conclusions:We identified 15 treatments that decreased/increased mortality in critically ill patients in 24 multicenter randomized controlled trials. However, design affected trial size and larger trials were more likely to show harm. Finally, clinicians view of such trials and their translation into practice varied.

Fenoldopam and Acute Renal Failure in Cardiac Surgery: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Placebo-Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE Because at present no pharmacologic prevention or treatment of acute kidney injury seems to be available, the authors updated a meta-analysis to investigate the effects of fenoldopam in reducing acute kidney injury in patients undergoing cardiac surgery, focusing on randomized placebo-controlled studies only. DESIGN A meta-analysis of randomized, placebo-controlled trials. SETTING Hospitals. PARTICIPANTS A total of 440 patients from 6 studies were included in the analysis. INTERVENTIONS None. The ability of fenoldopam to reduce acute kidney injury in the perioperative period when compared with placebo was investigated. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Google Scholar and PubMed were searched (updated January 1, 2012). Authors and external experts were contacted. Pooled estimates showed that fenoldopam consistently and significantly reduced the risk of acute kidney injury (odds ratio [OR] = 0.41; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.23-0.74; p = 0.003), with a higher rate of hypotensive episodes and/or use of vasopressors (30/109 [27.5%] v 21/112 [18.8%]; OR = 2.09; 95% CI, 0.98-4.47; p = 0.06) and no effect on renal replacement therapy, survival, and length of intensive care unit or hospital stay. CONCLUSIONS This analysis suggests that fenoldopam reduces acute kidney injury in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. Because the number of the enrolled patients was small and there was no effect on renal replacement therapy or survival, a large, multicenter, and appropriately powered trial is needed to confirm these promising results.

Anesthetic management of transcatheter aortic valve implantation with transaxillary approach.

OBJECTIVE To describe the anesthetic management of transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) with the transaxillary approach. DESIGN An observational cohort study. SETTING Two university hospitals. PARTICIPANTS Twenty-two patients with severe aortic stenosis (± regurgitation) at high risk for surgical valve replacement, with contraindications for transfemoral TAVI (81 ± 4.9 years; logistic EuroSCORE, 27% ± 16.9%). INTERVENTION General anesthesia or local anesthesia plus sedation followed by postoperative care. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS Local anesthesia plus sedation and general anesthesia were used in 14 and 8 patients, respectively. Two patients undergoing local anesthesia were monitored with transesophageal echocardiography and supported with noninvasive mask ventilation during the procedure. Main complications included hemodynamic instability requiring inotropes (2 patients), severe postimplant aortic regurgitation requiring immediate second valve-in-valve implantation (1 patient), valve embolization requiring open-valve surgery (1 patient), subclavian artery dissection compromising the flow to a mammary artery graft (1 patient), ascending aortic dissection (1 patient), stroke (2 patients), and atrioventricular block requiring pacemaker implantation (3 patients). Four patients experienced an increased (baseline value × 1.5) postoperative serum creatinine. Five patients required red blood cell tranfusions (2 units). Intensive care unit stay and hospital stay were 6 (4-23) hours and 8 (8-9) days, respectively. All patients were alive 30 days after the procedure. The 6-month mortality was 9%. CONCLUSIONS Transaxillary TAVI is feasible in high-risk patients with aortic stenosis and peripheral vasculopathy. Nevertheless, severe procedural complications are possible, and anesthesiologists should be prepared to assist in the management of these conditions.

Remifentanil in Cardiac Surgery: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials

OBJECTIVE The authors conducted a review of randomized controlled trials to identify advantages in clinically relevant outcomes in patients undergoing cardiac surgery with remifentanil. DESIGN Meta-analysis. SETTING Hospitals. PARTICIPANTS A total of 1,473 patients from 16 randomized trials. INTERVENTIONS None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULT PubMed, BioMedCentral, and conference proceedings were searched (updated May 2010) for randomized trials that compared remifentanil with fentanyl or sufentanil in cardiac anesthesia. Four independent reviewers performed data extraction, with divergences resolved by consensus. Overall analysis showed that the use of remifentanil was associated with a significant reduction in postoperative mechanical ventilation (WMD = -139 min [-244, -32], p for effect = 0.01, p for heterogeneity < 0.001, I(2) = 89%); length of hospital stay (WMD = -1.08 days [-1.60, -0.57], p for effect < 0.0001, p for heterogeneity = 0.004, I(2) = 71%); and cardiac troponin-I release (WMD = -2.08 ng/mL [-3.93, -0.24], p for effect = 0.03, p for heterogeneity < 0.02, I(2) = 74%). No difference was noted in mortality (3/344 [0.87%] in the remifentanil group vs [1.06%] the control group, OR 0.76 [0.17-3.38], p for effect = 0.72, p for heterogeneity = 0.35, I(2) = 5%). CONCLUSIONS Remifentanil reduces cardiac troponin release, time of mechanical ventilation, and length of hospital stay in patients undergoing cardiac surgery.

Randomized Evidence for Reduction of Perioperative Mortality: An Updated Consensus Process

OBJECTIVE Of the 230 million patients undergoing major surgical procedures every year, more than 1 million will die within 30 days. Thus, any nonsurgical interventions that help reduce perioperative mortality might save thousands of lives. The authors have updated a previous consensus process to identify all the nonsurgical interventions, supported by randomized evidence, that may help reduce perioperative mortality. DESIGN AND SETTING A web-based international consensus conference. PARTICIPANTS The study comprised 500 clinicians from 61 countries. INTERVENTIONS A systematic literature search was performed to identify published literature about nonsurgical interventions, supported by randomized evidence, showing a statistically significant impact on mortality. A consensus conference of experts discussed eligible papers. The interventions identified by the conference then were submitted to colleagues worldwide through a web-based survey. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS The authors identified 11 interventions contributing to increased survival (perioperative hemodynamic optimization, neuraxial anesthesia, noninvasive ventilation, tranexamic acid, selective decontamination of the gastrointestinal tract, insulin for tight glycemic control, preoperative intra-aortic balloon pump, leuko-depleted red blood cells transfusion, levosimendan, volatile agents, and remote ischemic preconditioning) and 2 interventions showing increased mortality (beta-blocker therapy and aprotinin). Interventions then were voted on by participating clinicians. Percentages of agreement among clinicians in different countries differed significantly for 6 interventions, and a variable gap between evidence and clinical practice was noted. CONCLUSIONS The authors identified 13 nonsurgical interventions that may decrease or increase perioperative mortality, with variable agreement by clinicians. Such interventions may be optimal candidates for investigation in high-quality trials and discussion in international guidelines to reduce perioperative mortality.

Anesthetic management of transcatheter aortic valve implantation

Transcatheter aortic valve implantation (TAVI) is an emergent technique for high-risk patients with aortic stenosis. TAVI poses significant challenges about its management because of the procedure itself and the population who undergo the implantation. Two devices are currently available and marketed in Europe and several other technologies are being developed. The retrograde transfemoral approach is the most popular procedure; nevertheless, it may not be feasible in patients with significant aortic or ileo-femoral arterial disease. Alternatives include a transaxillary approach, transapical approach, open surgical access to the retroperitoneal iliac artery and the ascending aorta. A complementary approach using both devices and alternative routes tailored to the anatomy and the comorbidities of the single patient is a main component for the successful implementation of a TAVI program. Anaesthetic strategies vary in different centers. Local anaesthesia or general anaesthesia are both valid alternatives and can be applied according to the patients characteristics and procedural instances. General anaesthesia offers many advantages, mainly regarding the possibility of an early diagnosis and treatment of possible complications through the use of transesophageal echocardiography. However, after the initial experiences, many groups began to employ, routinely, sedation plus local anaesthesia for TAVI, and their procedural and periprocedural success demonstrates that it is feasible. TAVI is burdened with potential important complications: vascular injuries, arrhythmias, renal impairment, neurological complications, cardiac tamponade, prosthesis malpositioning and embolization and left main coronary artery occlusion. The aim of this work is to review the anaesthetic management of TAVI based on the available literature.

Target Controlled Infusion for non-anaesthesiologist propofol sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy: The first double blind randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND Target Controlled Infusion is a sophisticated tool for providing optimal sedation regimen avoiding under or oversedation in gastrointestinal endoscopy. AIMS To compare standard moderate sedation vs. non-anaesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation during gastrointestinal endoscopy. METHODS Randomized controlled trial of 70 consecutive colonoscopies and 70 consecutive esophagogastroduodenoscopies (EGD). Standard group (n=70), received fentanyl (1 μg/kg)+midazolam (0.03-0.04 mg/kg) or midazolam only; propofol group (n=70), received fentanyl (1 μg/kg)+propofol Target Controlled Infusion (1.2-1.6 μg/ml) or propofol Target Controlled Infusion only. Discharge time, endoscopist satisfaction and patient satisfaction were recorded in all endoscopies. RESULTS Colonoscopy: discharge time was significantly shorter in the propofol than the standard group (1.1 ± 0.3 vs. 5 ± 10.2 min, respectively; P=0.03). Endoscopist satisfaction was significantly higher (98.3 ± 11.4/100 vs. 87.2±12/100; P=0.001); patient satisfaction was significantly higher (95 ± 9.3/100 vs. 85.5 ± 14.4/100; P=0.002) in the propofol compared to the standard group. EGD: discharge time was not significantly different in the propofol and standard groups (1.1 ± 0.7 vs. 3.9 ± 9.2 min, respectively; P=0.146). Endoscopist satisfaction was significantly higher (92.7 ± 14.3/100 vs. 82.8 ± 21.2/100; P=0.03); patient satisfaction was significantly higher (93.8 ± 18.2/100 vs. 76.5 ± 25.2/100; P=0.003). In the propofol group 94.3% of patients vs. 71.4% of patients in standard group asked to receive the same sedation in the future (P=0.021). CONCLUSION Target Controlled Infusion is a promising method for non-anaesthesiologist-administered propofol sedation.

A new phosphorylcholine-coated polymethylpentene oxygenator for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation: a preliminary experience

Phosphorylcholine coating has a major role in the improvement of biocompatibility, durability and antihrombogenicity of the circuit for extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO). Moreover, if heparin-induced thrombocytopenia ensues, removal of all the sources of heparin is challenging if the circuit is coated with heparin. We report our preliminary experience with the new EUROSETS A.L.ONE ECMO oxygenator (Eurosets, Medolla, MO, Italy), which is aimed at providing better biocompatibility thanks to its full coating with phosphorylcholine. We retrospectively collected data on the 16 patients supported with ECMO and with the EUROSETS A.L.ONE ECMO oxygenator at San Raffaele Hospital. Mean ECMO duration was 6 ± 4 days, and 37.5% of the patients died on ECMO. Four episodes of major bleeding and three episodes of minor bleeding were recorded. The oxygenator had an excellent performance in gas exchange and the median pressure drop was 57 (26-85) mmHg at full blood flow (2.5 L/m2/min). The EUROSETS A.L.ONE ECMO oxygenator was an excellent device in our preliminary experience. Further evaluation on a larger sample is encouraged.