13 Mar 08
Posted in Anesthesia at 20:41 by Laci
By M S Avidan, L Zhang, B A Burnside, K J Finkel, A C Searleman, J A Selvidge, L Saager, M S Turner, S Rao, M Bottros, C Hantler, E Jacobsohn and A S Evers
NEJM 2008;358:1097-1108
Awareness during anesthesia is a serious complication with potential long-term psychological consequences. Use of the bispectral index (BIS), developed from a processed electroencephalogram, has been reported to decrease the incidence of anesthesia awareness when the BIS value is maintained below 60. In this trial, we sought to determine whether a BIS-based protocol is better than a protocol based on a measurement of end-tidal anesthetic gas (ETAG) for decreasing anesthesia awareness in patients at high risk for this complication.
Methods
We randomly assigned 2000 patients to BIS-guided anesthesia (target BIS range, 40 to 60) or ETAG-guided anesthesia (target ETAG range, 0.7 to 1.3 minimum alveolar concentration [MAC]). Postoperatively, patients were assessed for anesthesia awareness at three intervals (0 to 24 hours, 24 to 72 hours, and 30 days after extubation).
Results
We assessed 967 and 974 patients from the BIS and ETAG groups, respectively. Two cases of definite anesthesia awareness occurred in each group (absolute difference, 0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], –0.56 to 0.57%). The BIS value was greater than 60 in one case of definite anesthesia awareness, and the ETAG concentrations were less than 0.7 MAC in three cases. For all patients, the mean (±SD) time-averaged ETAG concentration was 0.81±0.25 MAC in the BIS group and 0.82±0.23 MAC in the ETAG group (P=0.10; 95% CI for the difference between the BIS and ETAG groups, –0.04 to 0.01 MAC).
Conclusions
We did not reproduce the results of previous studies that reported a lower incidence of anesthesia awareness with BIS monitoring, and the use of the BIS protocol was not associated with reduced administration of volatile anesthetic gases. Anesthesia awareness occurred even when BIS values and ETAG concentrations were within the target ranges. Our findings do not support routine BIS monitoring as part of standard practice.
Permalink
Posted in Glycemic control at 20:34 by Laci
By M M Treggiari, V Karir, N D Yanez, N S Weiss, S Daniel and S A Deem
Critical Care 2008;12:R29
Intensive insulin therapy (IIT) with tight glycemic control may reduce mortality and morbidity in critically ill patients and has been widely adopted in practice throughout the world. However, there is only one randomized controlled trial showing unequivocal benefit to this approach and that study population was dominated by post-cardiac surgery patients. We aimed to determine the association between IIT and mortality in a mixed population of critically ill patients.
Methods
We conducted a cohort study comparing three consecutive time periods before and after IIT protocol implementation in a Level 1 trauma center: period I (no protocol); period II, target glucose 80 to 130 mg/dL; and period III, target glucose 80 to 110 mg/dL. Subjects were 10,456 patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) between 1 March 2001 and 28 February 2005. The main study endpoints were ICU and hospital mortality, Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score, and occurrence of hypoglycemia. Multivariable regression analysis was used to evaluate mortality and organ dysfunction during periods II and III relative to period I.
Results
Insulin administration increased over time (9% period I, 25% period II, and 42% period III). Nonetheless, patients in period III had a tendency toward higher adjusted hospital mortality (odds ratio [OR] 1.15, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.98, 1.35) than patients in period I. Excess hospital mortality in period III was present primarily in patients with an ICU length of stay of 3 days or less (OR 1.47, 95% CI 1.11, 1.93 There was an approximately fourfold increase in the incidence of hypoglycemia from periods I to III.
Conclusion
A policy of IIT in a group of ICUs from a single institution was not associated with a decrease in hospital mortality. These results, combined with the findings from several recent randomized trials, suggest that further study is needed prior to widespread implementation of IIT in critically ill patients.
Permalink
10 Mar 08
Posted in Sepsis at 19:49 by Laci
By RP Dellinger, MM Levy, J Carlet, J Bion, MM Parker, R Jaeschke, K Reinhart, DC Angus, C Brun-Buisson, R Beale, T Calandra, J-F Dhainaut, H Gerlach, M Harvey, JJ Marini, J Marshall et al for the International Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines Committee
Critical Care Medicine 2008;36:296-327
Objective
To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock, published in 2004.
Design
Modified Delphi method with a consensus conference of 55 international experts, several subsequent meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. This process was conducted independently of any industry funding.
Methods
We used the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations. A strong recommendation (1) indicates that an intervention’s desirable effects clearly outweigh its undesirable effects (risk, burden, cost) or clearly do not. Weak recommendations (2) indicate that the tradeoff between desirable and undesirable effects is less clear. The grade of strong or weak is considered of greater clinical importance than a difference in letter level of quality of evidence. In areas without complete agreement, a formal process of resolution was developed and applied. Recommendations are grouped into those directly targeting severe sepsis, recommendations targeting general care of the critically ill patient that are considered high priority in severe sepsis, and pediatric considerations.
Results
Key recommendations, listed by category, include early goal-directed resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm potential source of infection (1C); administration of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy within 1 hr of diagnosis of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1D); reassessment of antibiotic therapy with microbiology and clinical data to narrow coverage, when appropriate (1C); a usual 7-10 days of antibiotic therapy guided by clinical response (1D); source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method (1C); administration of either crystalloid or colloid fluid resuscitation (1B); fluid challenge to restore mean circulating filling pressure (1C); reduction in rate of fluid administration with rising filing pressures and no improvement in tissue perfusion (1D); vasopressor preference for norepinephrine or dopamine to maintain an initial target of mean arterial pressure ≥65 mm Hg (1C); dobutamine inotropic therapy when cardiac output remains low despite fluid resuscitation and combined inotropic/vasopressor therapy (1C); stress-dose steroid therapy given only in septic shock after blood pressure is identified to be poorly responsive to fluid and vasopressor therapy (2C); recombinant activated protein C in patients with severe sepsis and clinical assessment of high risk for death (2B except 2C for postoperative patients). In the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage, target a hemoglobin of 7-9 g/dL (1B); a low tidal volume (1B) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure strategy (1C) for acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure in acute lung injury (1C); head of bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); avoiding routine use of pulmonary artery catheters in ALI/ARDS (1A); to decrease days of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay, a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ALI/ARDS who are not in shock (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation/analgesia (1B); using either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation with daily interruptions or lightening (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers, if at all possible (1B); institution of glycemic control (1B), targeting a blood glucose <150 mg/dL after initial stabilization (2C); equivalency of continuous veno-veno hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1A); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding using H2 blockers (1A) or proton pump inhibitors (1B); and consideration of limitation of support where appropriate (1D). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include greater use of physical examination therapeutic end points (2C); dopamine as the first drug of choice for hypotension (2C); steroids only in children with suspected or proven adrenal insufficiency (2C); and a recommendation against the use of recombinant activated protein C in children (1B).
Conclusions
There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best current care of patients with severe sepsis. Evidenced-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the first step toward improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.
Permalink
08 Mar 08
Posted in Anesthesia at 20:11 by Laci
By G W Smetana
Clin Geriatr Med 2003;19:35-55
As individuals live longer and healthier lives, an increasing number of elderly patients are now potential candidates for major surgery. For example, during the period from 1980 to 1995, the rates of operations on the cardiovascular system for patients over age 65 years in the United States tripled [1]. Similarly, from 1987 to 1999, the average age of patients undergoing coronary artery bypass surgery increased from 62.7 to 65.6 years; the percent of such patients who are over 80 years of age increased from 2.4% to 7.9% [2,3]. In 1997, the ten most commonly performed major surgical procedures in the United States accounted for 1,350,000 procedures in the 65 to 84 age group and 233,000 procedures in the 85 and older age group.
Due to the increasing number of comorbidities and perceived surgical risk with advancing age, surgeons often request a preoperative medical evaluation for elderly patients. The goals of this consultation are to estimate the risk of the proposed procedure, to optimize the patientís condition, and to propose strategies to decrease the risk of the procedure. This article reviews the contribution of age to postoperative pulmonary complications, the approach to risk stratification based on patient- and procedure-related risk factor analysis, multifactorial risk indices, and strategies to reduce postoperative pulmonary complications in the elderly. The evaluation of candidates for lung resection surgery differs substantially from the evaluation before general surgery and is not discussed in this review.
Permalink