Search

Abstract Introduction Several studies have demonstrated that perioperative hemodynamic optimization has the ability to improve postoperative outcome in high-risk surgical patients. All of these studies aimed at optimizing cardiac output and/or oxygen delivery in the perioperative period. We conducted a survey with the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) and the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) to assess current hemodynamic management practices in patients undergoing high-risk surgery in Europe and in the United States. Methods A survey including 33 specific questions was emailed to 2,500 randomly selected active members of the ASA and to active ESA members. Results Overall, 368 questionnaires were completed, 57.1% from ASA and 42.9% from ESA members. Cardiac output is monitored by only 34% of ASA and ESA respondents (P = 0.49) while central venous pressure is monitored by 73% of ASA respondents and 84% of ESA respondents (P < 0.01). Specifically, the pulmonary artery catheter is being used much more frequently in the US than in Europe in the setup of high-risk surgery (85.1% vs. 55.3% respectively, P < 0.001). Clinical experience, blood pressure, central venous pressure, and urine output are the most widely indicators of volume expansion. Finally, 86.5% of ASA respondents and 98.1% of ESA respondents believe that their current hemodynamic management could be improved. Conclusions In conclusion, these results point to a considerable gap between the accumulating evidence about the benefits of perioperative hemodynamic optimization and the available technologies that may facilitate its clinical implementation, and clinical practices in both Europe and the United States.

The range of comorbidities experienced by people who require lower-limb surgery to manage diabetic foot disease are many. These comorbidites make the undertaken of general anaesthesia both difficult and places them at high risk of complications during surgery or in the immediate post-operative period. In this article the authors present a description of a peripheral nerve block procedure as an alternative to general anaesthesia in patients undergoing lower-limb surgery. Two case reports are also presented. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Sleep-disordered breathing (SDB) is closely associated with perioperative complications. STOP-Bang score was validated for preoperative screening of SDB. However, STOP-Bang Score lacks adequately high specificity. We aimed to improve it by combining it with the Mallampati Score., Methods: The study included 347 patients, in which we assessed both STOP-Bang and Mallampati scores. Overnight oxygen saturation was measured to calculate ODI4%. We calculated the sensitivity and specificity for AHI and ODI4% of both scores separately and in combination., Results: We found that STOP-Bang Score ≥3 was present in 71%, ODI≥5/h (AHI ≥5/h) in 42.6% (39.3%) and ODI≥15/h (AHI ≥15/h) in 13.5% (17.8%). For ODI4%≥5/h (AHI ≥5/h) we observed in men a response rate for sensitivity and specificity of STOP-Bang of 94.5% and 17.1% (90.9% and 12.5%) and in women 66% and 51% (57.8% and 46.9%). For ODI4%≥15/h (AHI≥15/h) it was 92% and 12% (84.6% and 10.3%) and 93% and 49% (75% and 49.2%). For ODI4%≥5 (AHI≥5) sensitivity and specificity of Mallampati score were in men 38.4% and 78.6% (27.3% and 68.2%) and in women 25% and 82.7% (21.9% and 81.3%), for ODI≥15 (AHI ≥15/h) 38.5% and 71.8% (26.9% and 69.2%) and 33.3% and 81.4% (17.9% and 79.6%). In combination, for ODI4%≥15/h, we found sensitivity in men to be 92.3% and in women 93.3%, specificity 10.3% and 41.4%., Conclusions: STOP-Bang Score combined with Mallampati Score fails to increase specificity. Low specificity should be considered when using both scores for preoperative screening of SDB.

Background: Difference in pulse pressure (dPP) reliably predicts fluid responsiveness in patients. We have developed a respiratory variation (RV) monitoring device (RV monitor), which continuously records both airway pressure and arterial blood pressure (ABP). We compared the RV monitor measurements with manual dPP measurements., Methods: ABP and airway pressure (PAW) from 24 patients were recorded. Data were fed to the RV monitor to calculate dPP and systolic pressure variation in two different ways: (a) considering both ABP and PAW (RV algorithm) and (b) ABP only (RV(slim) algorithm). Additionally, ABP and PAW were recorded intraoperatively in 10-min intervals for later calculation of dPP by manual assessment. Interobserver variability was determined. Manual dPP assessments were used for comparison with automated measurements. To estimate the importance of the PAW signal, RV(slim) measurements were compared with RV measurements., Results: For the 24 patients, 174 measurements (6-10 per patient) were recorded. Six observers assessed dPP manually in the first 8 patients (10-min interval, 53 measurements); no interobserver variability occurred using a computer-assisted method. Bland-Altman analysis showed acceptable bias and limits of agreement of the 2 automated methods compared with the manual method (RV: -0.33% +/- 8.72% and RV(slim): -1.74% +/- 7.97%). The difference between RV measurements and RV(slim) measurements is small (bias -1.05%, limits of agreement 5.67%)., Conclusions: Measurements of the automated device are comparable with measurements obtained by human observers, who use a computer-assisted method. The importance of the PAW signal is questionable.