Search

Background: Thyroid storm is a feared complication in patients with hyperthyroidism undergoing surgery. We assessed the risk of thyroid storm for different preoperative treatment options for patients with primary hyperthyroidism undergoing surgery.Methods: Pubmed, EMBASE, and The Cochrane Library were searched systematically for all studies reporting on adult hyperthyroid patients undergoing elective surgery under general anaesthesia. Selected studies were categorised based on preoperative treatment: no treatment, antithyroid medication (thionamides), iodine, β-blocking medication, or a combination thereof. Treatment effect, that is restoring euthyroidism, was extracted from the publications if available. Risk of bias was assessed using the Risk of Bias in Non-randomised Studies of Interventions (ROBINS-I) or the Cochrane Risk of Bias tool for randomised studies.Results: The search yielded 7009 articles, of which 26 studies published between 1975 and 2020 were selected for critical appraisal. All studies had moderate to critical risk of bias, mainly attributable to risk of confounding, classification of intervention status, and definition of the outcome. All studies reported on thyroidectomy patients. We found no randomised studies comparing the risk of thyroid storm between treated and untreated patients. Cases of thyroid storm were reported in all treatment groups with incidences described ranging from 0% to 14%.Conclusion: Evidence assessing the risk of perioperative thyroid storm is of insufficient quality. Given the seriousness of this complication and the impossibility of identifying patients at increased risk, preoperative treatment of these patients remains warranted. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To describe the risk of postoperative delirium and long-term psychopathology (depression, anxiety or post-traumatic stress syndrome (PTSS)) in older adults.Methods: 255 elderly patients (≥ 65 years) undergoing major surgery (planned surgical time > 60 min) in a tertiary hospital were compared to 76 non-surgical controls from general practice. Patients were assessed twice daily for postoperative delirium using the Confusion Assessment Method (CAM(-ICU)), nursing delirium screening scale (NuDESC) and validated chart review. Before surgery and 3 and 12 months thereafter, the participants filled in the Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale (HADS), the Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS-15) and the Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome-14-Questions Inventory (PTSS-14). Non-surgical controls filled in the same questionnaires with similar follow-up.Results: Patients were more often male, had higher American Society of Anesthesiologists scores and more often had a spouse compared to controls (p < 0.005). Forty-three patients (18%) developed postoperative delirium, who were significantly older, had higher ASA scores and lower estimated IQ scores compared to the patients who did not develop delirium (p < 0.05). There were no differences in psychopathology at baseline and 3-month follow-up between patients and controls. At 12-months, surgical patients less frequently scored positive for depression (7% versus 16%) and anxiety (2% versus 10%) compared to nonsurgical controls (p < 0.05). We did not observe differences in occurrence of psychopathology between patients who had and had not developed postoperative delirium.Conclusion: Our results suggest that the older surgical population, with or without postoperative delirium, does not appear to be at greater risk of developing psychopathology. WHY DOES THIS PAPER MATTER?: The older surgical population does not appear to be at greater risk of developing psychopathology, neither seems this risk influenced by the occurrence of postoperative delirium. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Aim: Knowledge of risk factors may provide strategies to reduce the high burden of delirium in intensive care unit (ICU) patients. We aimed to compare the risk of delirium after deep sedation with propofol versus midazolam in ICU patients. Methods: In this prospective cohort study, ICU patients who were in an unarousable state for ≥24 h due to continuous sedation with propofol and/or midazolam were included. Patients admitted ≤24 h, those with an acute neurological disorder and those receiving palliative sedation were excluded. ICU patients were assessed daily for delirium during the 7 days following an unarousable state due to continuous sedation. Results: Among 950 included patients, 605 (64%) subjects were delirious during the 7 days after awaking. The proportion of subsequent delirium was higher after midazolam sedation (152/207 [73%] patients) and after both propofol and midazolam sedation (257/377 [68%] patients), compared to propofol sedation only (196/366 [54%] patients). Midazolam sedation (adjusted cause‐specific hazard ratio [adj. cause‐specific HR] 1.32, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.05‐1.66) and propofol and midazolam sedation (adj. cause‐specific HR 1.29, 95% CI 1.06‐1.56) were associated with a higher risk of subsequent delirium compared to propofol sedation only. Conclusion: This study among sedated ICU patients suggests that, compared to propofol sedation, midazolam sedation is associated with a higher risk of subsequent delirium. This risk seems more apparent in patients with high cumulative midazolam intravenous doses. Our findings underpin the recommendations of the Society of Critical Care Medicine Pain, Agitation/sedation, Delirium, Immobility (rehabilitation/mobilization), and Sleep (disruption) guidelines to use propofol over benzodiazepines for sedation in ICU patients. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]