The INTOXICATE study: methodology and preliminary results of a prospective observational study

Background There is currently no practice-based, multicenter database of poisoned patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs). The INTOXICATE study, endorsed by the ESICM and EAPCCT, aimed to determine the rate of eventful admissions among acutely intoxicated adult ICU patients. Methods Ethical approval was obtained for this multicenter, prospective observational study, and data-sharing agreements were signed with each participating center. An electronic case report form was used to collect data on patient demographics, exposure, clinical characteristics, investigations, treatment, and in-hospital mortality data. The primary outcome, ‘eventful admission’, was a composite outcome defined as the rate of patients who received any of the following treatments in the first 24 h after the ICU admission: oxygen supplementation with a FiO2 > 40%, mechanical ventilation, vasopressors, renal replacement therapy (RRT), cardiopulmonary resuscitation, antidotes, active cooling, fluid resuscitation (> 1.5 L of intravenous fluid of any kind), sedation, or who died in the hospital. Results Seventy-eight ICUs, mainly from Europe, but also from Australia and the Eastern Mediterranean, participated. A total of 2,273 patients were enrolled between November 2020 and June 2023. The median age of the patients was 41 years, 72% were exposed to intoxicating drugs. The observed rate of patients with an eventful ICU admission was 68% (n = 1546/2273 patients). The hospital mortality was 4.5% (n = 103/2273). Conclusions The vast majority of patients survive, and approximately one third of patients do not receive any ICU-specific interventions after admission in an intensive care unit for acute intoxication. High-quality detailed clinical data have been collected from a large cohort of acutely intoxicated ICU patients, providing information on the pattern of severe acute poisoning requiring intensive care admission and the outcomes of these patients. Trial registration: OSF registration ID: osf.io/7e5uy

Impact of opioid-free analgesia on pain severity and patient satisfaction after discharge from surgery: multispecialty, prospective cohort study in 25 countries

Background: Balancing opioid stewardship and the need for adequate analgesia following discharge after surgery is challenging. This study aimed to compare the outcomes for patients discharged with opioid versus opioid-free analgesia after common surgical procedures.Methods: This international, multicentre, prospective cohort study collected data from patients undergoing common acute and elective general surgical, urological, gynaecological, and orthopaedic procedures. The primary outcomes were patient-reported time in severe pain measured on a numerical analogue scale from 0 to 100% and patient-reported satisfaction with pain relief during the first week following discharge. Data were collected by in-hospital chart review and patient telephone interview 1 week after discharge.Results: The study recruited 4273 patients from 144 centres in 25 countries; 1311 patients (30.7%) were prescribed opioid analgesia at discharge. Patients reported being in severe pain for 10 (i.q.r. 1-30)% of the first week after discharge and rated satisfaction with analgesia as 90 (i.q.r. 80-100) of 100. After adjustment for confounders, opioid analgesia on discharge was independently associated with increased pain severity (risk ratio 1.52, 95% c.i. 1.31 to 1.76; P < 0.001) and re-presentation to healthcare providers owing to side-effects of medication (OR 2.38, 95% c.i. 1.36 to 4.17; P = 0.004), but not with satisfaction with analgesia (beta coefficient 0.92, 95% c.i. -1.52 to 3.36; P = 0.468) compared with opioid-free analgesia. Although opioid prescribing varied greatly between high-income and low- and middle-income countries, patient-reported outcomes did not.Conclusion: Opioid analgesia prescription on surgical discharge is associated with a higher risk of re-presentation owing to side-effects of medication and increased patient-reported pain, but not with changes in patient-reported satisfaction. Opioid-free discharge analgesia should be adopted routinely

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries

Work-related musculoskeletal complaints and ergonomic risk factors among Egyptian anesthesiologists: a cross-sectional study

Abstract Background Anesthesiologists are vulnerable to work-related musculoskeletal disorders (WMSDs) due to sustained repetitive movements and awkward postures. This study aimed to assess the prevalence of WMSDs among anesthesiologists and to evaluate its association with ergonomic risk factors. Methods A convenience sample of 380 Egyptian anesthesiologists were invited to participate in this cross-sectional study through an electronic questionnaire. Data were collected from May to August 2022 and involved questions about participants’ demographic, health, and work-related characteristics; the ergonomic risks and perceived hazards; and the musculoskeletal complaints during the past 12 months and 7 days - using Nordic Musculoskeletal Questionnaire (NMQ). Descriptive, bivariate, and multivariate statistical analyses were used to estimate the prevalence of MSD and identify its determinants in the studied sample. Results A total of 215 anesthesiologists were included in this study, with a 56.8% response rate, 66% males with an average age of 38 (± 0.7) years. 21% were resident physicians, 47% were specialists, and 32% were consultants. The 12-month prevalence of MSD among anesthesiologists was 71.6% (95% CI: 65.6– 77.7%). Multivariate analysis showed that the main determinants of MSD among the studied sample were age of 45-years and older (OR: 3.22, 95% CI: 1.21–8.52, p = 0.018), regular physical exercise (OR: 0.25, 95% CI: 0.10–0.65, p = 0.005), insufficient rest time between procedures (OR: 2.25, 95% CI: 1.15–4.41, p = 0.018), and three or more awkward postures of the trunk (OR: 3.55, 95% CI: 1.43–8.82, p = 0.006). Conclusions The study highlights a high prevalence of WMSDs among Egyptian anesthesiologists, linked to advancing age, lack of regular exercise, insufficient rest between procedures, and frequent awkward postures. Addressing these ergonomic risk factors through targeted workplace interventions is crucial for promoting the overall well-being of anesthesiologists and ensuring the provision of safe anesthesia services

Reducing the environmental impact of surgery on a global scale: systematic review and co-prioritization with healthcare workers in 132 countries

Abstract Background Healthcare cannot achieve net-zero carbon without addressing operating theatres. The aim of this study was to prioritize feasible interventions to reduce the environmental impact of operating theatres. Methods This study adopted a four-phase Delphi consensus co-prioritization methodology. In phase 1, a systematic review of published interventions and global consultation of perioperative healthcare professionals were used to longlist interventions. In phase 2, iterative thematic analysis consolidated comparable interventions into a shortlist. In phase 3, the shortlist was co-prioritized based on patient and clinician views on acceptability, feasibility, and safety. In phase 4, ranked lists of interventions were presented by their relevance to high-income countries and low–middle-income countries. Results In phase 1, 43 interventions were identified, which had low uptake in practice according to 3042 professionals globally. In phase 2, a shortlist of 15 intervention domains was generated. In phase 3, interventions were deemed acceptable for more than 90 per cent of patients except for reducing general anaesthesia (84 per cent) and re-sterilization of ‘single-use’ consumables (86 per cent). In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for high-income countries were: introducing recycling; reducing use of anaesthetic gases; and appropriate clinical waste processing. In phase 4, the top three shortlisted interventions for low–middle-income countries were: introducing reusable surgical devices; reducing use of consumables; and reducing the use of general anaesthesia. Conclusion This is a step toward environmentally sustainable operating environments with actionable interventions applicable to both high– and low–middle–income countries