Diagnosis and management of respiratory adverse events in the operating room

Perioperative respiratory adverse events cause more than three-quarters of all perioperative critical incidents in pediatric anesthesia and approximately half of anesthesia-related cardiac arrests. We can define seven main clinical types of perioperative respiratory adverse events: upper airway obstruction, laryngospasm, bronchospasm, severe persistent cough, apnea, stridor, and oxygen desaturation. Depending on the definitions used for preoperative respiratory adverse events and the cohort of children examined, the incidence varies between 8 and 21 %. This review discusses the recognition and treatment of perioperative respiratory adverse events. Furthermore, it provides guidance on how to identify children who are at increased risk for developing perioperative respiratory adverse events and how to tailor the perioperative anesthetic management for the individual child in order to minimize the risk of perioperative respiratory adverse events

An update on the perioperative management of children with upper respiratory tract infections

Purpose of review: This review summarises the current evidence for the management for children with recent upper respiratory tract infections. Furthermore, the review includes management guidelines for children with upper respiratory tract infections. Recent findings: Good history and clinical examination is sufficient in most children presenting with URTI. Testing for immune markers or preoperative NO measurement does not add any additional value. Preoperative bronchodilator administration, iv induction with propofol and non-invasive airway management all reduce the occurrence of respiratory adverse events. Summary: Most children can be safely anaesthetised even in the presence of an upper respiratory tract infection if the perioperative anaesthesia management is optimised. In this review article we have included a management algorithm for children with URTI presenting for elective surgery

Abdominal compliance: A bench-to-bedside review

Abdominal compliance is an important determinant and predictor of available workspace during laparoscopic surgery. Furthermore, critically ill patients with a reduced abdominal compliance are at an increased risk of developing intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome both of which are associated with high morbidity and mortality. Despite of this, abdominal compliance is a concept, which has been neglected in the past. Abdominal compliance is defined as a measure of the ease of abdominal expansion, expressed as a change in intra-abdominal volume per change in intra-abdominal pressure: abdominal compliance = delta intra-abdominal volume / delta intra-abdominal pressure. AC is a dynamic variable, dependent on base-line IAV and IAP as well as reshaping and stretching capacity. Whereas abdominal compliance itself can only rarely be measured, it always needs to be considered an important component of intra-abdominal pressure. Patients with decreased abdominal compliance are prone to fulminant development of abdominal compartment syndrome when concomitant risk factors for intra-abdominal hypertension are present. This review aims to clarify the pressure-volume relationship within the abdominal cavity. It highlights how different conditions and pathologies can affect abdominal compliance and which management strategies could be applied to avoid serious consequences of decreased abdominal compliance. We have pooled all available human data to calculate abdominal compliance values in patients acutely and chronically exposed to intra-abdominal hypertension and demonstrated an exponential abdominal pressure-volume relationship. Most importantly, patients with high level of intra-abdominal pressure have a reduced abdominal compliance. In these patients, only small reduction in intra-abdominal volume can significantly increase abdominal compliance and reduce intra-abdominal pressures. A greater knowledge on abdominal compliance may help in selecting a better surgical approach as well as reducing complications related to intra-abdominal hypertension

The respiratory pressure-abdominal volume curve in a porcine model

Background: Increasing intra-abdominal volume (IAV) can lead to intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) or abdominal compartment syndrome. Both are associated with raised morbidity and mortality. IAH can increase airway pressures and impair ventilation. The relationship between increasing IAV and airway pressures is not known. We therefore assessed the effect of increasing IAV on airway and intra-abdominal pressures (IAP). Methods: Seven pigs (41.4 +/−8.5 kg) received standardized anesthesia and mechanical ventilation. A latex balloon inserted in the peritoneal cavity was inflated in 1-L increments until IAP exceeded 40 cmH2O. Peak airway pressure (pPAW), respiratory compliance, and IAP (bladder pressure) were measured. Abdominal compliance was calculated. Different equations were tested that best described the measured pressure-volume curves. Results: An exponential equation best described the measured pressure-volume curves. Raising IAV increased pPAW and IAP in an exponential manner. Increases in IAP were associated with parallel increases in pPAW with an approximate 40% transmission of IAP to pPAW. The higher the IAP, the greater IAV effected pPAW and IAP. Conclusions: The exponential nature of the effect of IAV on pPAW and IAP implies that, in the presence of high grades of IAH, small reductions in IAV can lead to significant reductions in airway and abdominal pressures. Conversely, in the presence of normal IAP levels, large increases in IAV may not affect airway and abdominal pressures

Commonly applied positive end-expiratory pressures do not prevent functional residual capacity decline in the setting of intra-abdominal hypertension: a pig model

Introduction Intra-abdominal hypertension is common in critically ill patients and is associated with increased morbidity and mortality. The optimal ventilation strategy remains unclear in these patients. We examined the effect of positive end-expiratory pressures (PEEP) on functional residual capacity (FRC) and oxygen delivery in a pig model of intra-abdominal hypertension. Methods Thirteen adult pigs received standardised anaesthesia and ventilation. We randomised three levels of intra-abdominal pressure (3 mmHg (baseline), 18 mmHg, and 26 mmHg) and four commonly applied levels of PEEP (5, 8, 12 and 15 cmH2O). Intra-abdominal pressures were generated by inflating an intra-abdominal balloon. We measured intra-abdominal (bladder) pressure, functional residual capacity, cardiac output, haemoglobin and oxygen saturation, and calculated oxygen delivery. Results Raised intra-abdominal pressure decreased FRC but did not change cardiac output. PEEP increased FRC at baseline intra-abdominal pressure. The decline in FRC with raised intra-abdominal pressure was partly reversed by PEEP at 18 mmHg intra-abdominal pressure and not at all at 26 mmHg intra-abdominal pressure. PEEP significantly decreased cardiac output and oxygen delivery at baseline and at 26 mmHg intra-abdominal pressure but not at 18 mmHg intra-abdominal pressure. Conclusions In a pig model of intra-abdominal hypertension, PEEP up to 15 cmH2O did not prevent the FRC decline caused by intra-abdominal hypertension and was associated with reduced oxygen delivery as a consequence of reduced cardiac output. This implies that PEEP levels inferior to the corresponding intra-abdominal pressures cannot be recommended to prevent FRC decline in the setting of intra-abdominal hypertension

Incidence, Risk Factors, and Outcomes of Intra-Abdominal Hypertension in Critically Ill Patients-A Prospective Multicenter Study (IROI Study)

To identify the prevalence, risk factors, and outcomes of intra-abdominal hypertension in a mixed multicenter ICU population. Prospective observational study. Fifteen ICUs worldwide. Consecutive adult ICU patients with a bladder catheter. None. Four hundred ninety-one patients were included. Intra-abdominal pressure was measured a minimum of every 8 hours. Subjects with a mean intra-abdominal pressure equal to or greater than 12 mm Hg were defined as having intra-abdominal hypertension. Intra-abdominal hypertension was present in 34.0% of the patients on the day of ICU admission (159/467) and in 48.9% of the patients (240/491) during the observation period. The severity of intra-abdominal hypertension was as follows: grade I, 47.5%; grade II, 36.6%; grade III, 11.7%; and grade IV, 4.2%. The severity of intra-abdominal hypertension during the first 2 weeks of the ICU stay was identified as an independent predictor of 28-and 90-day mortality, whereas the presence of intra-abdominal hypertension on the day of ICU admission did not predict mortality. Body mass index, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II score greater than or equal to 18, presence of abdominal distension, absence of bowel sounds, and positive end-expiratory pressure greater than or equal to 7 cm H2O were independently associated with the development of intra-abdominal hypertension at any time during the observation period. In subjects without intra-abdominal hypertension on day 1, body mass index combined with daily positive fluid balance and positive end-expiratory pressure greater than or equal to 7 cm H2O (as documented on the day before intra-abdominal hypertension occurred) were-associated with the development of intraabdominal hypertension during the first week in the ICU. In our mixed ICU patient cohort, intra-abdominal hypertension occurred in almost half of all subjects and was twice as prevalent in mechanically ventilated patients as in spontaneously breathing patients. Presence and severity of intra-abdominal hypertension during the observation period significantly and independently increased 28-and 90-day mortality. Five admission day variables were independently associated with the presence or development of intra-abdominal hypertension. Positive fluid balance was associated with the development of intra-abdominal hypertension after day 1474535542NIGMS NIH HHSUnited States Department of Health & Human ServicesNational Institutes of Health (NIH) - USANIH National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) [U54 GM104940

Effect of Hydrocortisone on Mortality and Organ Support in Patients With Severe COVID-19: The REMAP-CAP COVID-19 Corticosteroid Domain Randomized Clinical Trial.

Importance: Evidence regarding corticosteroid use for severe coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is limited. Objective: To determine whether hydrocortisone improves outcome for patients with severe COVID-19. Design, Setting, and Participants: An ongoing adaptive platform trial testing multiple interventions within multiple therapeutic domains, for example, antiviral agents, corticosteroids, or immunoglobulin. Between March 9 and June 17, 2020, 614 adult patients with suspected or confirmed COVID-19 were enrolled and randomized within at least 1 domain following admission to an intensive care unit (ICU) for respiratory or cardiovascular organ support at 121 sites in 8 countries. Of these, 403 were randomized to open-label interventions within the corticosteroid domain. The domain was halted after results from another trial were released. Follow-up ended August 12, 2020. Interventions: The corticosteroid domain randomized participants to a fixed 7-day course of intravenous hydrocortisone (50 mg or 100 mg every 6 hours) (n = 143), a shock-dependent course (50 mg every 6 hours when shock was clinically evident) (n = 152), or no hydrocortisone (n = 108). Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary end point was organ support-free days (days alive and free of ICU-based respiratory or cardiovascular support) within 21 days, where patients who died were assigned -1 day. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model that included all patients enrolled with severe COVID-19, adjusting for age, sex, site, region, time, assignment to interventions within other domains, and domain and intervention eligibility. Superiority was defined as the posterior probability of an odds ratio greater than 1 (threshold for trial conclusion of superiority >99%). Results: After excluding 19 participants who withdrew consent, there were 384 patients (mean age, 60 years; 29% female) randomized to the fixed-dose (n = 137), shock-dependent (n = 146), and no (n = 101) hydrocortisone groups; 379 (99%) completed the study and were included in the analysis. The mean age for the 3 groups ranged between 59.5 and 60.4 years; most patients were male (range, 70.6%-71.5%); mean body mass index ranged between 29.7 and 30.9; and patients receiving mechanical ventilation ranged between 50.0% and 63.5%. For the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively, the median organ support-free days were 0 (IQR, -1 to 15), 0 (IQR, -1 to 13), and 0 (-1 to 11) days (composed of 30%, 26%, and 33% mortality rates and 11.5, 9.5, and 6 median organ support-free days among survivors). The median adjusted odds ratio and bayesian probability of superiority were 1.43 (95% credible interval, 0.91-2.27) and 93% for fixed-dose hydrocortisone, respectively, and were 1.22 (95% credible interval, 0.76-1.94) and 80% for shock-dependent hydrocortisone compared with no hydrocortisone. Serious adverse events were reported in 4 (3%), 5 (3%), and 1 (1%) patients in the fixed-dose, shock-dependent, and no hydrocortisone groups, respectively. Conclusions and Relevance: Among patients with severe COVID-19, treatment with a 7-day fixed-dose course of hydrocortisone or shock-dependent dosing of hydrocortisone, compared with no hydrocortisone, resulted in 93% and 80% probabilities of superiority with regard to the odds of improvement in organ support-free days within 21 days. However, the trial was stopped early and no treatment strategy met prespecified criteria for statistical superiority, precluding definitive conclusions. Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT02735707

Effect of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitor and angiotensin receptor blocker initiation on organ support-free days in patients hospitalized with COVID-19

IMPORTANCE Overactivation of the renin-angiotensin system (RAS) may contribute to poor clinical outcomes in patients with COVID-19. Objective To determine whether angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitor or angiotensin receptor blocker (ARB) initiation improves outcomes in patients hospitalized for COVID-19. DESIGN, SETTING, AND PARTICIPANTS In an ongoing, adaptive platform randomized clinical trial, 721 critically ill and 58 non–critically ill hospitalized adults were randomized to receive an RAS inhibitor or control between March 16, 2021, and February 25, 2022, at 69 sites in 7 countries (final follow-up on June 1, 2022). INTERVENTIONS Patients were randomized to receive open-label initiation of an ACE inhibitor (n = 257), ARB (n = 248), ARB in combination with DMX-200 (a chemokine receptor-2 inhibitor; n = 10), or no RAS inhibitor (control; n = 264) for up to 10 days. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES The primary outcome was organ support–free days, a composite of hospital survival and days alive without cardiovascular or respiratory organ support through 21 days. The primary analysis was a bayesian cumulative logistic model. Odds ratios (ORs) greater than 1 represent improved outcomes. RESULTS On February 25, 2022, enrollment was discontinued due to safety concerns. Among 679 critically ill patients with available primary outcome data, the median age was 56 years and 239 participants (35.2%) were women. Median (IQR) organ support–free days among critically ill patients was 10 (–1 to 16) in the ACE inhibitor group (n = 231), 8 (–1 to 17) in the ARB group (n = 217), and 12 (0 to 17) in the control group (n = 231) (median adjusted odds ratios of 0.77 [95% bayesian credible interval, 0.58-1.06] for improvement for ACE inhibitor and 0.76 [95% credible interval, 0.56-1.05] for ARB compared with control). The posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitors and ARBs worsened organ support–free days compared with control were 94.9% and 95.4%, respectively. Hospital survival occurred in 166 of 231 critically ill participants (71.9%) in the ACE inhibitor group, 152 of 217 (70.0%) in the ARB group, and 182 of 231 (78.8%) in the control group (posterior probabilities that ACE inhibitor and ARB worsened hospital survival compared with control were 95.3% and 98.1%, respectively). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE In this trial, among critically ill adults with COVID-19, initiation of an ACE inhibitor or ARB did not improve, and likely worsened, clinical outcomes. TRIAL REGISTRATION ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT0273570