Airway management in anesthesia for thoracic surgery: a "real life" observational study

Background: One-lung ventilation (OLV) in thoracic anesthesia is required to provide good surgical exposure. OLV is commonly achieved through a double lumen tube (DLT) or a bronchial blocker (BB). Malposition is a relevant issue related to these devices use. No prospective studies with adequately large sample size have been performed to evaluate the malposition rate of DLTS and BBs.Methods: A total of 2,127 patients requiring OLV during thoracic surgery were enrolled. The aim of this multicenter prospective observational study performed across 26 academic and community hospitals is to evaluate intraoperative malposition rate of DLTs and BBs. We also aim to assess: which device is the most used to achieve OLV, the frequency of bronchoscope (BRO) use, the incidence rate of desaturation during OLV and the role of other factors that can correlate to this event, and incidence of difficult airway.Results: Malposition rate for DLTs was 14%, for BBs 33%. DLTs were used in 95% of patients and BBs in 5%. Mean positioning time was shorter for DLT than BB (156 +/- 230 vs. 321 +/- 290 s). BRO was used in 54% of patients to check the correct positioning of the DLT. Desaturation occurred in 20% of all cases during OLV achieved through a DLT. Predicting factors of desaturation were dislocation (OR 2.03) and big size of DLT (OR 1.15). BRO use (OR 0.69) and left surgical side (OR 0.41) proved to be protective factors. Difficult airway prevalence was 16%; 10.8% predicted and 5.2% unpredicted.Conclusions: DLT has a low malpositioning rate and is the preferred device to achieve OLV. BRO use recorded was unexpectedly low. The possibility of encountering a difficult airway is frequent, with an overall prevalence of 16%. Risk factors of desaturation are malposition and increased size of DLT. Left procedures and BRO use could lead to fewer episodes of desaturation

The surgical safety checklist and patient outcomes after surgery: a prospective observational cohort study, systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: The surgical safety checklist is widely used to improve the quality of perioperative care. However, clinicians continue to debate the clinical effectiveness of this tool. Methods: Prospective analysis of data from the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), an international observational study of elective in-patient surgery, accompanied by a systematic review and meta-analysis of published literature. The exposure was surgical safety checklist use. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and the secondary outcome was postoperative complications. In the ISOS cohort, a multivariable multi-level generalized linear model was used to test associations. To further contextualise these findings, we included the results from the ISOS cohort in a meta-analysis. Results are reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. Results: We included 44 814 patients from 497 hospitals in 27 countries in the ISOS analysis. There were 40 245 (89.8%) patients exposed to the checklist, whilst 7508 (16.8%) sustained ≥1 postoperative complications and 207 (0.5%) died before hospital discharge. Checklist exposure was associated with reduced mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.49 (0.32-0.77); P<0.01], but no difference in complication rates [OR 1.02 (0.88-1.19); P=0.75]. In a systematic review, we screened 3732 records and identified 11 eligible studies of 453 292 patients including the ISOS cohort. Checklist exposure was associated with both reduced postoperative mortality [OR 0.75 (0.62-0.92); P<0.01; I2=87%] and reduced complication rates [OR 0.73 (0.61-0.88); P<0.01; I2=89%). Conclusions: Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine

The surgical safety checklist and patient outcomes after surgery: a prospective observational cohort study, systematic review and meta-analysis

© 2017 British Journal of Anaesthesia Background: The surgical safety checklist is widely used to improve the quality of perioperative care. However, clinicians continue to debate the clinical effectiveness of this tool. Methods: Prospective analysis of data from the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), an international observational study of elective in-patient surgery, accompanied by a systematic review and meta-analysis of published literature. The exposure was surgical safety checklist use. The primary outcome was in-hospital mortality and the secondary outcome was postoperative complications. In the ISOS cohort, a multivariable multi-level generalized linear model was used to test associations. To further contextualise these findings, we included the results from the ISOS cohort in a meta-analysis. Results are reported as odds ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals. Results: We included 44 814 patients from 497 hospitals in 27 countries in the ISOS analysis. There were 40 245 (89.8%) patients exposed to the checklist, whilst 7508 (16.8%) sustained ≥1 postoperative complications and 207 (0.5%) died before hospital discharge. Checklist exposure was associated with reduced mortality [odds ratio (OR) 0.49 (0.32–0.77); P\u3c0.01], but no difference in complication rates [OR 1.02 (0.88–1.19); P=0.75]. In a systematic review, we screened 3732 records and identified 11 eligible studies of 453 292 patients including the ISOS cohort. Checklist exposure was associated with both reduced postoperative mortality [OR 0.75 (0.62–0.92); P\u3c0.01; I2=87%] and reduced complication rates [OR 0.73 (0.61–0.88); P\u3c0.01; I2=89%). Conclusions: Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine