Fraction of Inspired Oxygen During General Anesthesia for Non-Cardiac Surgery:Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

BACKGROUND: Controversy exists regarding the effects of a high versus a low intraoperative fraction of inspired oxygen (FiO(2)) in adults undergoing general anesthesia. This systematic review and meta‐analysis investigated the effect of a high versus a low FiO(2) on postoperative outcomes. METHODS: PubMed and Embase were searched on March 22, 2022 for randomized clinical trials investigating the effect of different FiO(2) levels in adults undergoing general anesthesia for non‐cardiac surgery. Two investigators independently reviewed studies for relevance, extracted data, and assessed risk of bias. Meta‐analyses were performed for relevant outcomes, and potential effect measure modification was assessed in subgroup analyses and meta‐regression. The evidence certainty was evaluated using GRADE. RESULTS: This review included 25 original trials investigating the effect of a high (mostly 80%) versus a low (mostly 30%) FiO(2). Risk of bias was intermediate for all trials. A high FiO(2) did not result in a significant reduction in surgical site infections (OR: 0.91, 95% CI 0.81–1.02 [p = .10]). No effect was found for all other included outcomes, including mortality (OR = 1.27, 95% CI: 0.90–1.79 [p = .18]) and hospital length of stay (mean difference = 0.03 days, 95% CI −0.25 to 0.30 [p = .84). Results from subgroup analyses and meta‐regression did not identify any clear effect modifiers across outcomes. The certainty of evidence (GRADE) was rated as low for most outcomes. CONCLUSIONS: In adults undergoing general anesthesia for non‐cardiac surgery, a high FiO(2) did not improve outcomes including surgical site infections, length of stay, or mortality. However, the certainty of the evidence was assessed as low

Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during general anaesthesia for noncardiac surgery:a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND: During general anaesthesia for noncardiac surgery, there remain knowledge gaps regarding the effect of goal-directed haemodynamic therapy on patient-centred outcomes. METHODS: Included clinical trials investigated goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during general anaesthesia in adults undergoing noncardiac surgery and reported at least one patient-centred postoperative outcome. PubMed and Embase were searched for relevant articles on March 8, 2021. Two investigators performed abstract screening, full-text review, data extraction, and bias assessment. The primary outcomes were mortality and hospital length of stay, whereas 15 postoperative complications were included based on availability. From a main pool of comparable trials, meta-analyses were performed on trials with homogenous outcome definitions. Certainty of evidence was evaluated using Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations (GRADE). RESULTS: The main pool consisted of 76 trials with intermediate risk of bias for most outcomes. Overall, goal-directed haemodynamic therapy might reduce mortality (odds ratio=0.84; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.64 to 1.09) and shorten length of stay (mean difference=–0.72 days; 95% CI, –1.10 to –0.35) but with low certainty in the evidence. For both outcomes, larger effects favouring goal-directed haemodynamic therapy were seen in abdominal surgery, very high-risk surgery, and using targets based on preload variation by the respiratory cycle. However, formal tests for subgroup differences were not statistically significant. Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy decreased risk of several postoperative outcomes, but only infectious outcomes and anastomotic leakage reached moderate certainty of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: Goal-directed haemodynamic therapy during general anaesthesia might decrease mortality, hospital length of stay, and several postoperative complications. Only infectious postoperative complications and anastomotic leakage reached moderate certainty in the evidence

Noninvasive ventilation in COVID-19 patients aged ≥ 70 years : a prospective multicentre cohort study

Background: Noninvasive ventilation (NIV) is a promising alternative to invasive mechanical ventilation (IMV) with a particular importance amidst the shortage of intensive care unit (ICU) beds during the COVID-19 pandemic. We aimed to evaluate the use of NIV in Europe and factors associated with outcomes of patients treated with NIV. Methods: This is a substudy of COVIP study-an international prospective observational study enrolling patients aged >= 70 years with confirmed COVID-19 treated in ICU. We enrolled patients in 156 ICUs across 15 European countries between March 2020 and April 2021.The primary endpoint was 30-day mortality. Results: Cohort included 3074 patients, most of whom were male (2197/3074, 71.4%) at the mean age of 75.7 years (SD 4.6). NIV frequency was 25.7% and varied from 1.1 to 62.0% between participating countries. Primary NIV failure, defined as need for endotracheal intubation or death within 30 days since ICU admission, occurred in 470/629 (74.7%) of patients. Factors associated with increased NIV failure risk were higher Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (OR 3.73, 95% CI 2.36-5.90) and Clinical Frailty Scale (CFS) on admission (OR 1.46, 95% CI 1.06-2.00). Patients initially treated with NIV (n = 630) lived for 1.36 fewer days (95% CI - 2.27 to - 0.46 days) compared to primary IMV group (n = 1876). Conclusions: Frequency of NIV use varies across European countries. Higher severity of illness and more severe frailty were associated with a risk of NIV failure among critically ill older adults with COVID-19. Primary IMV was associated with better outcomes than primary NIV

Increased 30-day mortality in very old ICU patients with COVID-19 compared to patients with respiratory failure without COVID-19

Purpose The number of patients >= 80 years admitted into critical care is increasing. Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) added another challenge for clinical decisions for both admission and limitation of life-sustaining treatments (LLST). We aimed to compare the characteristics and mortality of very old critically ill patients with or without COVID-19 with a focus on LLST. Methods Patients 80 years or older with acute respiratory failure were recruited from the VIP2 and COVIP studies. Baseline patient characteristics, interventions in intensive care unit (ICU) and outcomes (30-day survival) were recorded. COVID patients were matched to non-COVID patients based on the following factors: age (+/- 2 years), Sequential Organ Failure Assessment (SOFA) score (+/- 2 points), clinical frailty scale (+/- 1 point), gender and region on a 1:2 ratio. Specific ICU procedures and LLST were compared between the cohorts by means of cumulative incidence curves taking into account the competing risk of discharge and death. Results 693 COVID patients were compared to 1393 non-COVID patients. COVID patients were younger, less frail, less severely ill with lower SOFA score, but were treated more often with invasive mechanical ventilation (MV) and had a lower 30-day survival. 404 COVID patients could be matched to 666 non-COVID patients. For COVID patients, withholding and withdrawing of LST were more frequent than for non-COVID and the 30-day survival was almost half compared to non-COVID patients. Conclusion Very old COVID patients have a different trajectory than non-COVID patients. Whether this finding is due to a decision policy with more active treatment limitation or to an inherent higher risk of death due to COVID-19 is unclear