The SAFE-trial:Safe surgery for glioblastoma multiforme: Awake craniotomy versus surgery under general anesthesia. Study. protocol for a multicenter prospective randomized controlled trial

Background: Surgery of GBM nowadays is usually performed under general anesthesia (GA) and resections are often not as aggressive as possible, due to the chance of seriously damaging the patient with a rather low life expectancy. A surgical technique optimizing resection of the tumor in eloquent areas but preventing neurological deficits is necessary to improve survival and quality of life in these patients. Awake craniotomy (AC) with the use of cortical and subcortical stimulation has been widely implemented for low-grade glioma resections (LGG), but not yet for GBM. AC has shown to increase resection percentage and preserve quality of life in LGG and could thus be of important value in GBM surgery. Methods/design: This study is a prospective, multicenter, randomized controlled trial (RCT). Consecutive patients with a glioblastoma in or near eloquent areas (Sawaya grading II/III) will be 1:1 randomized to awake craniotomy or craniotomy under general anesthesia. 246 patients will be included in neurosurgical centers in the Netherlands and Belgium. Primary end-points are: 1) Postoperative neurological morbidity and 2) Proportion of patients with gross-total resections. Secondary end-points are: 1) Health-related quality of life; 2) Progression-free survival (PFS); 3) Overall survival (OS) and 4) Frequency and severity of Serious Adverse Effects in each group. Also, a cost-benefit analysis will be performed. All patients will receive standard adjuvant treatment with concomitant chemoradiotherapy. Discussion: This RCT should demonstrate whether AC is superior to craniotomy under GA on neurological morbidity, extent of resection and survival for glioblastoma resections in or near eloquent areas. Trial registration: Clinicaltrials.gov: NCT03861299 Netherlands Trial Register (NTR): NL758

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

Funder: European Society of Intensive Care Medicine; doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100013347Funder: Flemish Society for Critical Care NursesAbstract: Purpose: Intensive care unit (ICU) patients are particularly susceptible to developing pressure injuries. Epidemiologic data is however unavailable. We aimed to provide an international picture of the extent of pressure injuries and factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries in adult ICU patients. Methods: International 1-day point-prevalence study; follow-up for outcome assessment until hospital discharge (maximum 12 weeks). Factors associated with ICU-acquired pressure injury and hospital mortality were assessed by generalised linear mixed-effects regression analysis. Results: Data from 13,254 patients in 1117 ICUs (90 countries) revealed 6747 pressure injuries; 3997 (59.2%) were ICU-acquired. Overall prevalence was 26.6% (95% confidence interval [CI] 25.9–27.3). ICU-acquired prevalence was 16.2% (95% CI 15.6–16.8). Sacrum (37%) and heels (19.5%) were most affected. Factors independently associated with ICU-acquired pressure injuries were older age, male sex, being underweight, emergency surgery, higher Simplified Acute Physiology Score II, Braden score 3 days, comorbidities (chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, immunodeficiency), organ support (renal replacement, mechanical ventilation on ICU admission), and being in a low or lower-middle income-economy. Gradually increasing associations with mortality were identified for increasing severity of pressure injury: stage I (odds ratio [OR] 1.5; 95% CI 1.2–1.8), stage II (OR 1.6; 95% CI 1.4–1.9), and stage III or worse (OR 2.8; 95% CI 2.3–3.3). Conclusion: Pressure injuries are common in adult ICU patients. ICU-acquired pressure injuries are associated with mainly intrinsic factors and mortality. Optimal care standards, increased awareness, appropriate resource allocation, and further research into optimal prevention are pivotal to tackle this important patient safety threat

Correction to: Prevalence, associated factors and outcomes of pressure injuries in adult intensive care unit patients: the DecubICUs study

The original version of this article unfortunately contained a mistake

Global comparison of awake and asleep mapping procedures in glioma surgery: An international multicenter survey.

Background Mapping techniques are frequently used to preserve neurological function during glioma surgery. There is, however, no consensus regarding the use of many variables of these techniques. Currently, there are almost no objective data available about potential heterogeneity between surgeons and centers. The goal of this survey is therefore to globally identify, evaluate and analyze the local mapping procedures in glioma surgery. Methods The survey was distributed to members of the neurosurgical societies of the Netherlands (Nederlandse Vereniging voor Neurochirurgie-NVVN), Europe (European Association of Neurosurgical Societies-EANS), and the United States (Congress of Neurological Surgeons-CNS) between December 2020 and January 2021 with questions about awake mapping, asleep mapping, assessment of neurological morbidity, and decision making. Results Survey responses were obtained from 212 neurosurgeons from 42 countries. Overall, significant differences were observed for equipment and its settings that are used for both awake and asleep mapping, intraoperative assessment of eloquent areas, the use of surgical adjuncts and monitoring, anesthesia management, assessment of neurological morbidity, and perioperative decision making. Academic practices performed awake and asleep mapping procedures more often and employed a clinical neurophysiologist with telemetric monitoring more frequently. European neurosurgeons differed from US neurosurgeons regarding the modality for cortical/subcortical mapping and awake/asleep mapping, the use of surgical adjuncts, and anesthesia management during awake mapping. Discussion This survey demonstrates the heterogeneity among surgeons and centers with respect to their procedures for awake mapping, asleep mapping, assessing neurological morbidity, and decision making in glioma patients. These data invite further evaluations for key variables that can be optimized and may therefore benefit from consensus

Decision making and surgical modality selection in glioblastoma patients: an international multicenter survey.

PURPOSE Due to the lack of consensus on the management of glioblastoma patients, there exists variability amongst surgeons and centers regarding treatment decisions. Though, objective data about the extent of this heterogeneity is still lacking. We aim to evaluate and analyze the similarities and differences in neurosurgical practice patterns. METHODS The survey was distributed to members of the neurosurgical societies of the Netherlands (NVVN), Europe (EANS), the United Kingdom (SBNS) and the United States (CNS) between January and March 2021 with questions about the selection of surgical modality and decision making in glioblastoma patients. RESULTS Survey respondents (224 neurosurgeons) were from 41 countries. Overall, the most notable differences observed were the presence and timing of a multidisciplinary tumor board; the importance and role of various perioperative factors in the decision-making process, and the preferred treatment in various glioblastoma cases and case variants. Tumor boards were more common at academic centers. The intended extent of resection for glioblastoma resections in eloquent areas was limited more often in European neurosurgeons. We found a strong relationship between the surgeon's theoretical survey answers and their actual approach in presented patient cases. In general, the factors which were found to be theoretically the most important in surgical decision making were confirmed to influence the respondents' decisions to the greatest extent in practice as well. DISCUSSION This survey illustrates the theoretical and practical heterogeneity among surgeons and centers in their decision making and treatment selection for glioblastoma patients. These data invite further evaluations to identify key variables that can be optimized and may therefore benefit from consensus