Sex difference and intra-operative tidal volume: Insights from the LAS VEGAS study

BACKGROUND: One key element of lung-protective ventilation is the use of a low tidal volume (VT). A sex difference in use of low tidal volume ventilation (LTVV) has been described in critically ill ICU patients.OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to determine whether a sex difference in use of LTVV also exists in operating room patients, and if present what factors drive this difference.DESIGN, PATIENTS AND SETTING: This is a posthoc analysis of LAS VEGAS, a 1-week worldwide observational study in adults requiring intra-operative ventilation during general anaesthesia for surgery in 146 hospitals in 29 countries.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Women and men were compared with respect to use of LTVV, defined as VT of 8 ml kg-1 or less predicted bodyweight (PBW). A VT was deemed 'default' if the set VT was a round number. A mediation analysis assessed which factors may explain the sex difference in use of LTVV during intra-operative ventilation.RESULTS: This analysis includes 9864 patients, of whom 5425 (55%) were women. A default VT was often set, both in women and men; mode VT was 500 ml. Median [IQR] VT was higher in women than in men (8.6 [7.7 to 9.6] vs. 7.6 [6.8 to 8.4] ml kg-1 PBW, P < 0.001). Compared with men, women were twice as likely not to receive LTVV [68.8 vs. 36.0%; relative risk ratio 2.1 (95% CI 1.9 to 2.1), P < 0.001]. In the mediation analysis, patients' height and actual body weight (ABW) explained 81 and 18% of the sex difference in use of LTVV, respectively; it was not explained by the use of a default VT.CONCLUSION: In this worldwide cohort of patients receiving intra-operative ventilation during general anaesthesia for surgery, women received a higher VT than men during intra-operative ventilation. The risk for a female not to receive LTVV during surgery was double that of males. Height and ABW were the two mediators of the sex difference in use of LTVV.TRIAL REGISTRATION: The study was registered at Clinicaltrials.gov, NCT01601223

Ultrasound-guided central venous cannulation in bariatric patients

Background: Central venous catheterization may be difficult in morbidly obese patients because anatomic landmarks are often obscured. Methods: We evaluated the efficacy and safety of ultrasound-guided central venous cannulation in 55 patients undergoing bariatric surgery. The usefulness of ultrasonic examination combined with intraatrial electrocardiogram as a diagnostic tool for catheter misplacement was studied. Results: Preliminary ultrasound examination of the neck vessels demonstrated anatomical variations in the position of internal jugular vein in 19 cases and four unrecognized asymptomatic thromboses of the right internal jugular vein. Central venous catheterization was successful in all 55 patients, in 51 with single skin puncture, and in 42 with single vein puncture. In three cases in whom the catheter was misplaced, this was detected by bedside ultrasonic examination during the procedure and immediately corrected by real-time echographic visualization. No arterial puncture, no hematoma, and no pneumothorax occurred in any patient. Successful catheter placement was also confirmed in all patients by post-operative chest X-ray. No evidence of infection or thrombosis subsequently was noted. Conclusions: The use of ultrasound guidance may increase the success rate and decrease the incidence of complications associated with central venous cannulation. The advantages of this approach is visualization of the anatomical structures at puncture site prior to skin puncture and the ability to track needle and guide-wire placement during the procedure. With its high accuracy in detecting catheter misplacement, bedside ultrasonic examination combined with intraatrial electrocardiogram may further decrease morbidity associated with misplaced central venous catheters. © 2009 Springer Science + Business Media, LLC

Effects of Deep Versus Moderate Neuromuscular Blockade in Laparoscopic Gynecologic Surgery on Postoperative Pain and Surgical Conditions: Protocol for a Randomized Controlled Trial

Postoperative pain, especially shoulder pain, is commonly reported after laparoscopic gynecologic procedures. Some studies suggest that a lower insufflation pressure may reduce the risk of postoperative pain; however, there is no agreement on the optimal pneumoperitoneum pressure during gynecologic laparoscopic surgery or whether lower pressure would lead to clinically significant improvements without increasing operative complications. Questions remain regarding the clinical significance of improvements, safety, and cost-effectiveness of deep neuromuscular blockade with low-pressure pneumoperitoneum

Activity-based costing analysis of the analgesic treatments used in postoperative pain management in Italy

BACKGROUND: The aim of this analysis is to evaluate the costs of 72-hour postoperative pain treatment in patients undergoing major abdominal, orthopedic and thoracic procedures in nine different Italian hospitals, defined as the cumulative cost of drugs, consumable materials and time required for anesthesiologists, surgeons and nurses to administer each analgesic technique. METHODS: Nine Italian hospitals have been involved in this study through the administration of a questionnaire aimed to acquire information about the Italian clinical practice in terms of analgesia. This study uses activity-based costing (ABC) analysis to identify, measure and give value to the resources required to provide the therapeutic treatment used in Italy to manage the postoperative pain patients face after surgery. A deterministic sensitivity analysis (DSA) has been performed to identify the cost determinants mainly affecting the final cost of each treatment analyzed. Costs have been reclassified according to three surgical macro-areas (abdominal, orthopedic and thoracic) with the aim to recognize the cost associated not only to the analgesic technique adopted but also to the type of surgery the patient faced before undergoing the analgesic pathway. RESULTS: Fifteen different analgesic techniques have been identified for the treatment of moderate to severe pain in patients who underwent a major abdominal, orthopedic or thoracic surgery. The cheapest treatment actually employed is the oral administration "around the clock" (€ 8.23), whilst the most expensive is continuous peripheral nerve block (€ 223.46). The intravenous patient-controlled analgesia costs € 277.63. In terms of resources absorbed, the non-continuous administration via bolus is the gold standard in terms of cost-related to the drugs used (€ 1.28), and when administered pro re nata it also absorbs the lowest amount of consumables (€0.58€) compared to all other therapies requiring a delivery device. The oral analgesic administration pro re nata is associated to the lowest cost in terms of health professionals involved (€ 6.25), whilst intravenous PCA is the most expensive one (€ 245.66), requiring a massive monitoring on the part of physicians and nurses. CONCLUSIONS: The analysis successfully collected information about costs of 72-hour postoperative pain treatment in patients undergoing major abdominal, orthopedic and thoracic procedures in all the nine different Italian hospitals. The interview showed high heterogeneity in the treatment of moderate to severe pain after major abdominal, orthopedic and thoracic surgeries among responding anesthesiologists, with 15 different analgesic modalities reported. The majority of the analgesic techniques considered in the analysis is not recommended by any guideline and their application in real life can be one of the reasons for the high incidence of uncontrolled pain, which is still reported in the postoperative period. Health care costs have become more and more important, although the choice of the best analgesic treatment should be a compromise between efficacy and economic considerations

Patients' perception of postoperative pain management: validation of the International Pain Outcomes (IPO) questionnaire

UNLABELLED: PAIN OUT is a European Commission-funded project aiming at improving postoperative pain management. It combines a registry that can be useful for quality improvement and research using treatment and patient-reported outcome measures. The core of the project is a patient questionnaire-the International Pain Outcomes questionnaire-that comprises key patient-level outcomes of postoperative pain management, including pain intensity, physical and emotional functional interference, side effects, and perceptions of care. Its psychometric quality after translation and adaptation to European patients is the subject of this validation study. The questionnaire was administered to 9,727 patients in 10 languages in 8 European countries and Israel. Construct validity was assessed using factor analysis. Discriminant validity assessment used Mann-Whitney U tests to detect mean group differences between 2 surgical disciplines. Internal consistency reliability was calculated as Cronbach's alpha. Factor analysis resulted in a 3-factor structure explaining 53.6% of variance. Cronbach's alpha at overall scale level was high (.86), and for the 3 subscales was low, moderate, or high (range, .53-.89). Significant mean group differences between general and orthopedic surgery patients confirmed discriminant validity. The psychometric quality of the International Pain Outcomes questionnaire can be regarded as satisfactory. PERSPECTIVE: The International Pain Outcomes questionnaire provides an instrument for postoperative pain assessment and improvement of quality of care, which demonstrated good psychometric quality when translated into a variety of languages in a large European and Israeli patient population. This measure provides the basis for the first comprehensive postoperative pain registry in Europe and other countries

PAIN OUT: an international acute pain registry supporting clinicians in decision making and in quality improvement activities

Rationale, aims and objectives: Management of post‐operative pain is unsatisfactory worldwide. An estimated 240 million patients undergo surgery each year. Forty to 60% of these patients report clinically significant pain. Discrepancy exists between availability of evidence‐based medicine (EBM)‐derived knowledge about management of perioperative pain and increased implementation of related practices versus lack of improvement in patient‐reported outcomes (PROs). We aimed to assist health care providers to optimize perioperative pain management by developing and validating a medical registry that measures variability in care, identifies best pain management practices and assists clinicians in decision making. Methods: PAIN OUT was established from 2009 to 2012 with funding from the European Commission. It now continues as a self‐sustaining, not‐for‐profit project, targeting health care professionals caring for patients undergoing surgery. Results: The growing registry includes data from 40 898 patients, 60 hospitals and 17 countries. Collaborators upload data (demographics, clinical, PROs) from patients undergoing surgery in their hospital/ward into an Internet‐based portal. Two modules make use of the data: (1) online, immediate feedback and benchmarking compares PROs across sites while offline analysis permits in‐depth analysis; and (2) the case‐based clinical decision support system offers practice‐based treatment recommendations for individual patients; it is available now as a prototype. The Electronic Knowledge Library provides succinct summaries on perioperative pain management, supporting knowledge transfer and application of EBM. Conclusion: PAIN OUT, a large, growing international registry, allows use of ‘real‐life’ data related to management of perioperative pain. Ultimately, comparative analysis through audit, feedback and benchmarking will improve quality of care