The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the length of management of polytraumatized patients in the emergency department

INTRODUCTION: The personal protective equipment used by healthcare workers and special institutional protocols during the COVID-19 pandemic could potentially slow down the usual management of trauma patients. OBJECTIVE: To examine the difference in the length of management of polytraumatized patients in the emergency department (ED) before and during the COVID-19 pandemic. MATERIAL AND METHODS: The study was designed as a case-control study and included 52 polytraumatized patients who were admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) after being managed in the ED of Osijek University Hospital. Data were collected from the hospital information system and included patients from March 2019 to February 2020 (pre-pandemic group) and from March 2020 to February 2021 (COVID-19 pandemic group). RESULTS: Differences in the duration of diagnostics in the ED, the duration of surgery, and the time required for admission to the ICU before and during the COVID-19 pandemic were examined. The duration of diagnostics of polytraumatized patients in the ED before vs during the pandemic was 98 (76–120) and 92 (68–167) minutes, p = 0.79, respectively. 16 (64%) patients in the pre-pandemic and 18 (67%) in the pandemic group needed emergency surgery. The time required for admission to the ICU from the beginning of management in the ED, after accounting for the duration of surgery was 128 (91.5–208.5) and 145 (110–755) minutes, p = 0.09, in pre-pandemic vs pandemic group, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic did not have a significant impact on the length of management for polytraumatized patients admitted to the ICU

Different Pharmacokinetics of Tramadol, O-Demethyltramadol and N-Demethyltramadol in Postoperative Surgical Patients From Those Observed in Medical Patients

Background: Most studies examining tramadol metabolism have been carried out in non-surgical patients and with oral tramadol. The aim of this study was 1) to measure concentrations of tramadol, O-demethyltramadol (ODT), and N-demethyltramadol (NDT) in the surgical patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) within the first 24 postoperative hours after intravenous application of tramadol, and 2) to examine the effect of systemic inflammation on tramadol metabolism and postoperative pain.Methods: A prospective observational study was carried out in the surgical ICU in the tertiary hospital. In the group of 47 subsequent patients undergoing major abdominal surgery, pre-operative blood samples were taken for CYP2D6 polymorphism analysis. Systemic inflammation was assessed based on laboratory and clinical indicators. All patients received 100 mg of tramadol intravenously every 6 h during the first postoperative day. Postoperative pain was assessed before and 30 min after tramadol injections. Tramadol, ODT, and NDT concentrations were determined by high-performance liquid chromatography.Results:CYP2D6 analysis revealed 2 poor (PM), 22 intermediate (IM), 22 extensive (EM), and 1 ultrafast metabolizer. After a dose of 100 mg of tramadol, t1/2 of 4.8 (3.2–7.6) h was observed. There were no differences in tramadol concentration among metabolic phenotypes. The area under the concentration–time curve at the first dose interval (AUC1-6) of tramadol was 1,200 (917.9–1944.4) μg ×h ×L−1. NDT concentrations in UM were below the limit of quantification until the second dose of tramadol was administrated, while PM had higher NDT concentrations compared to EM and IM. ODT concentrations were higher in EM, compared to IM and PM. ODT AUC1-6 was 229.6 (137.7–326.2) μg ×h ×L−1 and 95.5 (49.1–204.3) μg ×h ×L−1 in EM and IM, respectively (p = 0.004). Preoperative cholinesterase activity (ChE) of ≤4244 U L−1 was a cut-off value for a prediction of systemic inflammation in an early postoperative period. NDT AUC1-6 were significantly higher in patients with low ChE compared with normal ChE patients (p = 0.006). Pain measurements have confirmed that sufficient pain control was achieved in all patients after the second tramadol dose, except in the PM.Conclusions:CYP2D6 polymorphism is a major factor in O-demethylation, while systemic inflammation accompanied by low ChE has an important role in the N-demethylation of tramadol in postoperative patients. Concentrations of tramadol, ODT, and NDT are lower in surgical patients than previously reported in non-surgical patients.Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT04004481

Advances in Analgosedation and Periprocedural Care for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

The number and complexity of endoscopic gastrointestinal diagnostic and therapeutic procedures is globally increasing. Procedural analgosedation during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has become the gold standard of gastrointestinal endoscopies. Patient satisfaction and safety are important for the quality of the technique. Currently there are no uniform sedation guidelines and protocols for specific gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, and there are several challenges surrounding the choice of an appropriate analgosedation technique. These include categories of patients, choice of drug, appropriate monitoring, and medical staff providing the service. The ideal analgosedation technique should enable the satisfaction of the patient, their maximum safety and, at the same time, cost-effectiveness. Although propofol is the gold standard and the most used general anesthetic for endoscopies, its use is not without risks such as pain at the injection site, respiratory depression, and hypotension. New studies are looking for alternatives to propofol, and drugs like remimazolam and ciprofol are in the focus of researchers’ interest. New monitoring techniques are also associated with them. The optimal technique of analgosedation should provide good analgesia and sedation, fast recovery, comfort for the endoscopist, patients’ safety, and will have financial benefits. The future will show whether these new drugs have succeeded in these goals

Advances in Analgosedation and Periprocedural Care for Gastrointestinal Endoscopy

The number and complexity of endoscopic gastrointestinal diagnostic and therapeutic procedures is globally increasing. Procedural analgosedation during gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures has become the gold standard of gastrointestinal endoscopies. Patient satisfaction and safety are important for the quality of the technique. Currently there are no uniform sedation guidelines and protocols for specific gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures, and there are several challenges surrounding the choice of an appropriate analgosedation technique. These include categories of patients, choice of drug, appropriate monitoring, and medical staff providing the service. The ideal analgosedation technique should enable the satisfaction of the patient, their maximum safety and, at the same time, cost-effectiveness. Although propofol is the gold standard and the most used general anesthetic for endoscopies, its use is not without risks such as pain at the injection site, respiratory depression, and hypotension. New studies are looking for alternatives to propofol, and drugs like remimazolam and ciprofol are in the focus of researchers’ interest. New monitoring techniques are also associated with them. The optimal technique of analgosedation should provide good analgesia and sedation, fast recovery, comfort for the endoscopist, patients’ safety, and will have financial benefits. The future will show whether these new drugs have succeeded in these goals

Long-Term Outcomes of Breast Cancer Patients Receiving Levobupivacaine Wound Infiltration or Diclofenac for Postoperative Pain Relief

Breast cancer is the most common malignant disease in women. Preclinical studies have confirmed that the local anesthetic levobupivacaine has a cytotoxic effect on breast cancer cells. We examined whether postoperative wound infiltration with levobupivacaine influences survival in 120 patients who were operated on for breast cancer and underwent quadrantectomy or mastectomy with axillary lymph node dissection. Groups with continuous levobupivacaine wound infiltration, bolus wound infiltration, and diclofenac analgesia were compared. Long-term outcomes examined were quality of life, shoulder disability, and hand grip strength (HGS) after one year and survival after 5 and 10 years. Groups that had infiltration analgesia had better shoulder function compared to diclofenac after one year. The levobupivacaine PCA group had the best-preserved HGS after 1 year (P = 0.022). The most significant predictor of the 5-year outcome was HGS (P = 0.03). Survival at 10 years was 85%, 92%, and 77% in the diclofenac, levobupivacaine bolus, and levobupivacaine PCA groups (ns. P = 0.36). The extent of the disease at the time of surgery is the most important predictor of long-term survival (P = 0.03). A larger prospective clinical study could better confirm the effect of levobupivacaine wound infiltration on outcomes after breast cancer surgery observed in this pilot study—trial number NCT05829707

Post-anaesthesia pulmonary complications after use of muscle relaxants (POPULAR): a multicentre, prospective observational study

Background Results from retrospective studies suggest that use of neuromuscular blocking agents during general anaesthesia might be linked to postoperative pulmonary complications. We therefore aimed to assess whether the use of neuromuscular blocking agents is associated with postoperative pulmonary complications. Methods We did a multicentre, prospective observational cohort study. Patients were recruited from 211 hospitals in 28 European countries. We included patients (aged ≥18 years) who received general anaesthesia for any in-hospital procedure except cardiac surgery. Patient characteristics, surgical and anaesthetic details, and chart review at discharge were prospectively collected over 2 weeks. Additionally, each patient underwent postoperative physical examination within 3 days of surgery to check for adverse pulmonary events. The study outcome was the incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications from the end of surgery up to postoperative day 28. Logistic regression analyses were adjusted for surgical factors and patients’ preoperative physical status, providing adjusted odds ratios (ORadj) and adjusted absolute risk reduction (ARRadj). This study is registered with ClinicalTrials.gov, number NCT01865513. Findings Between June 16, 2014, and April 29, 2015, data from 22803 patients were collected. The use of neuromuscular blocking agents was associated with an increased incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications in patients who had undergone general anaesthesia (1658 [7·6%] of 21694); ORadj 1·86, 95% CI 1·53–2·26; ARRadj –4·4%, 95% CI –5·5 to –3·2). Only 2·3% of high-risk surgical patients and those with adverse respiratory profiles were anaesthetised without neuromuscular blocking agents. The use of neuromuscular monitoring (ORadj 1·31, 95% CI 1·15–1·49; ARRadj –2·6%, 95% CI –3·9 to –1·4) and the administration of reversal agents (1·23, 1·07–1·41; –1·9%, –3·2 to –0·7) were not associated with a decreased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. Neither the choice of sugammadex instead of neostigmine for reversal (ORadj 1·03, 95% CI 0·85–1·25; ARRadj –0·3%, 95% CI –2·4 to 1·5) nor extubation at a train-of-four ratio of 0·9 or more (1·03, 0·82–1·31; –0·4%, –3·5 to 2·2) was associated with better pulmonary outcomes. Interpretation We showed that the use of neuromuscular blocking drugs in general anaesthesia is associated with an increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications. Anaesthetists must balance the potential benefits of neuromuscular blockade against the increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications