Comparing Postoperative Sore Throat (POST) following intubation using Macintosh Laryngoscope Versus C-MAC® Video Laryngoscope

Postoperative sore throat (POST) is a common complication with incidence of 30-90% when intubation was done using conventional Macintosh laryngoscope. Although POST is usually self-limiting and with no long-term morbidity, it can lead to patient’s discomfort and dissatisfaction in the postoperative period. The objective of this study was to compare the incidence of POST following intubation using Macintosh laryngoscope and C-MAC® videolaryngoscope (VL) at various time intervals post anaesthesia. This prospective randomised controlled study comprised of 128 patients with American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) I and II status who underwent elective surgery under general anaesthesia in Universiti Kebangsaan Malaysia Medical Centre. All recruited patients have normal airway and divided randomly into Group 1 and Group 2 that used Macintosh laryngoscope and C-MAC® VL during intubation, respectively. Patients were evaluated for sore throat, hoarseness of voice, dysphagia and coughing at recovery, 6 hours, 12 hours and 24 hours after intubation. Severity of POST was assessed using numerical rating scale (NRS). Incidence of POST was found to be higher in the Macintosh laryngoscope group (61.9%) compared to C-MAC® VL group (47.9%) although the difference was not statistically significant (p=0.107). Median pain score was used to assess the severity of POST, showing low and comparable in both groups at all time intervals. There were also no significant differences seen in hoarseness of voice, coughing and dysphagia for both groups during postoperation. Incidence of POST following intubation using C-MAC® VL and conventional Macintosh laryngoscope were comparable. This study revealed that severity of POST was generally low in both groups

Validation of the Malay Self-Report Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology in a Malaysian Sample

Depression is ranked as the second-leading cause for years lived with disability worldwide. Objective monitoring with a standardized scale for depressive symptoms can improve treatment outcomes. This study evaluates the construct and concurrent validity of the Malay Self-Report Quick Inventory of Depressive Symptomatology (QIDS-SR16) among Malaysian clinical and community samples. This cross-sectional study was based on 277 participants, i.e., patients with current major depressive episode (MDE), n = 104, and participants without current MDE, n = 173. Participants answered the Malay QIDS-SR16 and were administered the validated Malay Mini-International Neuropsychiatric Interview (MINI) for DSM-IV-TR. Factor analysis was used to determine construct validity, alpha statistic for internal consistency, and receiver operating characteristic (ROC) analysis for concurrent validity with MINI to determine the optimal threshold to identify MDE. Data analysis provided evidence for the unidimensionality of the Malay QIDS-SR16 with good internal consistency (Cronbach’s α = 0.88). Based on ROC analysis, the questionnaire demonstrated good validity with a robust area under the curve of 0.916 (p < 0.000, 95% CI 0.884–0.948). A cut-off score of nine provided the best balance between sensitivity (88.5%) and specificity (83.2%). The Malay QIDS-SR16 is a reliable and valid instrument for identifying MDE in unipolar or bipolar depression

Health-status outcomes with invasive or conservative care in coronary disease

BACKGROUND In the ISCHEMIA trial, an invasive strategy with angiographic assessment and revascularization did not reduce clinical events among patients with stable ischemic heart disease and moderate or severe ischemia. A secondary objective of the trial was to assess angina-related health status among these patients. METHODS We assessed angina-related symptoms, function, and quality of life with the Seattle Angina Questionnaire (SAQ) at randomization, at months 1.5, 3, and 6, and every 6 months thereafter in participants who had been randomly assigned to an invasive treatment strategy (2295 participants) or a conservative strategy (2322). Mixed-effects cumulative probability models within a Bayesian framework were used to estimate differences between the treatment groups. The primary outcome of this health-status analysis was the SAQ summary score (scores range from 0 to 100, with higher scores indicating better health status). All analyses were performed in the overall population and according to baseline angina frequency. RESULTS At baseline, 35% of patients reported having no angina in the previous month. SAQ summary scores increased in both treatment groups, with increases at 3, 12, and 36 months that were 4.1 points (95% credible interval, 3.2 to 5.0), 4.2 points (95% credible interval, 3.3 to 5.1), and 2.9 points (95% credible interval, 2.2 to 3.7) higher with the invasive strategy than with the conservative strategy. Differences were larger among participants who had more frequent angina at baseline (8.5 vs. 0.1 points at 3 months and 5.3 vs. 1.2 points at 36 months among participants with daily or weekly angina as compared with no angina). CONCLUSIONS In the overall trial population with moderate or severe ischemia, which included 35% of participants without angina at baseline, patients randomly assigned to the invasive strategy had greater improvement in angina-related health status than those assigned to the conservative strategy. The modest mean differences favoring the invasive strategy in the overall group reflected minimal differences among asymptomatic patients and larger differences among patients who had had angina at baseline

Initial invasive or conservative strategy for stable coronary disease

BACKGROUND Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, whether clinical outcomes are better in those who receive an invasive intervention plus medical therapy than in those who receive medical therapy alone is uncertain. METHODS We randomly assigned 5179 patients with moderate or severe ischemia to an initial invasive strategy (angiography and revascularization when feasible) and medical therapy or to an initial conservative strategy of medical therapy alone and angiography if medical therapy failed. The primary outcome was a composite of death from cardiovascular causes, myocardial infarction, or hospitalization for unstable angina, heart failure, or resuscitated cardiac arrest. A key secondary outcome was death from cardiovascular causes or myocardial infarction. RESULTS Over a median of 3.2 years, 318 primary outcome events occurred in the invasive-strategy group and 352 occurred in the conservative-strategy group. At 6 months, the cumulative event rate was 5.3% in the invasive-strategy group and 3.4% in the conservative-strategy group (difference, 1.9 percentage points; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.8 to 3.0); at 5 years, the cumulative event rate was 16.4% and 18.2%, respectively (difference, 121.8 percentage points; 95% CI, 124.7 to 1.0). Results were similar with respect to the key secondary outcome. The incidence of the primary outcome was sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction; a secondary analysis yielded more procedural myocardial infarctions of uncertain clinical importance. There were 145 deaths in the invasive-strategy group and 144 deaths in the conservative-strategy group (hazard ratio, 1.05; 95% CI, 0.83 to 1.32). CONCLUSIONS Among patients with stable coronary disease and moderate or severe ischemia, we did not find evidence that an initial invasive strategy, as compared with an initial conservative strategy, reduced the risk of ischemic cardiovascular events or death from any cause over a median of 3.2 years. The trial findings were sensitive to the definition of myocardial infarction that was used

Evaluation of a quality improvement intervention to reduce anastomotic leak following right colectomy (EAGLE): pragmatic, batched stepped-wedge, cluster-randomized trial in 64 countries

Background Anastomotic leak affects 8 per cent of patients after right colectomy with a 10-fold increased risk of postoperative death. The EAGLE study aimed to develop and test whether an international, standardized quality improvement intervention could reduce anastomotic leaks. Methods The internationally intended protocol, iteratively co-developed by a multistage Delphi process, comprised an online educational module introducing risk stratification, an intraoperative checklist, and harmonized surgical techniques. Clusters (hospital teams) were randomized to one of three arms with varied sequences of intervention/data collection by a derived stepped-wedge batch design (at least 18 hospital teams per batch). Patients were blinded to the study allocation. Low- and middle-income country enrolment was encouraged. The primary outcome (assessed by intention to treat) was anastomotic leak rate, and subgroup analyses by module completion (at least 80 per cent of surgeons, high engagement; less than 50 per cent, low engagement) were preplanned. Results A total 355 hospital teams registered, with 332 from 64 countries (39.2 per cent low and middle income) included in the final analysis. The online modules were completed by half of the surgeons (2143 of 4411). The primary analysis included 3039 of the 3268 patients recruited (206 patients had no anastomosis and 23 were lost to follow-up), with anastomotic leaks arising before and after the intervention in 10.1 and 9.6 per cent respectively (adjusted OR 0.87, 95 per cent c.i. 0.59 to 1.30; P = 0.498). The proportion of surgeons completing the educational modules was an influence: the leak rate decreased from 12.2 per cent (61 of 500) before intervention to 5.1 per cent (24 of 473) after intervention in high-engagement centres (adjusted OR 0.36, 0.20 to 0.64; P < 0.001), but this was not observed in low-engagement hospitals (8.3 per cent (59 of 714) and 13.8 per cent (61 of 443) respectively; adjusted OR 2.09, 1.31 to 3.31). Conclusion Completion of globally available digital training by engaged teams can alter anastomotic leak rates. Registration number: NCT04270721 (http://www.clinicaltrials.gov)