Citations

Background: Breastfeeding has numerous health benefits for patients and their infants. There are inconsistencies in how anesthesia providers care for lactating patients undergoing anesthesia. Providers may be cautious and have patients “pump and dump” instead of following current evidence-based recommendations. Video-based education provides a novel reference for health care providers in their fast-paced work environments. This project evaluated the effectiveness of an online video module and resources accessed at the bedside for anesthesia providers caring for lactating patients. Materials and Methods: A preintervention survey was sent to anesthesia providers at a large academic institution to assess baseline knowledge of current recommendations for caring for lactating patients having anesthesia. A quick response code-linked video module and references were created and disseminated to all anesthesia providers. A postsurvey was sent to assess knowledge and satisfaction with the educational approach. Postsurvey data were compared with presurvey data. Results: All who watched the educational video found the education helpful to care for lactating patients undergoing surgery. In the posteducation group, 93% of providers selected the correct recommendation to continue breastfeeding or pumping after general anesthesia or sedation once the patient is awake and alert, compared with 48% in the pre-education group. After education, 92% would recommend preoperative feeding or pumping prior to transport to the operating room, compared with the 50% in the pre-education group. Conclusions: Video-based, just-in-time education is an effective way to deliver updated information to anesthesia providers. This format is conducive to just-in-time delivery, and there may be implications for other patient populations that present infrequently but require population-specific care.

Background Based on current evidence, there appears to be an association between peri-intubation hypotension and patient morbidity and mortality. Studies have identified shock indices as possible pre-intubation risk factors for peri-intubation hypotension. Thus, we sought to evaluate the association between shock index (SI), modified shock index (MSI), and diastolic shock index (DSI) and peri-intubation hypotension along with other outcomes. Methods The present study is a sub-study of a randomized controlled trial involving critically ill patients undergoing intubation. We defined peri-intubation hypotension as a decrease in mean arterial pressure <65 mm Hg and/or a reduction of 40% from baseline; or the initiation of, or increase in infusion dosage of, any vasopressor medication (bolus or infusion) during the 30-min period following intubation. SI, MSI, and DSI were analyzed as continuous variables and categorically using pre-established cut-offs. We also explored the effect of age on shock indices. Results A total of 151 patients were included in the analysis. Mean pre-intubation SI was 1.0 ± 0.3, MSI 1.5 ± 0.5, and DSI 1.9 ± 0.7. Increasing SI, MSI, and DSI were significantly associated with peri-intubation hypotension (OR [95% CI] per 0.1 increase = 1.16 [1.04, 1.30], P = .009 for SI; 1.14 [1.05, 1.24], P = .003 for MSI; and 1.11 [1.04, 1.19], P = .003 for DSI). The area under the ROC curves did not differ across shock indices (0.66 vs 0.67 vs 0.69 for SI, MSI, and DSI respectively; P = .586). Increasing SI, MSI, and DSI were significantly associated with worse sequential organ failure assessment (SOFA) score (spearman rank correlation: r = 0.30, r = 0.40, and r = 0.45 for SI, MSI, and DSI, respectively, all P < .001) but not with other outcomes. There was no significant impact when incorporating age. Conclusions Increasing SI, MSI, and DSI were all significantly associated with peri-intubation hypotension and worse SOFA scores but not with other outcomes. Shock indices remain a useful bedside tool to assess the potential likelihood of peri-intubation hypotension. Trial registration ClinicalTrials.gov identifier - NCT02105415

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) are frequent after volatile anesthesia. We hypothesized that coadministration of propofol with volatile anesthetic compared to pure volatile anesthetics would decrease the need for postoperative antiemetic treatments and shorten recovery time in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). METHODS: We retrospectively identified adult patients who underwent procedures using general anesthesia with volatile agents, with or without propofol infusion, from May 2018 through December 2020, and who were admitted to the PACU. Inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) analysis was performed using generalized estimating equations with robust variance estimates to assess whether propofol was associated with decreased need for rescue antiemetics. RESULTS: Among 47,847 patients, overall IPTW rescue antiemetic use was 4.7% for 17,573 patients who received propofol and 8.2% for 30,274 who did not (odds ratio [OR], 0.55; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.49–0.61; P <.001). This effect associated with propofol was present regardless of the intensity of antiemetic prophylaxis (OR, 0.59, 0.51, and 0.58 for 0–1, 2, and ≥3 antiemetics used, respectively), procedural duration (OR, 0.54, 0.62, and 0.47 for ≤2.50, 2.51–4.00, ≥4.01 hours), and type of volatile agent (OR, 0.51, 0.52, and 0.57 for desflurane, isoflurane, and sevoflurane) (all P <.001). This effect was dose dependent, with little additional benefit for the reduction in the use of PACU antiemetics when propofol rate exceeded 100 μg/kg/min. Patients who received rescue antiemetics required longer PACU recovery time than those who did not receive antiemetics (ratio of the geometric mean, 1.31; 95% CI, 1.28–1.33; P <.001), but use of propofol did not affect PACU recovery time (ratio of the geometric mean, 1.00; 95% CI, 0.98–1.01; P =.56). CONCLUSIONS: The addition of propofol infusions to volatile-based anesthesia is associated with a dose-dependent reduction in the need for rescue antiemetics in the PACU regardless of the number of prophylactic antiemetics, duration of procedure, and type of volatile agent used, without affecting PACU recovery time.

AbstractBackgroundPhysical activity can improve the physical health of people living with mild cognitive impairment (MCI) and dementia and may have cognitive benefits. Identifying modifiable social factors inhibiting physical activity among this group is important. We examined the relationship between reported physical activity levels and social determinants of health (SDOH) in a population of older adults living with MCI or dementia.MethodWe included people with a diagnosis of MCI or dementia, age 55 years and older, who were empaneled to Community Internal Medicine at Mayo Clinic (Rochester, Minnesota), had a clinic visit between June 1, 2019 and June 30, 2021 and had completed a SDOH questionnaire. We focused on 8 SDOH domains: education, depression, alcohol use, stress, financial resource strain, social connections, food insecurity and transportation needs. Self‐reported activity levels were categorized as inactive (0 minutes of exercise per week), insufficiently active (10‐140 minutes per week) or sufficiently active (≥150 minutes per week). SDOH domains were compared according to physical activity level using χ2 tests and multinomial logistic regression.ResultA total of 3224 persons with MCI (n = 1371) or dementia (n = 1853) who had completed questions on physical activity were included. Of these, 1936 (60%) were characterized as physically inactive and 837 (26%) insufficiently active. Characteristics associated with an increased likelihood of physical inactivity were older age, female sex, obesity, lower education, dementia diagnosis, depression risk and increased social isolation (all p<0.001).ConclusionPhysical inactivity is common among people living with MCI and dementia. Physical activity levels may be influenced by many modifiable factors, highlighting potential areas for intervention in this population.

Objective The Pulmonary Embolism Severity Index (PESI) and simplified PESI (sPESI) predict mortality for patients with PE. We compared PESI/sPESI to the Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation IV (APACHE-IV) in predicting mortality in patients with PE admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU). Additionally, we assessed the performance of a novel ICU-sPESI score created by adding three clinical variables associated with acuity of PE presentation (intubation, confusion [altered mental status], use of vasoactive infusions) to sPESI. Materials and Methods Using the eICU Collaborative Research Database from 2014 to 2015, we conducted a large retrospective cohort study of adult patients admitted to the ICU with a primary diagnosis of PE. We calculated APACHE-IV, PESI, sPESI, and ICU-sPESI scores and compared their performance for predicting in-hospital mortality using area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) curve. Score thresholds for >99% negative predictive values (NPV) were calculated for each score. Survival was estimated using the Kaplan–Meier method. Results We included 1424 PE cases. In-hospital mortality was 6.3% [95% CI: 5.1%-7.6%]. AUROC for APACHE-IV, PESI, and sPESI were 0.870, 0.848, and 0.777, respectively. APACHE-IV and PESI outperformed sPESI (P < 0.01 for both comparisons), while APACHE-IV and PESI demonstrated similar performance (P = 0.322). The ICU-sPESI performance was similar to APACHE-IV and PESI (AUROC = 0.847; AUROC comparison: APACHE-IV vs ICU-sPESI: P = 0.396; PESI vs ICU-sPESI: P = 0.945). Hospital mortality for ICU-sPESI scores 0-2 was 1.1%, and for scores 3, 4, 5, 6, and ≥7 was 8.6%, 11.7%, 29.2%, 37.5%, and 76.9%, respectively. Score thresholds for >99% NPV were ≤48 for APACHE-IV, ≤115 for PESI, and 0 points for sPESI and ICU-sPESI. Conclusions By accounting for severity of PE presentation, our newly proposed ICU-sPESI score provided improved PE mortality prediction compared to the original sPESI score and offered excellent discrimination of mortality risk.

BACKGROUND: Whether volatile anesthetic solubility affects postanesthesia recovery time in clinical practice is unclear. We investigated the association among 3 volatile agents and 2 clinically relevant outcomes—postanesthesia care unit (PACU) recovery time (time from PACU admission to fulfillment of discharge criteria) and oversedation (Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale score ≤−3)—as a potential contributor to delaying PACU discharge. The volatile agents studied were isoflurane, desflurane, and sevoflurane. We hypothesized that increased solubility of the volatile agent (isoflurane versus desflurane or sevoflurane) would be associated with longer PACU recovery time and higher rates of oversedation. METHODS: This retrospective observational study included adults (≥18 years) who underwent surgical procedures under general anesthesia with a volatile agent and were admitted to the PACU from May 5, 2018, to December 31, 2020. The primary outcome was PACU recovery time, and the secondary outcome was oversedation. PACU recovery time was log-transformed and analyzed with linear regression. Oversedation was analyzed by using logistic regression. To account for potential confounding, inverse probability of treatment weighting (IPTW) was used. Pairwise comparisons of the 3 agents were performed, with P < .017 (Bonferroni-adjusted) considered significant. RESULTS: Of 47,847 patients included, 11,817 (24.7%) received isoflurane, 11,286 (23.6%) received desflurane, and 24,744 (51.7%) received sevoflurane. Sevoflurane had an estimated 4% shorter PACU recovery time (IPTW-adjusted median [interquartile range {IQR}], 61 [42–89] minutes) than isoflurane (64 [44–92] minutes) (ratio of geometric means [98.3% confidence interval {CI}], 0.96 [0.95–0.98]; P < .001). Differences in PACU recovery time between desflurane and the other agents were not significant. The IPTW-adjusted frequency of oversedation was 8.8% for desflurane, 12.2% for sevoflurane, and 16.7% for isoflurane; all pairwise comparisons were observed to be significant (odds ratio [98.3% CI], 0.70 [0.62–0.79] for desflurane versus sevoflurane, 0.48 [0.42–0.55] for desflurane vs isoflurane, and 0.69 [0.63–0.76] for sevoflurane versus isoflurane; all P < .001). Although oversedated patients had longer PACU recovery time, differences in the oversedation rate across agents did not result in meaningful differences in time to PACU recovery. CONCLUSIONS: In clinical practice, only small, clinically unimportant differences in PACU recovery time were observed between the volatile anesthetics. Although oversedation was associated with increased PACU recovery time, differences in the rate of oversedation among agents were insufficient to produce meaningful differences in overall PACU recovery time across the 3 volatile agents. Practical attempts to decrease PACU recovery time should address factors other than volatile agent selection.

Objective: Evaluate the effects of ketamine versus propofol when used for induction of anesthesia in elderly, high-risk cardiac surgical patients on postoperative complications including cognitive dysfunction, delirium, and acute kidney injury. Methods: Prospective, randomized study performed at a tertiary medical center. A total of 52 patients aged ≥70 and older presenting for complex cardiac surgery were randomized to receive either ketamine or propofol for induction of anesthesia. Patients underwent a battery of cognitive testing preoperatively and postoperatively and the incidence of delirium and acute kidney injury were measured. Norepinephrine (NEE) equivalents following induction were assessed for each group. Results: A total of 49 patients were included, 25 in the ketamine group and 24 in the propofol group with 3 patients excluded from the analysis. No difference was found between groups in either postoperative cognitive dysfunction or delirium incidence. Acute kidney injury occurred in 6 (24%) patients in the ketamine group in 12 (50%) patients in the propofol group, but the difference did not meet statistical significance (P = 0.08; Relative Risk = 2.1, 95% CI 0.9–4.7). NEE equivalents were lower in the ketamine group, 9.6 ± 22.2 versus 32.7 ± 46.0, P < 0.03. Conclusions: The use of ketamine versus propofol for induction of anesthesia did not impact the incidence of postoperative cognitive dysfunction or delirium. Twice as many patients in the propofol group developed acute kidney injury, although not reaching statistical significance and warranting further investigation. In elderly, high-risk patients, ketamine was associated with a significantly reduced need for vasopressor support following induction.

Background: Cardiovascular instability occurring during endotracheal intubation (ETI) in the critically ill is a commonly recognized phenomenon. However, this complication has not been evaluated in terms of the physiological cause (ie, decreased preload, contractility, or afterload) leading to the instability. Thus, the aim of the current investigation was to describe the hemodynamics occurring during ETI with noninvasive physiologic monitoring and to collect preliminary data on the hemodynamic effects of induction agents and positive pressure ventilation. Methods: A multicenter prospective study enrolling adult (≥18 years) critically ill patients undergoing ETI with noninvasive cardiac output monitoring in a medical/surgical intensive care unit from June 2018 to May 2019 was conducted. This study used the Cheetah Medical noninvasive cardiac output monitor to collect hemodynamic data during the peri-intubation period. Additional data collected included baseline characteristics such as illness severity, peri-intubation pharmacologic administration, and mechanical ventilation settings. Results: From the original 27 patients, only 19 (70%) patients had complete data and were included in the final analysis. Propofol was the most common sedative 8 (42%) followed by ketamine 6 (32%) and etomidate 5 (26%). Patients given propofol demonstrated a decrease in total peripheral resistance index (delta change [dynes × s/cm −5 /m 2 ]: −2.7 ± 778.2) but stabilization in cardiac index (delta change (L/min/m 2 ]: 0.1 ± 1.5) while etomidate and ketamine demonstrated increases in total peripheral resistance index (etomidate delta change [dynes × s/cm −5 /m 2 ]: 302.1 ± 414.3; ketamine delta change [dynes × s/cm −5 /m 2 ]: 278.7 ± 418.9) but only etomidate resulted in a decrease in cardiac index (delta change [L/min/m 2 ]: −0.3 ± 0.5). Positive pressure ventilation resulted in minimal changes to hemodynamics during ETI. Conclusions: The current study demonstrates that although propofol administration leads to a decrease in total peripheral resistance index, cardiac index is maintained while etomidate leads to a decrease in cardiac index with both etomidate and ketamine increasing total peripheral resistance index. These hemodynamic profiles are minimally affected by positive pressure ventilation. Study registration: ClinicalTrials.gov ID, NCT03525743.

Abstract Introduction We determined whether a tobacco cessation intervention targeting brief perioperative abstinence (“quit for a bit”) increased engagement of surgical patients with treatment compared with an intervention targeting long-term postoperative abstinence (“quit for good”). Aims and Methods Surgical patients who smoke were stratified according to intended duration of postoperative abstinence, and then randomized within strata to receive either a “quit for a bit” or a “quit for good” intervention. Both employed initial brief counseling and short message service (SMS) to deliver treatment up to 30 days after surgery. The primary outcome of treatment engagement was defined as the rate at which subjects actively responded to system requests delivered via SMS. Results The engagement index did not differ between intervention groups (median [25th, 75th] of 23.7% [8.8, 46.0] for “quit for a bit” group (n = 48) and 22.2% [4.8, 46.0] for “quit for good” group (n = 50), p = .74), nor did the proportion of patients continuing SMS use after study completion (33% and 28%, respectively). Exploratory abstinence outcomes on the morning of surgery and 7 and 30 days after surgery did not differ between groups. Program satisfaction was high in both groups and did not differ. There was no significant interaction between intended abstinence duration and any outcome, ie, alignment of intent with intervention did not affect engagement. Conclusions Tobacco cessation treatment delivered via SMS was well accepted by surgical patients. Tailoring an SMS intervention to focus on the benefits of short-term abstinence for surgical patients did not increase engagement in treatment or perioperative abstinence rates. Implications Treatment of surgical patients for tobacco use is efficacious and reduces postoperative complications. However, implementation in clinical practice has proved challenging, and new methods of engaging these patients in cessation treatment are needed. We found that tobacco use treatment delivered via SMS was feasible and well utilized by surgical patients. Tailoring an SMS intervention to focus on the benefits of short-term abstinence for surgical patients did not increase engagement in treatment or perioperative abstinence rates. Clinical Trial Number NCT03839043. Registry URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03839043