Search

There is a global trend of new guidelines highly recommending quantitative neuromuscular monitoring in the operating room. In fact, it is almost certain that quantitatively monitoring the depth of intraoperative muscle paralysis may permit the rational use of muscle relaxants and avoid some of the major related complications, namely postoperative pulmonary complications. A specific culture related to this issue is necessary to integrate quantitative monitoring of muscle relaxants as part of a major monitoring entity in anesthetized patients. For this purpose, it is necessary to fully understand the physiology, pharmacology and concept of monitoring as well as the choice of pharmacological reversal, including the introduction of sugammadex a decade ago.

Introduction: Complex cervicofacial cancer surgery with free flap reconstruction is known to have a high incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). We hypothesized that by implementing an optimized respiratory protocol, including preemptive postoperative pressure support ventilation, physiotherapy, and critical respiratory support and follow-up, we could decrease the incidence of PPCs. Patients and methods: We evaluated the incidence of PPCs over two periods in two groups of patients having a routine or optimized postoperative respiratory protocol: 156 adult patients undergoing major cervicofacial cancer surgery were assessed; 91 were in Group 1 (routine) and 65 were in Group 2 (optimized). In Group 1, no ventilatory support sessions were performed. The incidence of pulmonary complications in both groups was compared using a multivariate analysis. Mortality was also compared until one year postoperatively. Results: In Group 2 with an optimized protocol, the mean number of ventilatory support sessions was 3.7 ± 1 (minimum 2, maximum 6). The incidence of respiratory complications, which was 34% in Group 1 (routine), was reduced by 59% OR = 0.41 (0.16; 0.95), p = 0.043) to 21% for the optimized Group 2. No difference in mortality was found. Conclusions: The present retrospective study showed that using an optimized preemptive respiratory pressure support ventilation combined with physiotherapy after a major cervicofacial surgery could possibly help reduce the incidence of pulmonary complications. Prospective studies are needed to verify these findings.

Backgroundand Objectives: Remifentanil-based sedation is one of many protocols proposed for endoscopy procedures in spontaneous ventilation, alone or in combination with propofol. However, the effect of these small doses of propofol on the efficacy and safety of remifentanil target-controlled infusion (TCI) deserves to be examined in this context. The objective of this study was to assess the adverse respiratory and cardiovascular effects of small boluses of propofol combined with remifentanil, in comparison with remifentanil alone, and balanced with the quality of sedation and recovery. Materials andMethods: This was an observational bicenter study, representing a subgroup of a larger study describing remifentanil-based procedural sedation. In center 1, patients scheduled for gastrointestinal (GI) endoscopy had remifentanil TCI alone. In center 2, patients had a 10 mg propofol bolus before TCI and other boluses were allowed during the procedure. Remifentanil TCI was started at a target of 2 ng/mL then adapted by 0.5 ng/mL steps according to patient response to endoscopy stimulations. Results: Center 1 included 29 patients, while center 2 included 60 patients. No difference was found in the patients’ characteristics, incidence of success, average remifentanil consumption, or cardiovascular variables. Light sedation was achieved when propofol was added. The incidence of respiratory events, such as bradypnea, desaturation < 90%, and apnea requiring rescue maneuvers, were significantly higher with propofol. Conclusions: Adding propofol boluses to a remifentanil TCI for GI endoscopy ensures light sedation that may be necessary for anxiolysis but increases respiratory events, even after administration of small-dose boluses. Its safety is acceptable if the procedure is performed in an equipped environment with sedation providers trained to manage respiratory events and drugs titrated to minimal doses.

Patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) is an effective method for controlling acute pain, including postoperative pain in adults and in children from five years of age, pain resulting from labor, trauma, or other medical situations, or chronic and malignant pain. The treatment consists of a mini-computer-controlled infusion pump permitting the administration of on-demand, continuous, or combined doses of analgesic (mainly opioid) variations in response to therapy, which allows pain to be significantly controlled. Intravenous (IV)-PCA minimizes individual pharmacodynamics and pharmacokinetic differences and is widely accepted as a reference method for mild or severe postoperative pain. IV-PCA is the most studied route of PCA; other delivery methods have been extensively reported in the literature. In addition, IV-PCA usually voids the gap between pain sensation and analgesic administration, permitting better recovery and fewer side effects. The most commonly observed complications are nausea and vomiting, pruritus, respiratory depression, sedation, confusion and urinary retention. However, human factors such as pharmacy preparation and device programming can also be involved in the occurrence of these complications, while device failure is much less of an issue.

Background: End-tidal carbon dioxide pressure (PetCO2) is unreliable for monitoring PaCO2 in several conditions because of the unpredictable value of the PaCO2–PetCO2 gradient. We hypothesised that increasing both the end-inspiratory pause and the expiratory time would reduce this gradient in patients ventilated for COVID-19 with Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome and in patients anaesthetised for surgery. Methods: On the occasion of an arterial blood gas sample, an extension in inspiratory pause was carried out either by recruitment manoeuvre or by extending the end-inspiratory pause to 10 s. The end-expired PCO2 was measured (expiratory time: 4 s) after this manoeuvre (PACO2) in comparison with the PetCO2 measured by the monitor. We analysed 67 Δ(a-et)CO2, Δ(a-A)CO2 pairs for 7 patients in the COVID group and for 27 patients in the anaesthesia group. Results are expressed as mean ± standard deviation. Results: Prolongation of the inspiratory pause significantly reduced PaCO2–PetCO2 gradients from 11 ± 5.7 and 5.7 ± 3.4 mm Hg (p < 0.001) to PaCO2–PACO2 gradients of −1.2 ± 3.3 (p = 0.043) and −1.9 ± 3.3 mm Hg (p < 0.003) in the COVID and anaesthesia groups, respectively. In the COVID group, PACO2 showed the lowest dispersion (−7 to +6 mm Hg) and better correlation with PaCO2 (R2 = 0.92). The PACO2 had a sensitivity of 0.81 and a specificity of 0.93 for identifying hypercapnic patients (PaCO2 > 50 mm Hg). Conclusions: Measuring end-tidal PCO2 after prolonged inspiratory time reduced the PaCO2–PetCO2 gradient to the point of obtaining values close to PaCO2. This measure identified hypercapnic patients in both intensive care and during anaesthesia.

Introduction: This study was designed to compare the Datex neuromuscular transmission (NMT) kinemyography (NMTK) device with the TOFscan (TS) accelerometer during the onset and recovery of neuromuscular blockade. Patients and methods: This prospective study included adult patients who were scheduled to undergo elective surgery with general anesthesia and orotracheal intubation. The TS accelerometer was randomly placed at the adductor pollicis on one hand, and the NMTK was placed on the opposite arm. Anesthesia was initiated with remifentanil target-controlled infusion (TCI) and 2.0–3.0 mg/kg of propofol. Thereafter, 0.5 mg/kg of atracurium or 0.6 mg/kg of rocuronium was injected. If needed, additional neuromuscular blocking agents were administered to facilitate surgery. First, we recorded the train of four (TOF) response at the onset of neuromuscular blockade to reach a TOF count of 0. Second, we recorded the TOF response at the recovery of neuromuscular blockade to obtain a T4/T1 90% by both TS and NMTK. Results: There were 32 patients, aged 38–83 years, with the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) Physical Status Classification I–III included and analyzed. Surgery was abdominal, gynecologic, or head and neck. The Bland and Altman analysis for obtaining zero responses during the onset showed a bias (mean) of 2.7 s (delay) of TS in comparison to NMTK, with an upper/lower limit of agreement of [104; −109 s] and a bias of 36 s of TS in comparison to NMTK, with an upper/lower limit of agreement of [−21.8, −23.1 min] during recovery (T4/T1 > 90%). Conclusions: Under the conditions of the present study, the two devices are not interchangeable. Clinical decisions for deep neuromuscular blockade should be made cautiously, as both devices appear less accurate with significant variability.