Search

Introduction An individualised thromboprophylaxis was implemented in critically ill patients suffering from coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pneumonia to reduce mortality and improve clinical outcome. The aim of this study was to evaluate the effect of this intervention on clinical outcome. Methods In this mono-centric, controlled, before-after study, all consecutive adult patients with confirmed COVID-19 pneumonia admitted to ICU from March 13th to April 20th 2020 were included. A thromboprophylaxis protocol, including augmented LMWH dosing, individually tailored with anti-Xa measurements and twice-weekly ultrasonography screening for DVT, was implemented on March 31th 2020. Primary endpoint is one-month mortality. Secondary outcomes include two-week and three-week mortality, the incidence of VTE, acute kidney injury and continuous renal replacement therapy (CRRT). Multiple regression modelling was used to correct for differences between the two groups. Results 46 patients were included in the before group, 26 patients in the after group. One month mortality decreased from 39.13% to 3.85% (p, Highlights • An individualised thromboprophylaxis was implemented in critically ill COVID-19 patients. • One-month mortality was reduced after implementation of this protocol • Cumulative incidence of venous thromboembolism was lower after implementation. • Less need for continuous renal replacement therapy in the after group.

Background The aim of this paper is to describe a newly developed endoscopic coronary artery bypass graft (Endo-CABG) technique to treat patients with single- and multi-vessel disease and discuss the short-term clinical results in a large patient cohort. This technique avoids a median sternotomy by combining a thoracoscopic technique via three ∼5 mm thoracic ports and a mini-thoracotomy utility 3–4 cm port through the intercostal space. Methods From January 2016 to January 2018, data from consecutive patients undergoing an elective Endo-CABG were prospectively entered into a customized database and retrospectively reviewed. Patients scheduled for a combined hybrid intervention were excluded. Conversion rate to sternotomy, incidence of surgical revision and postoperative graft failure, one-month survival, morbidity, and length of stay (LOS) were investigated. Subgroup analyses were performed. Results A total of 342 patients undergoing an Endo-CABG with one (n = 53) or multiple (n = 289) bypasses were included. No conversion to sternotomy occurred and incidence of surgical revision, graft failure, and 30-day mortality was 7.3%, 1.5%, and 1.8%, respectively. Adverse neurological outcomes were rare: cerebrovascular accident, transient ischemic attack, epilepsy, and postoperative delirium were observed in 0.6%, 0.3%, 0.3%, and 5.3% of patients, respectively. Median intensive care unit and hospital LOS were 2.75 (IQR 1.8 to 3.8) and 8.0 days (IQR 7.0 to 10.0), respectively. Thirty-day mortality in obese patients, diabetics, and octogenarians was 0%, 3.6%, and 5.6%, respectively. EuroSCORE II > 5% was associated with a high 30-day mortality (25%). Conclusions Endo-CABG can be considered a safe and effective procedure to treat single- and multi-vessel coronary artery disease. Individual patient selection seems not necessary to apply this technique.

OBJECTIVES: To investigate healthcare system-driven variation in general characteristics, interventions, and outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients admitted to the ICU within one Western European region across three countries. DESIGN: Multicenter observational cohort study. SETTING: Seven ICUs in the Euregio Meuse-Rhine, one region across Belgium, The Netherlands, and Germany. PATIENTS: Consecutive COVID-19 patients supported in the ICU during the first pandemic wave. INTERVENTIONS: None. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Baseline demographic and clinical characteristics, laboratory values, and outcome data were retrieved after ethical approval and data-sharing agreements. Descriptive statistics were performed to investigate country-related practice variation. From March 2, 2020, to August 12, 2020, 551 patients were admitted. Mean age was 65.4 ± 11.2 years, and 29% were female. At admission, Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation II scores were 15.0 ± 5.5, 16.8 ± 5.5, and 15.8 ± 5.3 (p = 0.002), and Sequential Organ Failure Assessment scores were 4.4 ± 2.7, 7.4 ± 2.2, and 7.7 ± 3.2 (p < 0.001) in the Belgian, Dutch, and German parts of Euregio, respectively. The ICU mortality rate was 22%, 42%, and 44%, respectively (p < 0.001). Large differences were observed in the frequency of organ support, antimicrobial/inflammatory therapy application, and ICU capacity. Mixed-multivariable logistic regression analyses showed that differences in ICU mortality were independent of age, sex, disease severity, comorbidities, support strategies, therapies, and complications. CONCLUSIONS: COVID-19 patients admitted to ICUs within one region, the Euregio Meuse-Rhine, differed significantly in general characteristics, applied interventions, and outcomes despite presumed genetic and socioeconomic background, admission diagnosis, access to international literature, and data collection are similar. Variances in healthcare systems' organization, particularly ICU capacity and admission criteria, combined with a rapidly spreading pandemic might be important drivers for the observed differences. Heterogeneity between patient groups but also healthcare systems should be presumed to interfere with outcomes in coronavirus disease 2019. ispartof: CRITICAL CARE MEDICINE vol:50 issue:4 pages:595-606 ispartof: location:United States status: published

Background To minimise the risk of COVID-19 transmission, an ambulant screening protocol for COVID-19 in patients before admission to the hospital was implemented, combining the SARS CoV-2 reverse-transcriptase polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) on a nasopharyngeal swab, a chest computed tomography (CT) and assessment of clinical symptoms. The aim of this study was to evaluatethe diagnostic yield and the proportionality of this pre-procedural screeningprotocol. Methods In this mono-centre, prospective, cross-sectional study, all patients admitted to the hospital between 22nd April 2020 until 14th May 2020 for semi-urgent surgery, haematological or oncological treatment, or electrophysiological investigationunderwent a COVID-19 screening 2 days before their procedure. At a 2-week follow-up, the presence of clinical symptoms was evaluated by telephone as a post-hoc evaluation of the screening approach.Combined positive RT-PCR assay and/or positive chest CT was used as gold standard. Post-procedural outcomes of all patients diagnosed positive for COVID-19 were assessed. Results In total,528 patients were included of which 20 (3.8%) were diagnosed as COVID-19 positive and 508 (96.2%) as COVID-19 negative. 11 (55.0%) of COVID-19 positive patients had only a positive RT-PCR assay, 3 (15.0%) had only a positive chest CT and 6 (30%) had both a positive RT-PCR assay and chest CT. 10 out of 20 (50.0%) COVID-19 positive patients reported no single clinical symptom at the screening. At 2 week follow-up, 50% of these patients were still asymptomatic. 37.5% of all COVID-19 negative patients were symptomatic at screening. In the COVID-19 negative group without symptoms at screening, 78 (29.3%) patients developed clinical symptoms at a 2-week follow-up. Conclusion This study suggests that routine chest CT and assessment of self-reported symptoms have limited value in the preprocedural COVID-19 screening due to low sensitivity and/or specificity. Stessel, B (corresponding author), Jessa Hosp Hasselt, Dept Intens Care & Anesthesiol, Virga Jesse Campus,Stadsomvaart 11, B-3500 Hasselt, Belgium. bjorn.stessel@jessazh.be

Background and objectivesDistal upper extremity surgery is commonly performed under regional anaesthesia, including intravenous regional anaesthesia (IVRA) and ultrasound-guided forearm nerve block. This study aimed to investigate if ultrasound-guided forearm nerve block is superior to forearm IVRA in producing a surgical block in patients undergoing carpal tunnel release.MethodsIn this observer-blinded, randomized controlled superiority trial, 100 patients undergoing carpal tunnel release were randomized to receive ultrasound-guided forearm nerve block (n = 50) or forearm IVRA (n = 50). The primary outcome was anaesthetic efficacy evaluated by classifying the blocks as complete vs incomplete. Complete anaesthesia was defined as total sensory block, incomplete anaesthesia as mild pain requiring more analgesics or need of general anaesthesia. Pain intensity on a numeric rating scale (0–10) was recorded. Surgeon satisfaction with hemostasis, surgical time, and OR stay time were recorded. Patient satisfaction with the quality of the block was assessed at POD 1.ResultsIn total, 43 (86%) of the forearm nerve blocks were evaluated as complete, compared to 33 (66%) of the forearm IVRA (p = 0.019). After the forearm nerve block, pain intensity was lower at discharge (-1.76 points lower, 95% CI (-2.92, -0.59), p = 0.0006) compared to patients treated with forearm IVRA. No differences in pain experienced at the start of the surgery, during surgery, and at POD1, nor in surgical time or total OR stay were observed between groups. Surgeon (p = 0.0016) and patient satisfaction (p = 0.0023) were slightly higher after forearm nerve block.ConclusionAn ultrasound-guided forearm nerve block is superior compared to forearm IVRA in providing a surgical block in patients undergoing carpal tunnel release.Trial registrationThis trial was registered asNCT03411551.

Background/Objectives This study aimed to study one-month recovery profile and to identify predictors of Quality of Recovery (QOR) after painful day surgery and investigate the influence of pain therapy on QOR. Methods/Design This is a secondary analysis of a single-centre, randomised controlled trial of 200 patients undergoing ambulatory haemorrhoid surgery, arthroscopic shoulder or knee surgery, or inguinal hernia repair between January 2016 and March 2017. Primary endpoints were one-month recovery profile and prevalence of poor/good QOR measured by the Functional Recovery Index (FRI), the Global Surgical Recovery index and the EuroQol questionnaire at postoperative day (POD) 1 to 4, 7, 14 and 28. Multiple logistic regression analysis was performed to determine predictors of QOR at POD 7, 14, and 28. Differences in QOR between pain treatment groups were analysed using the Mann-Whitney U test. Results Four weeks after haemorrhoid surgery, inguinal hernia repair, arthroscopic knee and arthroscopic shoulder surgery, good QOR was present in 71%, 76%, 57% and 24% respectively. Poor QOR was present in 5%, 0%, 7% and 29%, respectively. At POD 7 and POD 28, predictors for poor/intermediate QOR were type of surgery and a high postoperative pain level at POD 4. Male gender was another predictor at POD 7. Female gender and having a paid job were also predictors at POD 28. Type of surgery and long term fear of surgery were predictors at POD 14. No significant differences in total FRI scores were found between the two different pain treatment groups. Conclusions The present study shows a procedure-specific variation in recovery profile in the 4-week period after painful day surgery. The best predictors for short-term (POD 7) and long-term (POD 28) poor/intermediate QOR were a high postoperative pain level at POD 4 and type of surgery. Different pain treatment regimens did not result in differences in recovery profile. Trial registration European Union Clinical Trials Register 2015-003987-35.

Background Belgium was among the first countries in Europe with confirmed coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) cases. Since the first diagnosis on February 3rd, the epidemic has quickly evolved, with Belgium at the crossroads of Europe, being one of the hardest hit countries. Although risk factors for severe disease in COVID-19 patients have been described in Chinese and United States (US) cohorts, good quality studies reporting on clinical characteristics, risk factors and outcome of European COVID-19 patients are still scarce. Methods This study describes the clinical characteristics, complications and outcomes of 319 hospitalized COVID-19 patients, admitted to a tertiary care center at the start of the pandemic in Belgium, and aims to identify the main risk factors for in-hospital mortality in a European context using univariate and multivariate logistic regression analysis. Results Most patients were male (60%), the median age was 74 (IQR 61–83) and 20% of patients were admitted to the intensive care unit, of whom 63% needed invasive mechanical ventilation. The overall case fatality rate was 25%. The best predictors of in-hospital mortality in multivariate analysis were older age, and renal insufficiency, higher lactate dehydrogenase and thrombocytopenia. Patients admitted early in the epidemic had a higher mortality compared to patients admitted later in the epidemic. In univariate analysis, patients with obesity did have an overall increased risk of death, while overweight on the other hand showed a trend towards lower mortality. Conclusions Most patients hospitalized with COVID-19 during the first weeks of the epidemic in Belgium were admitted with severe disease and the overall case fatality rate was high. The identified risk factors for mortality are not easily amenable at short term, underscoring the lasting need of effective therapeutic and preventative measures.

OBJECTIVES: In 2009, Gramke et al have described predictive factors to pre-operatively detect those at risk for moderate to severe acute postoperative pain (APSP) after day surgery. The aim of the present study is to externally validate this initial model and to improve and internally validate a modified version of this model.METHODS: Elective patients scheduled for day surgery were prospectively enrolled from November 2008 to April 2010. Model discrimination was quantified using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Model calibration was assessed by visual inspection of the calibration plot. Subsequently, we modified (different assignment of type of surgery, different cut-off for moderate to severe APSP, continuous of dichotomized variables and testing of additional variables) and internally validated this model by standard bootstrapping techniques.RESULTS: A total of 1118 patients were included. The AUC for the original model was 0.81 in the derivation dataset and 0.72 in our validation dataset. The model showed poorly calibrated risk predictions. The AUC of the modified model was 0.82 (optimism-corrected AUC=0.78). This modified model showed good calibration.CONCLUSION: The original prediction model of Gramke et al performed insufficient on our cohort of outpatients with respect to discrimination and calibration. Internal validation of a modified model shows promising results. In this model, preoperative pain, patient derived expected pain and different types of surgery are the strongest predictors of moderate to severe APSP after day surgery.This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-Non Commercial-No Derivatives License 4.0 (CCBY-NC-ND), where it is permissible to download and share the work provided it is properly cited. The work cannot be changed in any way or used commercially. http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: This randomized trial aimed to assess if a combined suprascapular-axillary nerve block (SSB) is noninferior (margin = 1.3 on a 0- to 10-point scale) to interscalene block (ISB) in treating pain after arthroscopic shoulder surgery. Secondary end points included opioid consumption, dyspnea, discomfort associated with muscle weakness, and patient satisfaction. METHODS: One hundred patients undergoing arthroscopic shoulder surgery were randomized to receive ultrasound-guided ISB (n = 50) or SSB (n = 50). Pain intensity at rest, dyspnea, and discomfort were recorded upon arrival in the recovery room, discharge to the ward, and at 4, 8, and 24 hours after surgery. Piritramide consumption was recorded for the first 24 hours. Patient satisfaction was assessed on the second postoperative day. RESULTS: During the first 4 hours after surgery, the difference in mean pain score between SSB and ISB was higher than 2.5 (±0.8). The difference gradually decreased to 1.1 (±1.0) at 8 hours before resulting in noninferiority during the night and at 24 hours. Piritramide consumption was significantly higher in the SSB group in the first 8 hours. The incidence of dyspnea and discomfort was higher after ISB. Treatment satisfaction was similar in both groups. CONCLUSIONS: Suprascapular-axillary nerve block is inferior to ISB in terms of analgesia and opioid requirement in the immediate period after arthroscopic shoulder surgery but is associated with a lower incidence of dyspnea and discomfort. The difference in pain and opioid consumption gradually decreases as the blocks wear off in order to reach similar pain scores during the first postoperative night and at 24 hours. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier NCT02415088. ispartof: REGIONAL ANESTHESIA AND PAIN MEDICINE vol:43 issue:7 pages:738-744 ispartof: location:England status: published

[Stinkens, Rudi; Verbeke, Nikolaas; Ory, Jean-Paul; Dubois, Jasperina; Stessel, Bjorn] Jessa Hosp, Dept Anaesthesiol & Pain Med, Hasselt, Belgium. [Van de Velde, Marc] Univ Leuven, KU Leuven, Dept Cardiovasc Sci, Leuven, Belgium. [Van de Velde, Marc] Univ Hosp Leuven, Dept Anaesthesiol, Leuven, Belgium. [Baldussu, Esmee; Ruiters, Chabelie; Stessel, Bjorn] Hasselt Univ, Fac Med & Life Sci, Hasselt, Belgium.

ispartof: INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF OBSTETRIC ANESTHESIA vol:34 pages:113-114 ispartof: location:Netherlands status: published

Traditionally, major complications and unanticipated admission/readmission rates were used to assess outcome after day surgery. However, in view of the relative absence of major complications the quality of recovery (QOR) should be considered one of the principal endpoints after day surgery. In our study, the level of QOR is defined by a combination of the Global Surgical Recovery (GSR) Index and the Quality of Life (QOL). The aim of this study was to analyze prevalence and predictors of QOR after day surgery on the fourth postoperative day. Elective patients scheduled for day surgery from November 2008 to April 2010 were enrolled in a prospective cohort study. Outcome parameters were measured by using questionnaire packages at 2 time points: 1 week preoperatively and 4 days postoperatively. Primary outcome parameter is the QOR and is defined as good if the GSR index >80% as well as the postoperative QOL is unchanged or improved as compared with baseline. QOR is defined as poor if both the GSR index ≤ 80% and if the postoperative QOL is decreased as compared with baseline. QOR is defined as intermediate in all other cases. Three logistic regression analyses were performed to determine predictors for poor QOR after day surgery. A total of 1118 patients were included. A good QOR was noted in 17.3% of patients, an intermediate QOR in 34.8%, and a poor QOR in 47.8% 4 days after day surgery. The best predictor for poor QOR after day surgery was type of surgery. Other predictors were younger age, work status, and longer duration of surgery. A history of previous surgery, expected pain (by the patient) and high long-term surgical fear were significant predictors of poor QOR in only 1 of 3 prediction models. The QOR at home 4 days after day surgery was poor in the majority of patients and showed a significant procedure-specific variation. Patients at risk for poor QOR can be identified during the preoperative period based on type of surgery, age, work status, and the duration of the surgery.

Objectives: To prospectively describe the prevalence and predictive factors of chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) and poor global recovery in a large outpatient population at a university hospital, 1 year after outpatient surgery. Materials and Methods: A prospective longitudinal cohort study was performed. During 18 months, patients presenting for preoperative assessment were invited to participate. Outcome parameters were measured by using questionnaires at 3 timepoints: 1 week preoperatively, 4 days postoperatively, and 1 year postoperatively. A value of >3 on an 11-point numeric rating scale was considered to indicate moderate to severe pain. A score of 80% on the Global Surgical Recovery Index was defined as poor global recovery. Results: A total of 908 patients were included. The prevalence of moderate to severe preoperative pain was 37.7%, acute postsurgical pain 26.7%, and CPSP 15.3%. Risk factors for the development of CPSP were surgical specialty, preoperative pain, preoperative analgesic use, acute postoperative pain, surgical fear, lack of optimism, and poor preoperative quality of life. The prevalence of poor global recovery was 22.3%. Risk factors for poor global recovery were recurrent surgery because of the same pathology, preoperative pain, preoperative analgesic use, surgical fear, lack of optimism, poor preoperative and acute postoperative quality of life, and follow-up surgery during the first postoperative year. Discussion: Moderate to severe CPSP after outpatient surgery is common, and should not be underestimated. Patients at risk for developing CPSP can be identified during the preoperative phase.

Objective To determine postoperative pain in different types of ear, nose, and throat (ENT) surgery and their psychological preoperative predictors. Design Prospective cohort study. Setting Academic hospital. Patients A total of 217 patients undergoing ENT surgery. Interventions All ENT, neck, and salivary gland surgery. Main Outcome Measures Postoperative pain and predictors for postoperative pain. Results Fifty percent of the patients undergoing surgery on the oral, pharyngeal, and laryngeal region and on the neck and salivary gland region had a visual analog scale score higher than 40 mm on day 1. In the patients who underwent oropharyngeal region operations the VAS score remained high on all 4 days. A VAS pain score higher than 40 mm was found in less than 30% of patients after endoscopic procedures and less than 20% after ear and nose surgery. After bivariate analysis, 6 variables–age, sex, preoperative pain, expected pain, short-term fear, and pain catastrophizing–had a predictive value. Multivariate analysis showed only preoperative pain, pain catastrophizing, and anatomical site of operation as independent predictors. Conclusions Differences exist in the prevalence of unacceptable postoperative pain between ENT operations performed on different anatomical sites. A limited set of variables can be used to predict the occurrence of unacceptable postoperative pain after ENT surgery.