Search

OBJECTIVE: The optimal timing of tracheostomy in nonneurologically injured mechanically ventilated critically ill adult patients is uncertain. We conducted a systematic review of randomized controlled trials to evaluate the effect of early versus late tracheostomy or prolonged intubation in this population. DATA SOURCES: We searched MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL, and Web of science databases for randomized controlled trials comparing early tracheostomy (<10 d of intubation) with late tracheostomy or prolonged intubation in adults. DATA SELECTION: We selected trials comparing early tracheostomy (defined as being performed less than 10 d after intubation) with late tracheostomy (performed on or after the 10th day of intubation) or prolonged intubation and no tracheostomy in nonneurologically injured patients. The primary outcome was overall mortality. Secondary outcomes included ventilator-associated pneumonia, duration of mechanical ventilation, ICU, and hospital length of stay. DATA EXTRACTION: Two reviewers screened citations, extracted data, assessed the risk of bias, and classification of Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation independently. DATA SYNTHESIS: Our search strategy yielded 8,275 citations, from which nine trials (n = 2,457) were included. We did not observe an effect on the overall mortality of early tracheostomy compared with late tracheostomy or prolonged intubation (risk ratio, 0.91, 95% CI, 0.82–1.01; I 2 = 18%). Our results were consistent in all subgroup analyses. No differences were observed in ICU and hospital length of stay, duration of mechanical ventilation, incidence of ventilator-acquired pneumonia, and complications. Our trial sequential analysis showed that our primary analysis on mortality was likely underpowered. CONCLUSION: In our systematic review, we observed that early tracheostomy, as compared with late tracheostomy or prolonged intubation, was not associated with a reduction in overall mortality. However, we cannot exclude a clinically relevant reduction in mortality considering the level of certainty of the evidence. A well-designed trial is needed to answer this important clinical question. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia / Journal Canadien d'Anesthésie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia / Journal Canadien d'Anesthésie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Background: While simple Audit & Feedback (A&F) has shown modest effectiveness in reducing low-value care, there is a knowledge gap on the effectiveness of multifaceted interventions to support de-implementation efforts. Given the need to make rapid decisions in a context of multiple diagnostic and therapeutic options, trauma is a high-risk setting for low-value care. Furthermore, trauma systems are a favorable setting for de-implementation interventions as they have quality improvement teams with medical leadership, routinely collected clinical data, and performance-linked to accreditation. We aim to evaluate the effectiveness of a multifaceted intervention for reducing low-value clinical practices in acute adult trauma care., Methods: We will conduct a pragmatic cluster randomized controlled trial (cRCT) embedded in a Canadian provincial quality assurance program. Level I-III trauma centers (n = 30) will be randomized (1:1) to receive simple A&F (control) or a multifaceted intervention (intervention). The intervention, developed using extensive background work and UK Medical Research Council guidelines, includes an A&F report, educational meetings, and facilitation visits. The primary outcome will be the use of low-value initial diagnostic imaging, assessed at the patient level using routinely collected trauma registry data. Secondary outcomes will be low-value specialist consultation, low-value repeat imaging after a patient transfer, unintended consequences, determinants for successful implementation, and incremental cost-effectiveness ratios., Discussion: On completion of the cRCT, if the intervention is effective and cost-effective, the multifaceted intervention will be integrated into trauma systems across Canada. Medium and long-term benefits may include a reduction in adverse events for patients and an increase in resource availability. The proposed intervention targets a problem identified by stakeholders, is based on extensive background work, was developed using a partnership approach, is low-cost, and is linked to accreditation. There will be no attrition, identification, or recruitment bias as the intervention is mandatory in line with trauma center designation requirements, and all outcomes will be assessed with routinely collected data. However, investigators cannot be blinded to group allocation and there is a possibility of contamination bias that will be minimized by conducting intervention refinement only with participants in the intervention arm., Trial Registration: This protocol has been registered on ClinicalTrials.gov (February 24, 2023, # NCT05744154 )., (© 2023. The Author(s).)

Objective: Chronic subdural hematoma (CSDH) is a common neurosurgical condition that can result in significant morbidity. The incidence of epileptic events associated with CSDH reported in the literature varies considerably and could potentially increase morbidity and mortality rates. The effectiveness of antiepileptic prophylaxis for this indication remains unclear. The primary objective of this study was to assess the relevance of anticonvulsant prophylaxis in reducing seizure events in patients with CSDH., Methods: All consecutive cases of CSDH from January 1, 2005, to May 30, 2014, at the Hôpital de l'Enfant-Jésus in Quebec City were retrospectively reviewed. Sociodemographic data, antiepileptic prophylaxis use, incidence of ictal events, and clinical and radiological outcome data were collected. Univariate analyses were done to measure the effect of antiepileptic prophylaxis on ictal events and to identify potential confounding factors. Multivariate logistic regression was performed to evaluate factors associated with epileptic events., Results: Antiepileptic prophylaxis was administered in 28% of the patients, and seizures occurred in 11%. Univariate analyses showed an increase in the incidence of ictal events in patients receiving prophylaxis (OR 5.92). Four factors were identified as being associated with seizures: septations inside the hematoma, membranectomy, antiepileptic prophylaxis, and a new deficit postoperatively. Antiepileptic prophylaxis was not associated with seizures in multivariate analyses., Conclusions: Antiepileptic prophylaxis does not seem to be effective in preventing seizures in patients with CSDH. However, due to the design of this study, it is difficult to conclude definitively about the usefulness of this prophylactic therapy that is widely prescribed for this condition.