Search

BACKGROUND: Dexamethasone is widely used for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) but little is known about its efficacy for the treatment of established PONV.OBJECTIVE: To test the antiemetic efficacy of intravenous dexamethasone for the treatment of established PONV in adults undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia and to determine whether there is dose-responsiveness.DESIGN: The DexPonv trial is a multicentre, placebo-controlled, randomised, double-blind, dose-finding study. Inclusion of patients was between September 2012 and November 2017. Follow-up for PONV symptoms was for 24 h. Thirty days postoperatively, patients were contacted by study nurses for any information on postoperative bleeding and infection.SETTING: Four public hospitals in Switzerland.PATIENTS: A total of 803 adults scheduled for elective surgery without any antiemetic prophylaxis signed the consent form; 714 were included. Among those, 319 had PONV and 281 patients were eventually randomised (intention to treat population and safety set). The per protocol set consisted of 260 patients.INTERVENTIONS: Patients with PONV symptoms (including retching) were randomised to a single intravenous dose of dexamethasone 3, 6 or 12 mg or matching placebo.MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was the absence of further nausea or vomiting (including retching), within 24 h after administration of the study drug.RESULTS: Dexamethasone was ineffective during the first 24 h, whatever the dosage, compared to placebo, even when the model was adjusted for known risk factors (P = 0.170). There were no differences in the time to treatment failure or the quality of sleep during the first night. There was a positive correlation between the dose of dexamethasone and blood glucose concentrations (P CONCLUSION: This randomised trial failed to show antiemetic efficacy of any of the tested intravenous regimens of dexamethasone for the treatment of established PONV in adults undergoing surgery under general anaesthesia.TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov (NCT01975727).

OBJECTIVE: To compare epidural analgesia (EDA) to patient-controlled opioid-based analgesia (PCA) in patients undergoing laparoscopic colorectal surgery. BACKGROUND: EDA is mainstay of multimodal pain management within enhanced recovery pathways [enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS)]. For laparoscopic colorectal resections, the benefit of epidurals remains debated. Some consider EDA as useful, whereas others perceive epidurals as unnecessary or even deleterious. METHODS: A total of 128 patients undergoing elective laparoscopic colorectal resections were enrolled in a randomized clinical trial comparing EDA versus PCA. Primary end point was medical recovery. Overall complications, hospital stay, perioperative vasopressor requirements, and postoperative pain scores were secondary outcome measures. Analysis was performed according to the intention-to-treat principle. RESULTS: Final analysis included 65 EDA patients and 57 PCA patients. Both groups were similar regarding baseline characteristics. Medical recovery required a median of 5 days (interquartile range [IQR], 3-7.5 days) in EDA patients and 4 days (IQR, 3-6 days) in the PCA group (P = 0.082). PCA patients had significantly less overall complications [19 (33%) vs 35 (54%); P = 0.029] but a similar hospital stay [5 days (IQR, 4-8 days) vs 7 days (IQR, 4.5-12 days); P = 0.434]. Significantly more EDA patients needed vasopressor treatment perioperatively (90% vs 74%, P = 0.018), the day of surgery (27% vs 4%, P < 0.001), and on postoperative day 1 (29% vs 4%, P < 0.001), whereas no difference in postoperative pain scores was noted. CONCLUSIONS: Epidurals seem to slow down recovery after laparoscopic colorectal resections without adding obvious benefits. EDA can therefore not be recommended as part of ERAS pathways in laparoscopic colorectal surgery.

BACKGROUND: Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) reduces complications and hospital stay in colorectal surgery. Thereafter, ERAS principles were extended to liver surgery. Previous implementation of an ERAS program in colorectal surgery may influence patients undergoing liver surgery in a non-ERAS setting, on the same ward. This study aimed to test this hypothesis. METHODS: Retrospective analysis based on prospective data of the adherence to the institutional ERAS-liver protocol (compliance) in three cohorts of consecutive patients undergoing elective liver surgery, between June 2010 and July 2014: before any ERAS implementation (pre-ERAS n = 50), after implementation of ERAS in colorectal (intermediate n = 50), and after implementation of ERAS in liver surgery (ERAS-liver n = 74). Outcomes were functional recovery, postoperative complications, hospital stay, and readmissions. RESULTS: The three groups were comparable for demographics; laparoscopy was more frequent in ERAS-liver (p = 0.009). Compliance with the enhanced recovery protocol increased along the three periods (pre-ERAS, intermediate, and ERAS-liver), regardless of the perioperative phase (pre-, intra-, or postoperative). ERAS-liver group displayed the highest overall compliance rate with 73.8 %, compared to 39.9 and 57.4 % for pre-ERAS and intermediate groups (p = 0.072/0.056). Overall complications were unchanged (p = 0.185), whereas intermediate and ERAS-liver groups showed decreased major complications (p = 0.034). Consistently, hospital stay was reduced by 2 days (p = 0.005) without increased readmissions (p = 0.158). CONCLUSIONS: The previous implementation of an ERAS protocol in colorectal surgery may induce a positive impact on patients undergoing non-ERAS-liver surgery on the same ward. These results suggest that ERAS is safely applicable in liver surgery and associated with benefits.

Positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) applied during induction of anesthesia prevents atelectasis formation and increases the duration of nonhypoxic apnea in nonobese patients. PEEP also prevents atelectasis formation in morbidly obese patients. Because morbidly obese patients have difficult airway management more often and because arterial desaturation develops rapidly, we studied the clinical benefit of PEEP applied during anesthesia induction. Thirty morbidly obese patients were randomly allocated to one of two groups. In the PEEP group, patients breathed 100% O(2) through a continuous positive airway pressure device (10 cm H(2)O) for 5 min. After induction of anesthesia, they were mechanically ventilated with PEEP (10 cm H(2)O) for another 5 min until tracheal intubation. In the control group, the sequence was the same but without any continuous positive airway pressure or PEEP. We measured apnea duration until Spo(2) reached 90% and we performed arterial blood gases analyses just before apnea and at 92% Spo(2). Nonhypoxic apnea duration was longer in the PEEP group compared with the control group (188 +/- 46 versus 127 +/- 43 s; P = 0.002). Pao(2) was higher before apnea in the PEEP group (P = 0.038). Application of positive airway pressure during induction of general anesthesia in morbidly obese patients increases nonhypoxic apnea duration by 50%.

Background Enhanced recovery protocols may reduce postoperative complications and length of hospital stay. However, the implementation of these protocols requires time and financial investment. This study evaluated the cost-effectiveness of enhanced recovery implementation. Methods The first 50 consecutive patients treated during implementation of an enhanced recovery programme were compared with 50 consecutive patients treated in the year before its introduction. The enhanced recovery protocol principally implemented preoperative counselling, reduced preoperative fasting, preoperative carbohydrate loading, avoidance of premedication, optimized fluid balance, standardized postoperative analgesia, use of a no-drain policy, as well as early nutrition and mobilization. Length of stay, readmissions and complications within 30 days were compared. A cost-minimization analysis was performed. Results Hospital stay was significantly shorter in the enhanced recovery group: median 7 (interquartile range 5–12) versus 10 (7–18) days (P = 0·003); two patients were readmitted in each group. The rate of severe complications was lower in the enhanced recovery group (12 versus 20 per cent), but there was no difference in overall morbidity. The mean saving per patient in the enhanced recovery group was €1651. Conclusion Enhanced recovery is cost-effective, with savings evident even in the initial implementation period.