Category Archives: Perioperative Care

Bloodstream infection rates: PICC vs CVC

Posted on by
Reply

One discussion this week involved the comparison of bloodstream infection rates with PICCs vs CVCs.

Reference: Chopra V, et al. The risk of bloodstream infection associated with peripherally inserted central catheters compared with central venous catheters in adults: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Infection Control and Hospital Epidemiology. 2013 Sep;34(9):908-918. doi:10.1086/671737.

Summary: In 23 studies involving 57,250 patients, pooled meta-analyses revealed that PICCs were associated with a lower risk of central line-associated bloodstream infection (CLABSI) than were CVCs. A subgroup analysis further showed that CLABSI reduction was greatest in outpatients (RR [95% CI], 0.22 [0.18-0.27]) compared with hospitalized patients who received PICCs (RR [95% CI], 0.73 [0.54-0.98]).

The authors conclude that although PICCs are associated with a lower risk of CLABSI than CVCs in outpatients, hospitalized patients may be just as likely to experience CLABSI with PICCs as with CVCs. Consideration of risks and benefits before PICC use in inpatient settings is warranted.

PROSPER trial: A comparison of treatments for rectal prolapse

Posted on by
Reply

One discussion this week involved the PROSPER trial of treatment for rectal prolapse.

References: Senapati A, et al. PROSPER: a randomised comparison of surgical treatments for rectal prolapse. Colorectal Disease. 2013 Jul;15(7):858-868. doi:10.1111/codi.12177

Summary: The PROSPER randomised control trial is a pragmatic, factorial (2 × 2) design trial in which 293 patients were randomised between abdominal and perineal surgery (i) (n=49), suture vs resection rectopexy for those receiving an abdominal procedure (ii) (n=78), or Altemeier’s vs Delorme’s for those receiving a perineal procedure (iii) (n=213). Primary outcome measures were recurrence of the prolapse, incontinence, bowel function and quality of life scores measured up to 3 years.

Recurrence rates were not significant in any comparisons:

  • abdominal vs perineal surgery: 20% vs 26%
  • suture vs resection rectopexy: 13% vs 26%
  • Altemeier’s vs Delorme’s: 24% vs 31%

It was noted that substantial improvements from baseline in quality of life following all procedures. Additionally, Vaizey, bowel thermometer and EQ-5D scores were not significantly different in any of the comparisons (Senapati et al, 2013).

Additional Reading: Bordeianou L, et al. Clinical practice guidelines for the treatment of rectal prolapse. Diseases of the Colon and Rectum. 2017 Nov;60(11):1121-1131. doi:10.1097/DCR.0000000000000889

Perioperative fluid management: restrictive vs liberal regimens

Posted on by
Reply

One discussion this week included restrictive vs liberal perioperative fluid management on the development of perioperative acute kidney injury.

References: Brandstrup B, et al. Effects of intravenous fluid restriction on postoperative complications: comparison of two perioperative fluid regimens: a randomized assessor-blinded multicenter trial. Annals of Surgery. 2003 Nov;238(5):641-648.

Myles PS, et al. Restrictive versus liberal fluid therapy for major abdominal surgery. NEJM. 2018 Jun 14;378:2263-2274. doi:10.1056/NEJMoa1801601

Summary: Traditional intravenous-fluid regimens administered during abdominal surgery deliver up to 7 liters of fluid on the day of surgery. Some small trials have shown that a more restrictive fluid regimen led to fewer complications and a shorter hospital stay. However, the evidence for fluid restriction during and immediately after abdominal surgery is inconclusive. Fluid restriction could increase the risk of hypotension and decrease perfusion in the kidney and other vital organs, leading to organ dysfunction, but excessive intravenous-fluid infusion may increase the risk of pulmonary complications, acute kidney injury, sepsis, and poor wound healing (Myles 2018).

Each of the RCTs below compare restrictive vs liberal fluid management, with conflicting conclusions.

BRANDSTRUB ET AL (2003)

This multicenter RCT involved 172 patients allocated to either a restricted or a standard intraoperative and postoperative intravenous fluid regimen. The restricted regimen aimed at maintaining preoperative body weight; the standard regimen resembled everyday practice. The primary outcome measures were complications; the secondary measures were death and adverse effects.

Results: The restricted intravenous fluid regimen significantly reduced postoperative complications both by intention-to-treat (33% versus 51%, P = 0.013) and per-protocol (30% versus 56%, P = 0.003) analyses. The numbers of both cardiopulmonary (7% versus 24%, P = 0.007) and tissue-healing complications (16% versus 31%, P = 0.04) were significantly reduced. No patients died in the restricted group compared with 4 deaths in the standard group (0% versus 4.7%, P = 0.12). No harmful adverse effects were observed.

Conclusion: The restricted perioperative intravenous fluid regimen aiming at unchanged body weight reduces complications after elective colorectal resection.

MYLES ET AL (2018)

This international trial randomly assigned 3000 patients who had an increased risk of complications while undergoing major abdominal surgery to receive a restrictive or liberal intravenous-fluid regimen during and up to 24 hours after surgery. The primary outcome was disability-free survival at 1 year. Key secondary outcomes were acute kidney injury at 30 days, renal-replacement therapy at 90 days, and a composite of septic complications, surgical-site infection, or death.

Results: Up to 24 hours after surgery, 1490 patients in the restrictive fluid group had a median intravenous-fluid intake of 3.7 liters, as compared with 6.1 liters in 1493 patients in the liberal fluid group. The rate of disability-free survival at 1 year was 81.9% in the restrictive fluid group and 82.3% in the liberal fluid group. The rate of AKI was 8.6% in the restrictive fluid group and 5.0% in the liberal fluid group. The rate of septic complications or death was 21.8% in the restrictive fluid group and 19.8% in the liberal fluid group; rates of surgical-site infection (16.5% vs. 13.6%) and renal-replacement therapy (0.9% vs. 0.3%) were higher in the restrictive fluid group, but the between-group difference was not significant after adjustment for multiple testing.

Conclusion: Among patients at increased risk for complications during major abdominal surgery, a restrictive fluid regimen was not associated with a higher rate of disability-free survival than a liberal fluid regimen and was associated with a higher rate of acute kidney injury.

Additional Reading: Romagnoli S, Ricci Z, Ronco C. Perioperative acute kidney injury: prevention, early recognition, and supportive measures. Nephron. 2018;140(2):105-110.

Salmasi V, et al. Relationship between intraoperative hypotension, defined by either reduction from baseline or absolute thresholds, and acute kidney and myocardial injury after noncardiac surgery: a retrospective cohort analysis. Anesthesiology. 2017;126:47-65. doi:10.1097/ALN.0000000000001432

OpenAnesthesia. Encyclopedia: Fluid Management. OpenAnesthesia. 2019. International Anesthesia Research Society. Retrieved from: http://www.openanesthesia.org/fluid-management/

EAST guidelines on the use of antibiotics in thoracostomy

Posted on by
Reply

One discussion this week involved the use of antibiotics in thoracostomy.

Reference: Moore FO et al. Presumptive antibiotic use in tube thoracostomy for traumatic hemopneumothorax: An Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma practice management guideline. 2012. Retrieved from: https://www.east.org/education/practice-management-guidelines/tube-thoracostomy-presumptive-antibiotics-in

Summary:  A systematic review was done by 10 acute care surgeons and one statistician to update the 1998 guidelines for EAST. Routine presumptive antibiotic use to reduce the incidence of empyema and pneumonia in tube thoracostomy (TT) for traumatic hemopneumothorax is controversial. Moore et al (2012) conclude that there is insufficient published evidence to support any recommendation either for or against this practice. The authors further state that “until a large and likely multicenter, randomized, controlled trial can be performed, the routine practice of presumptive antibiotics in TT for chest trauma will remain controversial.”

Additionally, the authors are unable to recommend an optimal duration of antibiotic prophylaxis when antibiotics are administered for traumatic hemopneumothorax because there are insufficient published data to support the routine use of antibiotics.

Additional Reading: Department of Surgical Education, Orlando Regional Medical Center. Chest Tube Management. 2016 Sept 8. Retrieved from http://www.surgicalcriticalcare.net/Guidelines/Chest%20tube%20management%202016.pdf

AHA Guidelines on post-cardiac stent operations: Perioperative risk assessment

Posted on by
Reply

A discussion last week included the AHA Guidelines for post-cardiac stent operations.

Reference: Fleisher LA, et al. 2014 ACC/AHA Guideline on Perioperative Cardiovascular Evaluation and Management of Patients Undergoing Noncardiac Surgery: Executive Summary: A Report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on Practice Guidelines. Circulation. 2014 Dec 9;130(24):2215-45. doi: 10.1161/CIR.0000000000000105.

Summary: Below are ACC/AHA recommendations on perioperative risk assessment, section 5.2 of the guidelines linked above.

5.2. Timing of Elective Noncardiac Surgery in Patients With Previous PCI

Class I

  1. Elective noncardiac surgery should be delayed 14 days after balloon angioplasty (Level of Evidence: C) and 30 days after BMS implantation. (Level of Evidence B)

  2. Elective noncardiac surgery should optimally be delayed 365 days after drug-eluting stent (DES) implantation.(Level of Evidence: B)

Class IIa

  1. In patients in whom noncardiac surgery is required, a consensus decision among treating clinicians as to the relative risks of surgery and discontinuation or continuation of antiplatelet therapy can be useful. (Level of Evidence: C)

Class IIb

  1. Elective noncardiac surgery after DES implantation may be considered after 180 days if the risk of further delay is greater than the expected risks of ischemia and stent thrombosis. (Level of Evidence: B)

Class III: Harm

  1. Elective noncardiac surgery should not be performed within 30 days after BMS implantation or within 12 months after DES implantation in patients in whom dual antiplatelet therapy will need to be discontinued perioperatively. (Level of Evidence: B)

  2. Elective noncardiac surgery should not be performed within 14 days of balloon angioplasty in patients in whom aspirin will need to be discontinued perioperatively. (Level of Evidence: C)

The role of evoked potentials in thoracoabdominal aortic repair

Posted on by
Reply

One discussion this week involved the role of evoked potentials in thoracoabdominal aortic (TAA) repair.

Reference: Achouh PE, et al. Role of somatosensory evoked potentials in predicting outcome during thoracoabdominal aortic repair. The Annals of Thoracic Surgery. 2007 Sep; 84(3):782-787.

Summary:  Between January 2000 and April 2005, a study out of Houston, TX, used SSEP monitoring in 444 patients (270 thoracoabdominal aorta and 174 descending thoracic aorta).  Changes were classified as (1) no change, (2) transient changes that returned to baseline by the end of the procedure, or (3) persistent changes that did not return to baseline by the end of the procedure.

Primary findings included:

  • Somatosensory evoked potential changes occurred in 87 (19.6%) patients; 22 (25%) of these did not return to baseline.
  • Immediate neurologic deficit occurred in 8 of 444 patients (1.8%); five deficits (5 of 87; 5.8%) occurred in patients with SSEP changes, compared with three deficits (3 of 357; 0.8%) in patients without changes.
  • Somatosensory evoked potential was a poor screening tool for neurologic deficit, with a sensitivity of 62.5% and specificity 81.2%. Negative predictive value was 99.2%, indicating a very low event probability in the absence of SSEP changes. Delayed neurologic deficit occurred in 3.2% and was not related to SSEP changes.
  • Somatosensory evoked potential changes were also associated with increased 30-day mortality and low glomerular filtration rate.

Achouh et al (2007) conclude that “intraoperative SSEP monitoring was reliable in ruling out spinal injury in DTA and TAA repair, but had a low sensitivity. Somatosensory evoked potential did not predict delayed ND. Spinal SSEP change was an independent predictor for mortality in DTA and TAA repair and correlated with low preoperative glomerular filtration rate” (p.787).

Monitoring gastric residuals in ICU patients: Does it prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia?

Posted on by
Reply

One discussion this week involved monitoring gastric residuals in ICU patients.

Reference: Reignier J, et al. Effect of not monitoring residual gastric volume on risk of ventilator-assisted pneumonia in adults receiving mechanical ventilation and early enteral feeding: a randomized control trial. JAMA. 2013 Jan 16;309(3):249-56. doi: 10.1001/jama.2012.196377.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: clinicaltrials.gov Identifier: NCT01137487.

Summary: Monitoring of residual gastric volume is recommended to prevent ventilator-associated pneumonia (VAP) in patients receiving early enteral nutrition. However, studies have challenged the reliability and effectiveness of this measure.

DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS: Randomized, noninferiority, open-label, multicenter trial conducted from May 2010 through March 2011 in adults requiring invasive mechanical ventilation for more than 2 days and given enteral nutrition within 36 hours after intubation at 9 French intensive care units (ICUs); 452 patients were randomized and 449 included in the intention-to-treat analysis (3 withdrew initial consent).

INTERVENTION: Absence of residual gastric volume monitoring. Intolerance to enteral nutrition was based only on regurgitation and vomiting in the intervention group and based on residual gastric volume greater than 250 mL at any of the 6 hourly measurements and regurgitation or vomiting in the control group.

RESULTS: In the intention-to-treat population, VAP occurred in 38 of 227 patients (16.7%) in the intervention group and in 35 of 222 patients (15.8%) in the control group (difference, 0.9%; 90% CI, -4.8% to 6.7%). There were no significant between-group differences in other ICU-acquired infections, mechanical ventilation duration, ICU stay length, or mortality rates. The proportion of patients receiving 100% of their calorie goal was higher in the intervention group (odds ratio, 1.77; 90% CI, 1.25-2.51; P = .008). Similar results were obtained in the per-protocol population.

CONCLUSION AND RELEVANCE: Among adults requiring mechanical ventilation and receiving early enteral nutrition, the absence of gastric volume monitoring was not inferior to routine residual gastric volume monitoring in terms of development of VAP.

The authors further conclude that “eliminating residual gastric volume monitoring from standard care may have beneficial effects. First, in the present study, absence of residual gastric volume monitoring was associated with improved enteral nutrition delivery. High residual gastric volume values often lead to enteral nutrition discontinuation, which in turn causes underfeeding with increases in morbidity and mortality rates. We found no difference in mortality rates. However, our enteral nutrition protocol was more aggressive than previously reported protocols: enteral nutrition was started at the rate required to meet the calorie target and was stopped gradually in the event of intolerance. Moreover, enteral nutrition solution lost by vomiting, being discarded, or both was not measured, thus resulting in potential overestimation of delivered calories. These factors may have attenuated any mortality difference related to differences in delivered enteral nutrition volume” (p.255).