The occurrence of intra-operative hypotension varies between hospitals: observational analysis of more than 147,000 anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Hypotension, a common intra-operative incident, bears an important potential for morbidity. It is most often manageable and sometimes preventable, which renders its study important. Therefore, we aimed at examining hospital variations in the occurrence of intra-operative hypotension and its predictors. As secondary endpoints, we determined to what extent hypotension relates to the risk of post-operative incidents and death. METHODS: We used the Anaesthesia Databank Switzerland, built on routinely and prospectively collected data on all anaesthesias in 21 hospitals. The three outcomes were assessed using multi-level logistic regression models. RESULTS: Among 147,573 anaesthesias, hypotension ranged from 0.6% to 5.2% in participating hospitals, and from 0.3% up to 12% in different surgical specialties. Most (73.4%) were minor single events. Age, ASA status, combined general and regional anaesthesia techniques, duration of surgery and hospitalization were significantly associated with hypotension. Although significantly associated, the emergency status of the surgery had a weaker effect. Hospitals' odds ratios for hypotension varied between 0.12 and 2.50 (P < or = 0.001), even after adjusting for patient and anaesthesia factors, and for type of surgery. At least one post-operative incident occurred in 9.7% of the procedures, including 0.03% deaths. Intra-operative hypotension was associated with a higher risk of post-operative incidents and death. CONCLUSION: Wide variations remain in the occurrence of hypotension among hospitals after adjustment for risk factors. Although differential reporting from hospitals may exist, variations in anaesthesia techniques and blood pressure maintenance may also have contributed. Intra-operative hypotension is associated with morbidities and sometimes death, and constant vigilance must thus be advocated.

Stepwise evaluation of unexplained syncope in a large ambulatory population.

BACKGROUND: Up to 60% of syncopal episodes remain unexplained. We report the results of a standardized, stepwise evaluation of patients referred to an ambulatory clinic for unexplained syncope. METHODS AND RESULTS: We studied 939 consecutive patients referred for unexplained syncope, who underwent a standardized evaluation, including history, physical examination, electrocardiogram, head-up tilt testing (HUTT), carotid sinus massage (CSM) and hyperventilation testing (HYV). Echocardiogram and stress test were performed when underlying heart disease was initially suspected. Electrophysiological study (EPS) and implantable loop recorder (ILR) were used only in patients with underlying structural heart disease or major unexplained syncope. We identified a cause of syncope in 66% of patients, including 27% vasovagal, 14% psychogenic, 6% arrhythmias, and 6% hypotension. Noninvasive testing identified 92% and invasive testing an additional 8% of the causes. HUTT yielded 38%, CSM 28%, HYV 49%, EPS 22%, and ILR 56% of diagnoses. On average, patients with arrhythmic causes were older, had a lower functional capacity, longer P-wave duration, and presented with fewer prodromes than patients with vasovagal or psychogenic syncope. CONCLUSIONS: A standardized stepwise evaluation emphasizing noninvasive tests yielded 2/3 of causes in patients referred to an ambulatory clinic for unexplained syncope. Neurally mediated and psychogenic mechanisms were behind >50% of episodes, while cardiac arrhythmias were uncommon. Sudden syncope, particularly in older patients with functional limitations or a prolonged P-wave, suggests an arrhythmic cause.

Surviving Sepsis Campaign: international guidelines for management of severe sepsis and septic shock: 2008.

OBJECTIVE: To provide an update to the original Surviving Sepsis Campaign clinical management guidelines, "Surviving Sepsis Campaign Guidelines for Management of Severe Sepsis and Septic Shock," published in 2004. DESIGN: Modified Delphi method with a consensus conference of 55 international experts, several subsequent meetings of subgroups and key individuals, teleconferences, and electronic-based discussion among subgroups and among the entire committee. This process was conducted independently of any industry funding. METHODS: We used the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system to guide assessment of quality of evidence from high (A) to very low (D) and to determine the strength of recommendations. A strong recommendation (1) indicates that an intervention's desirable effects clearly outweigh its undesirable effects (risk, burden, cost) or clearly do not. Weak recommendations (2) indicate that the tradeoff between desirable and undesirable effects is less clear. The grade of strong or weak is considered of greater clinical importance than a difference in letter level of quality of evidence. In areas without complete agreement, a formal process of resolution was developed and applied. Recommendations are grouped into those directly targeting severe sepsis, recommendations targeting general care of the critically ill patient that are considered high priority in severe sepsis, and pediatric considerations. RESULTS: Key recommendations, listed by category, include early goal-directed resuscitation of the septic patient during the first 6 hrs after recognition (1C); blood cultures before antibiotic therapy (1C); imaging studies performed promptly to confirm potential source of infection (1C); administration of broad-spectrum antibiotic therapy within 1 hr of diagnosis of septic shock (1B) and severe sepsis without septic shock (1D); reassessment of antibiotic therapy with microbiology and clinical data to narrow coverage, when appropriate (1C); a usual 7-10 days of antibiotic therapy guided by clinical response (1D); source control with attention to the balance of risks and benefits of the chosen method (1C); administration of either crystalloid or colloid fluid resuscitation (1B); fluid challenge to restore mean circulating filling pressure (1C); reduction in rate of fluid administration with rising filing pressures and no improvement in tissue perfusion (1D); vasopressor preference for norepinephrine or dopamine to maintain an initial target of mean arterial pressure > or = 65 mm Hg (1C); dobutamine inotropic therapy when cardiac output remains low despite fluid resuscitation and combined inotropic/vasopressor therapy (1C); stress-dose steroid therapy given only in septic shock after blood pressure is identified to be poorly responsive to fluid and vasopressor therapy (2C); recombinant activated protein C in patients with severe sepsis and clinical assessment of high risk for death (2B except 2C for postoperative patients). In the absence of tissue hypoperfusion, coronary artery disease, or acute hemorrhage, target a hemoglobin of 7-9 g/dL (1B); a low tidal volume (1B) and limitation of inspiratory plateau pressure strategy (1C) for acute lung injury (ALI)/acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS); application of at least a minimal amount of positive end-expiratory pressure in acute lung injury (1C); head of bed elevation in mechanically ventilated patients unless contraindicated (1B); avoiding routine use of pulmonary artery catheters in ALI/ARDS (1A); to decrease days of mechanical ventilation and ICU length of stay, a conservative fluid strategy for patients with established ALI/ARDS who are not in shock (1C); protocols for weaning and sedation/analgesia (1B); using either intermittent bolus sedation or continuous infusion sedation with daily interruptions or lightening (1B); avoidance of neuromuscular blockers, if at all possible (1B); institution of glycemic control (1B), targeting a blood glucose < 150 mg/dL after initial stabilization (2C); equivalency of continuous veno-veno hemofiltration or intermittent hemodialysis (2B); prophylaxis for deep vein thrombosis (1A); use of stress ulcer prophylaxis to prevent upper gastrointestinal bleeding using H2 blockers (1A) or proton pump inhibitors (1B); and consideration of limitation of support where appropriate (1D). Recommendations specific to pediatric severe sepsis include greater use of physical examination therapeutic end points (2C); dopamine as the first drug of choice for hypotension (2C); steroids only in children with suspected or proven adrenal insufficiency (2C); and a recommendation against the use of recombinant activated protein C in children (1B). CONCLUSIONS: There was strong agreement among a large cohort of international experts regarding many level 1 recommendations for the best current care of patients with severe sepsis. Evidenced-based recommendations regarding the acute management of sepsis and septic shock are the first step toward improved outcomes for this important group of critically ill patients.

Propranolol in infantile haemangioma: simplifying pretreatment monitoring.

BACKGROUND: Infantile haemangiomas (IHs) are very common vascular tumours. Propranolol is at present the first-line treatment for problematic and complicated haemangioma. In accordance with a Swiss protocol, children are monitored for 2 days at the start of the treatment to detect possible side effects of this drug. Our study advocates a simplification of the pretreatment monitoring process. METHODS: All children with a problematic and complicated haemangioma treated with propranolol between September 2009 and September 2012 were included in the study. All patients were hospitalised under constant nurse supervision for 48 hours at the start of the treatment and subjected to cardiac and blood measurements. The dosage of propranolol was 1 mg/kg/day on the first day and 2 mg/kg/day from the second day. Demographic data, clinical features, treatment outcome and complications were analysed. RESULTS: Twenty-nine infants were included in our study. Of these, 86.2% responded immediately to the treatment. There were no severe adverse reactions. Six patients presented transient side effects such as bradycardia, hypotension after the first dose and hypoglycaemia later. No side effects occurred after the second dose. Treatment was never interrupted. CONCLUSION: Propranolol (a β-blocker) is a safe treatment for problematic IH. Side effects may occur after the first dose. A strict 48 hour monitoring in hospital is expensive and may be unnecessary as long as the contraindications for the drug are respected.