Variation in Haemodynamic Monitoring for Major Surgery in European Nations: Secondary Analysis of the EuSOS Dataset

BACKGROUND: The use of cardiac output monitoring may improve patient outcomes after major surgery. However, little is known about the use of this technology across nations. METHODS: This is a secondary analysis of a previously published observational study. Patients aged 16 years and over undergoing major non-cardiac surgery in a 7-day period in April 2011 were included into this analysis. The objective is to describe prevalence and type of cardiac output monitoring used in major surgery in Europe. RESULTS: Included in the analysis were 12,170 patients from the surgical services of 426 hospitals in 28 European nations. One thousand four hundred and sixteen patients (11.6 %) were exposed to cardiac output monitoring, and 2343 patients (19.3 %) received a central venous catheter. Patients with higher American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scores were more frequently exposed to cardiac output monitoring (ASA I and II, 643 patients [8.6 %]; ASA III-V, 768 patients [16.2 %]; p < 0.01) and central venous catheter (ASA I and II, 874 patients [11.8 %]; ASA III-V, 1463 patients [30.9 %]; p < 0.01). In elective surgery, 990 patients (10.8 %) were exposed to cardiac output monitoring, in urgent surgery 252 patients (11.7 %) and in emergency surgery 173 patients (19.8 %). A central venous catheter was used in 1514 patients (16.6 %) undergoing elective, in 480 patients (22.2 %) undergoing urgent and in 349 patients (39.9 %) undergoing emergency surgery. Nine hundred sixty patients (7.9 %) were monitored using arterial waveform analysis, 238 patients (2.0 %) using oesophageal Doppler ultrasound, 55 patients (0.5 %) using a pulmonary artery catheter and 44 patients (2.0 %) using other technologies. Across nations, cardiac output monitoring use varied from 0.0 % (0/249 patients) to 27.5 % (19/69 patients), whilst central venous catheter use varied from 5.6 % (7/125 patients) to 43.2 % (16/37 patients). CONCLUSIONS: One in ten patients undergoing major surgery is exposed to cardiac output monitoring whilst one in five receives a central venous catheter. The use of both technologies varies widely across Europe.

American Society of Anesthesiologists Score: Still Useful After 60 Years? Results of the EuSOS Study

OBJECTIVE: The European Surgical Outcomes Study described mortality following in-patient surgery. Several factors were identified that were able to predict poor outcomes in a multivariate analysis. These included age, procedure urgency, severity and type and the American Association of Anaesthesia score. This study describes in greater detail the relationship between the American Association of Anaesthesia score and postoperative mortality. METHODS: Patients in this 7-day cohort study were enrolled in April 2011. Consecutive patients aged 16 years and older undergoing inpatient non-cardiac surgery with a recorded American Association of Anaesthesia score in 498 hospitals across 28 European nations were included and followed up for a maximum of 60 days. The primary endpoint was in-hospital mortality. Decision tree analysis with the CHAID (SPSS) system was used to delineate nodes associated with mortality. RESULTS: The study enrolled 46,539 patients. Due to missing values, 873 patients were excluded, resulting in the analysis of 45,666 patients. Increasing American Association of Anaesthesia scores were associated with increased admission rates to intensive care and higher mortality rates. Despite a progressive relationship with mortality, discrimination was poor, with an area under the ROC curve of 0.658 (95% CI 0.642 - 0.6775). Using regression trees (CHAID), we identified four discrete American Association of Anaesthesia nodes associated with mortality, with American Association of Anaesthesia 1 and American Association of Anaesthesia 2 compressed into the same node. CONCLUSION: The American Association of Anaesthesia score can be used to determine higher risk groups of surgical patients, but clinicians cannot use the score to discriminate between grades 1 and 2. Overall, the discriminatory power of the model was less than acceptable for widespread use.

The Intensive Care Global Study on Severe Acute Respiratory Infection (IC-GLOSSARI): a Multicenter, Multinational, 14-Day Inception Cohort Study

PURPOSE: In this prospective, multicenter, 14-day inception cohort study, we investigated the epidemiology, patterns of infections, and outcome in patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) as a result of severe acute respiratory infections (SARIs). METHODS: All patients admitted to one of 206 participating ICUs during two study weeks, one in November 2013 and the other in January 2014, were screened. SARI was defined as possible, probable, or microbiologically confirmed respiratory tract infection with recent onset dyspnea and/or fever. The primary outcome parameter was in-hospital mortality within 60 days of admission to the ICU. RESULTS: Among the 5550 patients admitted during the study periods, 663 (11.9 %) had SARI. On admission to the ICU, Gram-positive and Gram-negative bacteria were found in 29.6 and 26.2 % of SARI patients but rarely atypical bacteria (1.0 %); viruses were present in 7.7 % of patients. Organ failure occurred in 74.7 % of patients in the ICU, mostly respiratory (53.8 %), cardiovascular (44.5 %), and renal (44.6 %). ICU and in-hospital mortality rates in patients with SARI were 20.2 and 27.2 %, respectively. In multivariable analysis, older age, greater severity scores at ICU admission, and hematologic malignancy or liver disease were independently associated with an increased risk of in-hospital death, whereas influenza vaccination prior to ICU admission and adequate antibiotic administration on ICU admission were associated with a lower risk. CONCLUSIONS: Admission to the ICU for SARI is common and associated with high morbidity and mortality rates. We identified several risk factors for in-hospital death that may be useful for risk stratification in these patients.

The 10th Anniversary of the Junior Members and Affiliates of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology

This year is the 10th anniversary of the European Academy of Allergy and Clinical Immunology (EAACI) Junior Members and Affiliates (JMAs). The aim of this review is to highlight the work and activities of EAACI JMAs. To this end, we have summarized all the initiatives taken by JMAs during the last 10 yr. EAACI JMAs are currently a group of over 2380 clinicians and scientists under the age of 35 yr, who support the continuous education of the Academy's younger members. For the past decade, JMAs enjoy a steadily increasing number of benefits such as free online access to the Academy's journals, the possibility to apply for Fellowships and the Mentorship Program, travel grants to attend scientific meetings, and many more. In addition, JMAs have been involved in task forces, cooperation schemes with other scientific bodies, organization of JMA focused sessions during EAACI meetings, and participation in the activities of EAACI communication platforms. EAACI JMA activities represent an ideal example of recruiting, training, and educating young scientists in order for them to thrive as future experts in their field. This model may serve as a prototype for other scientific communities, several of which have already adapted similar policies.