A Single Prophylactic Dose of Ondansetron Given at Cessation of Postoperative Propofol Sedation Decreases Postoperative Nausea and Vomiting in Cardiac Surgery Patients: A Randomized Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is a common occurrence after cardiac surgery. However, in contrast to other surgical populations, routine PONV prophylaxis is not a standard of care in cardiac surgery. We hypothesized that routine administration of a single prophylactic dose of ondansetron (4 mg) at the time of stopping postoperative propofol sedation before extubation in the cardiac surgery intensive care unit would decrease the incidence of PONV. METHODS: With institutional human ethics board approval and written informed consent, we conducted a randomized controlled trial in patients ≥19 years of age with no history of PONV undergoing elective or urgent cardiac surgery procedures requiring cardiopulmonary bypass. The primary outcome was the incidence of PONV in the first 24 hours postextubation, compared by the χ test. Secondary outcomes included the incidence and times to first dose of rescue antiemetic treatment administration, the incidence of headaches, and the incidence of ventricular arrhythmias. RESULTS: PONV within the first 24 hours postextubation occurred in 33 of 77 patients (43%) in the ondansetron group versus 50 of 82 patients (61%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.70 [95% confidence interval {CI}, 0.51-0.95]; absolute risk difference, -18% [95% CI, -33 to -2]; number needed to treat, 5.5 [95% CI, 3.0-58.4]; χ test, P = .022). Kaplan-Meier "survival" analysis of the times to first rescue antiemetic treatment administration over 24 hours indicated that patients in the ondansetron group fared better than those in the placebo group (log-rank [Mantel-Cox] test; P = .028). Overall, 32 of 77 patients (42%) in the ondansetron group received rescue antiemetic treatment over the first 24 hours postextubation versus 47 of 82 patients (57%) in the placebo group (relative risk, 0.73 [95% CI, 0.52-1.00]; absolute risk difference, -16% [95% CI, -31 to 1]); P = .047. There were no significant differences between the groups in the incidence of postoperative headache (ondansetron group, 5 of 77 patients [6%] versus placebo group, 4 of 82 patients [5%]; Fisher exact test; P = .740) or ventricular arrhythmias (ondansetron group, 2 of 77 patients [3%] versus placebo group, 4 of 82 patients [5%]; P = .68). CONCLUSIONS: These findings support the routine administration of ondansetron prophylaxis at the time of discontinuation of postoperative propofol sedation before extubation in patients following cardiac surgery. Further research is warranted to optimize PONV prophylaxis in cardiac surgery patients.

A comparison of droplet and contact contamination using 3 simulated barrier techniques for COVID-19 intubation: a quality assurance study.

BACKGROUND: The intubation of patients with coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) puts health care workers at risk of infection through aerosol, droplet and contact contamination. We evaluated the risk of droplet and contact contamination for health care workers using 3 intubation barrier techniques as part of a quality assurance study at our institution. METHODS: This randomized quality assurance study was completed at a tertiary academic hospital in Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada, on Apr. 4, 2020. Participants in personal protective equipment performed simulated intubations on a manikin with (a) no barrier, (b) a clear plastic sheet covering the manikin and (c) a plexiglass intubation box over the manikin, in random order. Fluorescein was ejected from inside the manikin's mouth to simulate droplet and contact spread during a standard intubation sequence. Two blinded independent assessors evaluated the location and degree of contamination on the intubator and assistant using an ultraviolet light. Contamination severity was rated in a standard fashion (0 = none; 1 = minor; 2 = major). The primary outcome was total contamination score and secondary outcomes were scores between intubator and assistant, anatomic areas contaminated and qualitative feedback on ease of intubation. RESULTS: Five participants completed this study. Total contamination score was different between the 3 groups for the intubator (p = 0.02) but not the assistant (p = 0.2). For the intubator, the total contamination score was higher when the sheet was used (median 29 [interquartile range (IQR) 25-34]) than when the box was used (median 17 [IQR 15-22]) or when no barrier was used (median 18 [IQR 13-21]). All 5 participants reported challenges during intubation using the sheet. INTERPRETATION: Use of a plastic sheet while intubating patients with COVID-19 may increase the risk of droplet and contact contamination during intubation and impede intubation. Further study should be undertaken before implementing barrier techniques in practice.

Preoperative Fasting Practices Across Three Anesthesia Societies: Survey of Practitioners.

BACKGROUND: Pulmonary aspiration of gastric contents is recognized as a complication of anesthesia. To minimize that risk, anesthesiologists advised fasting for solid foods and liquids for an often prolonged period of time. However, 30 years ago, evidence was promulgated that fasting for clear liquids was unnecessary to ensure an empty stomach. Despite a strong evidence base and the knowledge that fasting may be physiologically harmful and unpleasant for patients, the adoption of society guidelines recommending short fasting periods for clear fluids into clinical practice is uncertain. OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to determine the current practices of anesthetists with respect to fasting guidelines. METHODS: An electronic internet survey was distributed to anesthetists in Canada (CAN), Australia and New Zealand (ANZ), and Europe (EUR) during April 2014 to February 2015. The anesthetists were asked about fasting guidelines, their recommendations to patients for the consumption of clear fluids and solid foods, and the reasons and consequences if these guidelines were not followed. RESULTS: A total of 971 anesthetists completed the survey (CAN, n=679; ANZ, n=185; and EUR, n=107). Although 85.0% (818/962) of these participants claimed that their advice to patients followed current society guidelines, approximately 50.4% (476/945) enforced strict fasting and did not allow clear fluids after midnight. The primary reasons given were with regard to problems with a variable operating room schedule (255/476, 53.6%) and safety issues surrounding the implementation of clear fluid drinking guidelines (182/476, 38.2%). CONCLUSIONS: Many anesthetists continue to follow outdated practices. The current interest in further liberalizing preoperative fluid intake will require more change in anesthesia culture.

Tumor-associated autoantibodies correlate with poor outcome in prostate cancer patients treated with androgen deprivation and external beam radiation therapy.

Standard cancer treatments trigger immune responses that may influence tumor control. The nature of these responses varies depending on the tumor and the treatment modality. We previously reported that radiation and androgen-deprivation therapy (ADT) induce tumor-associated autoantibody responses in prostate cancer patients. This follow-up analysis was conducted to assess the relationship between autoantibody responses and clinical outcome. Patients with non-metastatic prostate cancer received external beam radiation therapy (EBRT) plus neoadjuvant and concurrent androgen deprivation. Treatment-induced autoantibodies were detected in almost a third of patients receiving combinatorial ADT and EBRT. Unexpectedly, patients that developed autoantibody responses to tumor antigens had a significantly lower 5-year biochemical failure-free survival (BFFS) than patients that did not develop an autoantibody response. Thus, tumor-reactive autoantibodies may be associated with increased risk of biochemical failure and immunomodulation to prevent autoantibody development may improve BFFS for select, high-risk prostate cancer patients receiving both ADT and EBRT.

Standard treatments induce antigen-specific immune responses in prostate cancer.

PURPOSE: Prostate tumors express antigens that are recognized by the immune system in a significant proportion of patients; however, little is known about the effect of standard treatments on tumor-specific immunity. Radiation therapy induces expression of inflammatory and immune-stimulatory molecules, and neoadjuvant hormone therapy causes prominent T-cell infiltration of prostate tumors. We therefore hypothesized that radiation therapy and hormone therapy may initiate tumor-specific immune responses. EXPERIMENTAL DESIGN: Pretreatment and posttreatment serum samples from 73 men with nonmetastatic prostate cancer and 50 cancer-free controls were evaluated by Western blotting and SEREX (serological identification of antigens by recombinant cDNA expression cloning) antigen arrays to examine whether autoantibody responses to tumor proteins arose during the course of standard treatment. RESULTS: Western blotting revealed the development of treatment-associated autoantibody responses in patients undergoing neoadjuvant hormone therapy (7 of 24, 29.2%), external beam radiation therapy (4 of 29, 13.8%), and brachytherapy (5 of 20, 25%), compared with 0 of 14 patients undergoing radical prostatectomy and 2 of 36 (5.6%) controls. Responses were seen within 4 to 9 months of initiation of treatment and were equally prevalent across different disease risk groups. Similarly, in the murine Shionogi tumor model, hormone therapy induced tumor-associated autoantibody responses in 5 of 10 animals. In four patients, SEREX immunoscreening of a prostate cancer cDNA expression library identified several antigens recognized by treatment-associated autoantibodies, including PARP1, ZNF707 + PTMA, CEP78, SDCCAG1, and ODF2. CONCLUSION: We show for the first time that standard treatments induce antigen-specific immune responses in prostate cancer patients. Thus, immunologic mechanisms may contribute to clinical outcomes after hormone and radiation therapy, an effect that could potentially be exploited as a practical, personalized form of immunotherapy.