Determining optimal air leak resolution criteria when using digital pleural drainage device after lung resection.

Objective: There is limited clinical evidence to support any specific parenchymal air leak resolution criteria when using digital pleural drainage devices following lung resection. The aim of this study is to determine an optimal air leak resolution criteria, where duration of chest tube drainage is minimized while avoiding complications from premature chest tube removal. Methods: Airflow data averaged at 10-minute intervals was collected prospectively using a digital pleural drainage device (Thopaz; Medela) in 400 patients from 2015 to 2019. All permutations of air leak resolution criteria from <10 to 100 mL/minute for 4 to 12 hours were applied retrospectively to the pleural drainage data to determine air leak duration, and air leak recurrence frequency and volume. Air leak recurrence indicates potential for rather than occurrence of adverse events. Descriptive statistics were used to identify the optimal criteria based on patient safety (low frequency and volume of air leak recurrences), and efficiency (shortest initial air leak duration). Results: The majority of the 400 patients underwent lobectomy (57% [227 out of 400]), wedge resections (29% [115 out of 400]), or segmentectomies (8% [32 out of 400]) for lung cancer (90% [360 out of 400]). An airflow threshold <50 mL/minute resulted in longer air leak duration before meeting the criteria for air leak resolution (P < .0001). Air leak recurrence frequency and volume were greater in patients with a monitoring period <8 consecutive hours (P < .0001). Conclusions: When using a digital pleural drainage device, a postoperative air leak resolution criteria <50 mL/minute for 8 consecutive hours was associated with the best safety and efficiency profile.

Automated dynamic motion correction improves repeatability and reproducibility of myocardial blood flow quantification with rubidium-82 PET imaging.

BACKGROUND: Patient motion reduces the accuracy of PET myocardial blood flow (MBF) measurements. This study evaluated the effect of automatic motion correction on test-retest repeatability and inter-observer variability in a clinically relevant population. METHODS: Patients with known or suspected CAD underwent repeat rest 82Rb PET scans within minutes as part of their scheduled rest-stress perfusion study. Two trained observers evaluated the presence of heart motion in each scan. Global LV and per-vessel MBF were computed from the dynamic rest images before and after automatic motion correction. Test-retest and inter-observer variability were assessed using intra-class correlation and Bland-Altman analysis. RESULTS: 140 pairs of test-retest scans were included, with visual motion noted in 18%. Motion correction decreased the global MBF values by 3.5% (0.80 ± 0.24 vs 0.82 ± 0.25 mL⋅min-1⋅g-1; P < 0.001) suggesting that the blood input function was underestimated in cases with patient motion. Test-retest repeatability of global MBF improved by 9.7% (0.25 vs 0.28 mL⋅min-1⋅g-1; P < 0.001) and inter-observer repeatability was improved by 7.1% (0.073 vs 0.079 mL⋅min-1⋅g-1; P = 0.012). There was a marked impact on both test-retest repeatability as well as inter-observer repeatability in the LCX territory, with improvements of 16.5% (0.30 vs 0.36 mL⋅min-1⋅g-1; P < 0.0000) and 18.4% (0.13 vs 0.16 mL⋅min-1⋅g-1; P < 0.001), respectively. CONCLUSION: Automatic motion correction improved test-retest repeatability and reduced differences between observers.

Mapping multicenter randomized controlled trials in anesthesiology: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: Evidence suggests that there are substantial inconsistencies in the practice of anesthesia. There has not yet been a comprehensive summary of the anesthesia literature that can guide future knowledge translation interventions to move evidence into practice. As the first step toward identifying the most promising interventions for systematic implementation in anesthesia practice, this scoping review of multicentre RCTs aimed to explore and map the existing literature investigating perioperative anesthesia-related interventions and clinical patient outcomes. METHODS: Multicenter randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion if they involved a tested anesthesia-related intervention administered to adult surgical patients (≥ 16 years old), with a control group receiving either another anesthesia intervention or no intervention at all. The electronic databases Embase (via OVID), MEDLINE, and MEDLINE in Process (via OVID), and Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL) were searched from inception to February 26, 2021. Studies were screened and data were extracted by pairs of independent reviewers in duplicate with disagreements resolved through consensus or a third reviewer. Data were summarized narratively. RESULTS: We included 638 multicentre randomized controlled trials (n patients = 615,907) that met the eligibility criteria. The most commonly identified anesthesia-related intervention theme across all studies was pharmacotherapy (n studies = 361 [56.6%]; n patients = 244,610 [39.7%]), followed by anesthetic technique (n studies = 80 [12.5%], n patients = 48,455 [7.9%]). Interventions were most often implemented intraoperatively (n studies = 233 [36.5%]; n patients = 175,974 [28.6%]). Studies typically involved multiple types of surgeries (n studies = 187 [29.2%]; n patients = 206 667 [33.5%]), followed by general surgery only (n studies = 115 [18.1%]; n patients = 201,028 [32.6%]) and orthopedic surgery only (n studies = 94 [14.7%]; n patients = 34,575 [5.6%]). Functional status was the most commonly investigated outcome (n studies = 272), followed by patient experience (n studies = 168), and mortality (n studies = 153). CONCLUSIONS: This scoping review provides a map of multicenter RCTs in anesthesia which can be used to optimize future research endeavors in the field. Specifically, we have identified key knowledge gaps in anesthesia that require further systematic assessment, as well as areas where additional research would likely not add value. These findings provide the foundation for streamlining knowledge translation in anesthesia in order to reduce practice variation and enhance patient outcomes.