Epidemiology and Clinical impact of single and multi-viral respiratory infections in post-pandemic era.

Acute respiratory tract infections (ARI) are common diseases in children and adults and could cause severe infections in high-risk patients, like the immunocompromised and elderly, and are the leading cause of morbidity, hospitalization and mortality. This study aimed to explore the prevalence of respiratory viruses and the clinical impact of single- and multi-infection among hospitalized patients in various age groups. 3578 nasopharyngeal swabs (NPS) were analyzed for pathogen detection of acute respiratory tract infections. 930 out of 3578 NPS were diagnosed positive for at least one respiratory virus. The distribution of viral infections, prevalence and pathogen, differed significantly among age groups. Most RTI are observed in the age group over 65 years (50.6%) with a high SARS-CoV2 prevalence, following by group <5 years (25.6%), where the most frequently detected viruses were RSV, Rhinovirus, FluA-H3, MPV, and AdV. The co-infection rate also varies according to age and, in some cases, especially in older adults, could have severe clinical impact. This study emphasizes that it is important to know and analyze, in all age groups of hospitalized patients, the epidemiology of respiratory viruses, the prevalence of coinfections, and the clinical impact of various pathogens. Furthermore, in a clinical setting, the rapid diagnosis of respiratory infections by means of molecular tests is crucial not only to avoid hospital outbreaks, but also to allow early and optimal treatment to reduce morbidity and mortality.

Intranasal Dexmedetomidine for Pain Management in Older Patients: A Cross-Over, Randomized, Double-Blinded, Active-Controlled Trial.

BACKGROUND: Daily care procedures provoke breakthrough pain and anxiety in palliative situations. Dexmedetomidine may be an alternative to opioids during nursing procedures for older patients. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to compare the efficacy of intranasal dexmedetomidine with subcutaneous opioids on the intensity of pain and anxiety during comfort management procedures. METHODS: We conducted a randomized, active-controlled, double-blind, crossover trial (NCT03151863). Patients aged ≥ 65 years were randomized to receive, 45 min before nursing care, either intranasal dexmedetomidine together with subcutaneous placebo or intranasal placebo together with a subcutaneous opioid. Each of these two interventions were administered in a cross-over design and spaced out over a 24- or 48-h period. The primary outcome was the number of patients with an Elderly Caring Pain Assessment score > 5. Secondary outcomes included pain, sedation score, and vital signs. RESULTS: Because of difficult recruitment, the trial was interrupted after the inclusion of 24 patients. Three patients withdrew after randomization, leaving 21 patients undergoing 42 complete sessions for descriptive analyses. Of the 21 patients, 12 (57.1%) were women, and their median age was 84 years, interquartile range (75-87 years). Nine (42.9%) patients presented an Elderly Caring Pain Assessment score > 5 when receiving subcutaneous opioids, and seven (33.3%) with intranasal dexmedetomidine. Hypoxemia occurred in a single patient receiving subcutaneous opioids. No episode of bradycardia was observed. CONCLUSIONS: Intranasal dexmedetomidine is feasible in elderly patients and may be an alternative to opioids to ensure comfort during nursing care. Future studies are needed to confirm the efficacy and safety of this procedure.

Association Between Prehospital Blood Glucose Levels and Outcomes in Patients With COVID-19 Infection: A Retrospective Cohort Study.

BACKGROUND: Hyperglycaemia is associated with worse outcomes in many settings. However, the association between dysglycaemia and adverse outcomes remains debated in COVID-19 patients. This study determined the association of prehospital blood glucose levels with acute medical unit (intensive care unit or high dependency unit) admission and mortality among COVID-19-infected patients. METHODS: This was a single-centre, retrospective cohort study based on patients cared for by the prehospital medical mobile unit from a Swiss university hospital between March 2020 and April 2021. All adult patients with confirmed or suspected COVID-19 infection during the study period were included. Data were obtained from the prehospital medical files. The main exposure was prehospital blood glucose level. A 7.8 mmol/L cut-off was used to define high blood glucose level. Restricted cubic splines were also used to analyse the exposure as a continuous variable. The primary endpoint was acute medical unit admission; secondary endpoints were 7-day and 30-day mortality. Multivariable logistic regressions were performed to compute odds ratios. RESULTS: A total of 276 patients were included. The mean prehospital blood glucose level was 8.8 mmol/l, and 123 patients presented high blood glucose levels. The overall acute medical unit admission rate was 31.2%, with no statistically significant difference according to prehospital blood glucose levels. The mortality rate was 13.8% at 7 days and 25% at 30 days. The 30-day mortality rate was higher in patients with high prehospital blood glucose levels, with an adjusted odds ratio of 2.5 (1.3-4.8). CONCLUSIONS: In patients with acute COVID-19 infection, prehospital blood glucose levels do not seem to be associated with acute medical unit admission. However, there was an increased risk of 30-day mortality in COVID-19 patients who presented high prehospital blood glucose levels.

Changes of health-related quality of life 6 months after high-risk oncological upper gastrointestinal and hepatobiliary surgery: a single-centre prospective observational study (ChangeQol Study).

INTRODUCTION: Postoperative health-related quality of life (HRQoL) is an essential outcome in oncological surgery, particularly for elderly patients undergoing high-risk surgery. Previous studies have suggested that, on average, HRQoL returns to premorbid normal levels in the months following major surgery. However, the averaging of effect over a studied cohort may hide the variation of individual HRQoL changes. The proportions of patients who have a varied HRQoL response (stable, improvement, or a deterioration) after major oncological surgery is poorly understood. The study aims to describe the patterns of these HRQoL changes at 6 months after surgery, and to assess the patients and next-of-kin regret regarding the decision to undergo surgery. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: This prospective observational cohort study is carried out at the University Hospitals of Geneva, Switzerland. We include patients over 18 years old undergoing gastrectomy, esophagectomy, pancreas resection or hepatectomy. The primary outcome is the proportion of patients in each group with changes in HRQoL (improvement, stability or deterioration) 6 months after surgery, using a validated minimal clinically important difference of 10 points in HRQoL. The secondary outcome is to assess whether patients and their next-of-kin may regret their decision to undergo surgery at 6 months. We measure the HRQoL using the EORTC QLQ-C30 questionnaire before and 6 months after surgery. We assess regret with the Decision Regret Scale (DRS) at 6 months after surgery. Key other perioperative data include preoperative and postoperative place of residence, preoperative anxiety and depression (HADS scale), preoperative disability (WHODAS V.2.0), preoperative frailty (Clinical Frailty Scale), preoperative cognitive function (Mini-Mental State Examination) and preoperative comorbidities. A follow-up at 12 months is planned. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: The study was first approved by the Geneva Ethical Committee for Research (ID 2020-00536) on 28 April 2020. The results of this study will be presented at national and international scientific meetings, and publications will be submitted to an open-access peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: NCT04444544.

Reviewing next of kin regrets in surgical decision-making: cross-sectional analysis of systematically searched literature.

BACKGROUND: Decision-making concerning relatives undergoing surgery is challenging. It remains unclear to what extent implicated next of kin eventually regret their decisions and how this regret is assessed. Our aim was to systematically review the literature on decisional regret of next of kin and to describe the assessment tools used and the surgical populations studied. METHODS: We included interventional or observational, quantitative or qualitative studies reporting the measurement of decisional regret of next of kin concerning relatives undergoing surgery. We searched a variety of databases without restriction on publication year. We assessed the quality of reporting of quantitative studies using the NIH Quality Assessment Tool for Observational Cohort and Cross-Sectional Studies and of qualitative studies using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program Checklist. RESULTS: Thirteen cross-sectional, five prospective cohorts and five qualitative studies matched our inclusion criteria. In 18 studies (78%), patients were children, in five (22%), young or middle-aged adults. No study included elderly or frail patients. Thirteen studies (57%) used the original Decision Regret Scale which was validated for patients, but not for next of kin. Only 3 of the 18 (17%) quantitative studies and only one of the 4 (25%) qualitative studies were rated as "good" in the quality assessment. CONCLUSION: None of the retrieved studies used validated tools to assess the decisional regret of next of kin and none of them examined this issue in elderly or frail surgical patients.

Research on occupational diseases in the absence of occupational data: a mixed-method study among cancer registries of Western Switzerland.

The contribution of occupation-related diseases to the global burden of disease is greatly underestimated, mainly due to a shortage of occupational exposure data. This problem is particularly salient in Switzerland, where no estimates of occupation-related disease burden exist, even for the well-recognised occupational cancers, such as malignant pleural mesothelioma and lung cancer. To overcome this situation, we launched a research project "Examining Cancers and Labour Indicators to assess the Burden" (ExCaLIBur). Within this project, we aimed to assess the need for and quality (i.e., completeness, accuracy and precision) of occupation registration in all cancer registries of Western Switzerland. We also aimed to find a relevant and feasible strategy to collect this information in the future. We applied a mixed research method. We observed that, independently of the level of precision (5-3-2-1-digit aggregation level), the accuracy was lesser in the registries that were able to actively search and verify occupational information. Overall, the distinction of occupations based on the 3-digit code presents an acceptable compromise in terms of precision. Having such occupations registered in all, or most, Swiss cancer registries routinely would obviously be valuable for epidemiological surveillance of occupational cancers in Switzerland. However, it seems less obvious how these data could fulfill the research objectives, since a better precision than 3-digit occupational coding is challenging to achieve. Currently, the collection of occupational data by the Swiss cancer registries remains feasible in the frame of specific research projects on occupational cancers. However, available data sources, as well as lack of financial and human resources, will continue to affect quality of the collected occupation data. Therefore, the usage of the standardised questionnaire retracing the individual occupational history to enable further assessment of individual exposure to potential occupational hazards is recommended. However, this approach will disable the Swiss registries to insuring their epidemiological surveillance mission with respect to occupational cancers in Switzerland, for which national statistics remain limited.

Thiamine, Ascorbic Acid, and Hydrocortisone As a Metabolic Resuscitation Cocktail in Sepsis: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials With Trial Sequential Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: Sepsis is a common condition in the ICU. Despite much research, its prognosis remains poor. In 2017, a retrospective before/after study reported promising results using a combination of thiamine, ascorbic acid, and hydrocortisone called "metabolic resuscitation cocktail" and several randomized controlled trials assessing its effectiveness were performed. DESIGN: We conducted a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials in septic ICU patients to assess the effects of this combination therapy. SETTING: PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane library databases were searched from inception to March of 2021. Data were extracted independently by two authors. The main outcome was the change in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score within 72 hours. Secondary outcomes included renal composite endpoints (acute kidney injury) Kidney Disease - Improving Global Outcome organization stage 3 or need for renal replacement therapy, vasopressor duration, and 28-day mortality. SUBJECTS: We included randomized controlled trials with patients admitted to the ICU with sepsis or septic shock. INTERVENTION: The trials compared a combination of thiamine, ascorbic acid, and hydrocortisone to standard care or placebo in patients admitted to ICU with sepsis or septic shock. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: We included eight randomized controlled trials (n = 1,335 patients). Within 72 hours, the median of mean improvement was -1.8 and -3.2 in the control and intervention groups, respectively (eight randomized controlled trials, n = 1,253 patients); weighted mean difference -0.82 (95% CI, -1.15 to -0.48). Data were homogeneous and the funnel plot did not suggest any publication bias. Duration of vasopressor requirement was significantly reduced in the intervention group (six randomized controlled trials). There was no evidence of a difference regarding the ICU mortality and the renal composite outcome (acute kidney injury KDIGO 3 or need for renal replacement therapy, seven randomized controlled trials). CONCLUSIONS: Metabolic resuscitation cocktail administrated in ICU septic patients improves change in Sequential Organ Failure Assessment score within 72 hours. However, this improvement is modest and its clinical relevance is questionable. The impact on renal failure and mortality remains unclear.

Researchers' choice of pain scales in trials of children undergoing surgery: A cross-sectional analysis of systematically searched randomized controlled trials and survey of authors.

BACKGROUND: Many pain scales are used post-operatively in pediatric trials, making the comparison of trials, and the pooling of data for meta-analyses difficult. The Pediatric Initiative on Methods, Measurement, and Pain Assessment in Clinical Trials (PedIMMPACT) statement, published in 2008, attempted to address this issue. We aimed to investigate the reasons for authors' choice of pain scales and the potential impact of PedIMMPACT. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of systematically searched randomized controlled trials testing tramadol in children (up to 16 years) undergoing surgery, published between 2000 and 2020 (9 years prior to and 12 years following the publication of PedIMMPACT). RESULTS: Among 76 trials (6211 children), 49 unique pain scales were used. The choice of the scales was explained in 18 trials (24%); in 13 of them, authors at least partly justified their choice by the fact that the pain scale was validated. In 52 trials (68%), the pain scales were referenced, with a total of 59 unique references, most often to prior studies using the same scale (36%) or to studies validating the chosen scale (31%). Twenty-three trials (30%) provided no explanation nor reference. One single trial referenced PedIMMPACT. There was no evidence of a change in the choice of pain scales after the publication of PedIMMPACT. CONCLUSIONS: A large variety of pain scales are still used in pediatric post-operative pain trials 12 years after the publication of PedIMMPACT. Only a minority of trials provided an explanation for their choice of pain scale. The reasons given most often included that the scale was validated or it was justified by a reference to a prior study using that scale. The impact of the publication of the PedIMMPACT seems limited. The ethics of the ongoing usage of large numbers of pain scales in pediatric pain trials must be challenged.

Monitoring nociception and awareness during palliative sedation: A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: Providing unawareness and pain relief are core elements of palliative sedation. In addition to clinical scales, nociception and electroencephalogram-based depth of sedation monitoring are used to assess the level of consciousness and analgesia during sedation in intensive care units and during procedures. AIM: To determine whether reported devices impact the outcomes of palliative sedation. DESIGN: Systematic review and narrative synthesis of research published between January 2000 and December 2020. DATA SOURCES: Embase, Google Scholar, PubMed, CENTRAL, and the Cochrane Library. All reports describing the use of any monitoring device to assess the level of consciousness or analgesia during palliative sedation were screened for inclusion. Data concerning safety and efficacy were extracted. Patient comfort was the primary outcome of interest. Articles reporting sedation but that did not meet guidelines of the European Association for Palliative Care were excluded. RESULTS: Six reports of five studies were identified. Four of these were case series and two were case reports. Together, these six reports involved a total of 67 sedated adults. Methodological quality was assessed fair to good. Medication regimens were adjusted to bispectral index monitoring values in two studies, which found poor correlation between monitoring values and observational scores. In another study, high nociception index values, representing absence of pain, were used to detect opioid overdosing. Relatives and caregivers found the procedures feasible and acceptable.

Preventing pain after breast surgery: A systematic review with meta-analyses and trial-sequential analyses.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: The aim of this systematic review was to indirectly compare the efficacy of any intervention, administered perioperatively, on acute and persistent pain after breast surgery. DATABASES AND DATA TREATMENT: We searched for randomized trials comparing analgesic interventions with placebo or no treatment in patients undergoing breast surgery under general anaesthesia. Primary outcome was intensity of acute pain (up to 6 hr postoperatively). Secondary outcomes were cumulative 24-hr morphine consumption, incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), and chronic pain. We used an original three-step approach. First, meta-analyses were performed when data from at least three trials could be combined; secondly, trial sequential analyses were used to separate conclusive from unclear evidence. And thirdly, the quality of evidence was rated with GRADE. RESULTS: Seventy-three trials (5,512 patients) tested loco-regional blocks (paravertebral, pectoralis), local anaesthetic infiltrations, oral gabapentinoids or intravenous administration of glucocorticoids, lidocaine, N-methyl-D-aspartate antagonists or alpha2 agonists. With paravertebral blocks, pectoralis blocks and glucocorticoids, there was conclusive evidence of a clinically relevant reduction in acute pain (visual analogue scale > 1.0 cm). With pectoralis blocks, and gabapentinoids, there was conclusive evidence of a reduction in the cumulative 24-hr morphine consumption (> 30%). With paravertebral blocks and glucocorticoids, there was conclusive evidence of a relative reduction in the incidence of PONV of 70%. For chronic pain, insufficient data were available. CONCLUSIONS: Mainly with loco-regional blocks, there is conclusive evidence of a reduction in acute pain intensity, morphine consumption and PONV incidence after breast surgery. For rational decision making, data on chronic pain are needed. SIGNIFICANCE: This quantitative systematic review compares eight interventions, published across 73 trials, to prevent pain after breast surgery, and grades their degree of efficacy. The most efficient interventions are paravertebral blocks, pectoralis blocks and glucocorticoids, with moderate to low evidence for the blocks. Intravenous lidocaine and alpha2 agonists are efficacious to a lesser extent, but with a higher level of evidence. Data for chronic pain are lacking.

Preoperative Exercise Training to Prevent Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in Adults Undergoing Major Surgery. A Systematic Review and Meta-analysis with Trial Sequential Analysis.

Rationale: Poor preoperative physical fitness and respiratory muscle weakness are associated with postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) that result in prolonged hospital length of stay and increased mortality.Objectives: To examine the effect of preoperative exercise training on the risk of PPCs across different surgical settings.Methods: We searched MEDLINE, Web of Science, Embase, the Physiotherapy Evidence Database, and the Cochrane Central Register, without language restrictions, for studies from inception to July 2020. We included randomized controlled trials that compared patients receiving exercise training with those receiving usual care or sham training before cardiac, lung, esophageal, or abdominal surgery. PPCs were the main outcome; secondary outcomes were preoperative functional changes and postoperative mortality, cardiovascular complications, and hospital length of stay. The study was registered with PROSPERO (International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews).Results: From 29 studies, 2,070 patients were pooled for meta-analysis. Compared with the control condition, preoperative exercise training was associated with a lower incidence of PPCs (23 studies, 1,864 patients; relative risk, 0.52; 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.41 to 0.66; grading of evidence, moderate); Trial Sequential Analysis confirmed effectiveness, and there was no evidence of difference of effect across surgeries, type of training (respiratory muscles, endurance or combined), or preoperative duration of training. At the end of the preoperative period, exercise training resulted in increased peak oxygen uptake (weighted mean difference [WMD], +2 ml/kg/min; 99% CI, 0.3 to 3.7) and higher maximal inspiratory pressure (WMD, +12.2 cm H2O; 99% CI, 6.3 to 18.2). Hospital length of stay was shortened (WMD, -2.3 d; 99% CI, -3.82 to -0.75) in the intervention group, whereas no difference was found in postoperative mortality.Conclusions: Preoperative exercise training improves physical fitness and reduces the risk of developing PPCs while minimizing hospital resources use, regardless of the type of intervention and surgery performed.Systematic review registered with https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ (CRD 42018096956).

Effect of ivabradine on major adverse cardiovascular events and mortality in critically ill patients: a systematic review and meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials with trial sequential analyses.

BACKGROUND: Ivabradine lowers heart rate (HR) without affecting contractility or vascular tone. It is licensed for HR control in chronic heart diseases. We performed a systematic review and meta-analyses to examine whether ivabradine could decrease major adverse cardiovascular events (MACE) and mortality in critically ill patients. METHODS: We searched Medline, Embase, Cochrane Library, and Web of Science for RCTs. Trial quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool. Random-effects meta-analyses were performed if at least three trials or 100 patients were available. Results are reported as weighted mean difference (WMD), odds ratio (OR), and 95% confidence intervals (CIs). Trial sequential analyses were performed to estimate the sample size needed to reach definitive conclusions of efficacy or futility. RESULTS: We included 13 RCTs (n=1497 patients). We found no evidence of an impact of ivabradine on MACE (three RCTs, 819 patients; OR=0.77; 95% CI, 0.53-1.11) or mortality (10 RCTs, 1356 patients; OR=1.07; 95% CI, 0.63-1.82), but sample sizes were not reached to allow definitive conclusions. Compared with placebo or standard care, ivabradine reduced HR (eight RCTs, 464 patients; WMD, -9.5 beats min-1; 95% CI, -13.3 to -5.8). Risk of bradycardia was not different between ivabradine and control (five RCTs, 434 patients; OR=1.2; 95% CI, 0.60-2.38). Risk of bias was overall high or unclear. CONCLUSIONS: Ivabradine reduces HR compared with placebo or standard care. The effect on MACE or mortality in acute care remains unclear. Further RCTs powered to detect changes in clinically relevant outcomes are warranted. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: Prospero CRD42018086109.

Reporting of conflicts of interest and of sponsorship of guidelines in anaesthesiology. A cross-sectional study.

Guideline recommendations may be biased due to conflicts of interest (COI) of panel members and sponsorship of the guideline. Potential impact of COI, and their management, should be transparently reported. We analysed 110 guidelines published in ten anaesthesia journals from 2007 to June 2018. We report on the number (%) that 1) published COI disclosures; 2) in a distinct paragraph; 3) described and explained the COI of panel members, and 4) of the Chairperson; 5) reported and described the presence or absence and potential impact of a sponsor of the guideline on the recommendations; and 6) reported how COI were managed. COI were published in 70/110 (64%) guidelines; in a distinct paragraph in 25/70 (36%). Panel members reported having no COI in 27/70 (39%) guidelines, disclosed COI without describing their potential impact in 41/70 (59%), and described their potential impact in 2/70 (3%). Chairpersons were identified in 50 guidelines, 32 of which published COI disclosures; 16/32 (50%) reported having no COI, 14/32 (44%) disclosed COI without describing their potential impact, 1/32 (3%) described their impact and 1/32 (3%) made no statement regarding COI. Presence or absence of a sponsor of the guideline was reported in 40 guidelines; 12/40 (30%) declared none, 24/40 (60%) reported sponsoring without explanation of the potential impact, and 4/40 (10%) described the potential influence of the sponsor on the guideline recommendations. Seventy-five guidelines reported COI of panel members and/or sponsorship of the guideline but only seven described how the COI had been managed. Disclosures of COI of panel members and of sponsors of guidelines have increased over the 12 year period, but remain insufficiently described and their potential influence on the guidelines' recommendations is poorly documented.

Impact of experience in breast cancer surgery on survival: the role of quality of care in a registry-based cohort.

AIMS OF THE STUDY: Previous studies have suggested that the surgeon's experience in breast cancer surgery may affect patient survival. In this registry-based retrospective cohort study, we examined whether quality of care could partly explain this association. METHODS: All invasive breast cancers operated on in the private sector between 2000 and 2009 were identified in the Geneva Cancer Registry and followed up for 5 years. Surgeons were classified according to their experience into three categories: ≤5, 6-10, >10 breast cancer operations performed per year. We extracted patient and tumour characteristics. Quality of care was scored as the proportion of 11 quality indicators correctly fulfilled for each patient. Breast cancer-specific mortality was examined with a Cox model adjusted for variables known to affect survival, surgeon experience, and quality of care. RESULTS: A total of 1489 patients were operated on by 88 surgeons; 50 patients (3.4%) died from breast cancer during the 5 years of follow-up. Socioeconomic status and country of birth of the patients, as well as period of diagnosis, differed according to the surgeons' experience. Quality of care provided improved with surgeons' experience. Surgeons performing >10 operations/year more frequently assessed histology before surgery, excised sentinel lymph nodes, removed ≥10 lymph nodes, and prescribed adjuvant radiotherapy when indicated. Crude breast cancer-specific mortality was lower in patients treated by surgeons performing >10 compared with ≤5 operations/year (hazard ratio [HR] 0.34, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.17-0.67; p = 0.002). The strength of the association decreased after adjustment for patient and tumour characteristics (HR 0.45, 95% CI 0.21-0.94; p = 0.034) and decreased further after adjustment for quality of care (HR 0.51, 95% CI 0.24-1.08, p = 0.078). CONCLUSIONS: The association between surgeon's experience and 5-year breast cancer survival is at least partly explained by quality of care, patient and tumour characteristics. Further investigations on the impact of other quality indicators such as multidisciplinary networks are needed.

Transcranial Doppler in the Diagnosis of Cerebral Vasospasm: An Updated Meta-Analysis.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the performance of transcranial Doppler and transcranial color-coded duplex Doppler in patients with cerebral vasospasm due to aneurysm rupture. Angiography was considered as the gold standard comparator. DATA SOURCES: Search in MEDLINE, Embase, and Central from January 2001 to October 2017, without language restriction. Bibliographies of retrieved articles were screened for additional studies. STUDY SELECTION: Randomized studies comparing transcranial Doppler or transcranial color-coded duplex Doppler with angiography in adults. DATA EXTRACTION: Data were extracted independently by several investigators. Sensitivity and specificity were combined across studies using a bivariate model. Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses was used for reporting and Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies-2 for quality assessment. DATA SYNTHESIS: We included 18 studies. Fifteen tested transcranial Doppler. For the middle cerebral artery (10 studies, 1,408 tests), the pooled sensitivity was 66.7% (95% CI, 55.9-75.9) and specificity was 89.5% (80.3-94.7). Three studies (278 tests) tested transcranial color-coded duplex Doppler for the middle cerebral artery. The pooled sensitivity was 81.5% (66.0-90.0), and specificity was 96.6% (93.0-98.0). For an arbitrarily chosen prevalence of vasospasm of 70%, positive and negative predictive values were 93.7% (88.9-96.6) and 53.4% (46.7-60.9) for transcranial Doppler and 98.2% (96.4-99.1) and 69.1% (56.1-80.9) for transcranial color-coded duplex Doppler. CONCLUSIONS: Assuming a high prevalence of vasospasm of the middle cerebral artery, both transcranial Doppler and transcranial color-coded duplex Doppler are likely to detect it, but neither is useful to exclude it. There is no convincing evidence that the accuracy of transcranial color-coded duplex Doppler is any better than that of transcranial Doppler. For arteries other than middle cerebral artery, there is a lack of evidence of the usefulness of transcranial Doppler.

Identification of ethics committees based on authors' disclosures: cross-sectional study of articles published in the European Journal of Anaesthesiology and a survey of ethics committees.

BACKGROUND: Since 2010, the European Journal of Anaesthesiology has required the reporting of five items concerning ethical approval in articles describing human research: ethics committee's name and address, chairperson's name, study's protocol number and approval date. We aimed to assess whether this requirement has helped to identify and to contact the referenced ethics committees. METHODS: In this cross-sectional study, we analysed articles requiring ethical approval, according to the Swiss federal law for human research and published in the European Journal of Anaesthesiology in 2011. Ethics committees were searched through our institutional Internet access based on information provided in the articles. The last search was performed in November 2015. Numbers (%) of items reported, of ethics committees identified, and of those that confirmed having provided ethical approval are reported. RESULTS: Of 76 articles requiring ethical approval, 74 (97%) declared it. Ethics committees' names and addresses were mentioned in 63/74 (85%), protocol numbers in 51/74 (69%), approval dates in 48/74 (65%), and chairpersons' names in 45/74 (61%). We could identify 44/74 (59%) committees; 36/74 (49%) answered our inquiry and 24/74 (32%) confirmed their role. Thirty-four of 74 articles (46%) reported all five items; in 25/34 (74%), we were able to identify an ethics committee, 18/34 (53%) answered our inquiry, and 15/34 (44%) confirmed their role. Forty of 74 articles (54%) reported ≤4 items; in 19/40 (48%), we were able to identify an ethics committee, 18/40 (45%) answered our inquiry, and 9/40 (23%) confirmed their role. Reporting five items significantly increased identification of ethics committees (p = 0.023) and their confirmation of ethical approval (p = 0.048). Twelve of 74 ethics committees (16%) were unable to confirm their role in approving the study. CONCLUSIONS: Even when details concerning ethical approval were reported in these studies of human research, we were unable to identify almost half of the ethics committees concerned. The reporting of five items, compared with reporting ≤4, was associated with facilitated identification of ethics committees, and increased the likelihood that they would be able to confirm the study's approval. Future research should identify which information facilitates identification of, and contact with, ethics committees.

Patient-Controlled Versus Clinician-Controlled Sedation With Propofol: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis With Trial Sequential Analyses.

BACKGROUND: Sedation with propofol is frequently used to facilitate diagnostic and therapeutic procedures. Propofol can be administrated by the patient (patient-controlled sedation [PCS]) or by a clinician (clinician-controlled sedation [CCS]). We aimed to compare these 2 techniques. METHODS: PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, and trial registries were searched up to October 2017 for randomized controlled trials comparing PCS with CCS with propofol. The primary end points were the risks of presenting at least 1 episode of oxygen desaturation, arterial hypotension, and bradycardia, and the risk of requiring a rescue intervention (pharmacologic therapies or physical maneuvers) for sedation-related adverse events. Secondary end points were the dose of propofol administrated, operator and patient satisfaction, and the risk of oversedation. A random-effects model and an α level of .02 to adjust for multiple analyses were used throughout. Trial sequential analyses were performed for primary outcomes. Quality of evidence was assessed according to the Grades of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation system. RESULTS: Thirteen trials (1103 patients; median age, 47 years; American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status I-III) describing various diagnostic and therapeutic procedures with propofol sedation were included. PCS had no impact on the risk of oxygen desaturation (11 trials, 31/448 patients [6.9%] with PCS versus 46/481 [9.6%] with CCS; risk ratio, 0.74 [98% confidence interval, 0.35-1.56]) but decreased the risk of requiring a rescue intervention for adverse events (11 trials, 29/449 patients [6.5%] with PCS versus 74/482 [15.4%] with CCS; risk ratio, 0.45 [98% confidence interval, 0.25-0.81]). For both outcomes, Trial sequential analyses suggested that further trials were unlikely to change the results, although the quality of evidence was graded very low for all primary outcomes. For the risk of arterial hypotension and bradycardia, the required sample size for a definitive conclusion had not been reached. Analysis of secondary outcomes suggested that PCS decreased the risk of oversedation and had no impact on propofol dose administrated, or on operator or patient satisfaction. CONCLUSIONS: PCS with propofol, compared with CCS with propofol, had no impact on the risk of oxygen desaturation, but significantly decreased the risk of rescue interventions for sedation-related adverse events. Further high-quality trials are required to assess the risks and benefits of PCS.

Benefit and Harm of Adding Epinephrine to a Local Anesthetic for Neuraxial and Locoregional Anesthesia: A Meta-analysis of Randomized Controlled Trials With Trial Sequential Analyses.

BACKGROUND: This systematic review examines the benefit and harm of adding epinephrine to local anesthetics for epidural, intrathecal, or locoregional anesthesia. METHODS: We searched electronic databases to October 2017 for randomized trials comparing any local anesthetic regimen combined with epinephrine, with the same local anesthetic regimen without epinephrine, reporting on duration of analgesia, time to 2 segments regression, or any adverse effects. Trial quality was assessed using the Cochrane risk of bias tool and a random-effects model was used. Trial sequential analyses (TSA) were applied to identify the information size (IS; number of patients needed to reach a definite conclusion) and were set to detect an increase or decrease of effect of 30%-50%, depending on the end point considered. Alpha levels were adjusted (1%) for multiple outcome testing. RESULTS: We identified 70 trials (3644 patients, 17 countries, from 1970 to 2017). Median number of patients per trial was 44 (range, 9-174). Thirty-seven trials (1781 patients) tested epinephrine for epidural, 27 (1660) for intrathecal, and 6 (203) for locoregional anesthesia (sciatic, femoral, popliteal, axillary blocks). TSA enabled us to conclude that adding epinephrine to epidural local anesthetics could not decrease postoperative pain intensity by 30%, and did not impact the risk of intraoperative arterial hypotension. IS was insufficient to conclude on the impact of epinephrine on the risk of motor block (IS, 4%), arterial hypotension (20%), urinary retention (23%), or pain intensity at rest (27%) during labor. TSA confirmed that adding epinephrine to intrathecal local anesthetics increased the duration of motor block (weighted mean difference [WMD] 64 minutes; 99% CI, 37-91), analgesia (WMD 34 minutes; 99% CI, 6-62), and the time to 2 segments regression (WMD 20 minutes; 99% CI, 11-28). IS was insufficient to conclude on its impact on arterial hypotension (IS, 15%), or when administrated in a combined spinal-epidural, on motor block (IS, 11%) or arterial hypotension (IS, 11%). Adding epinephrine to local anesthetics for a locoregional block increased the duration of analgesia (WMD 66 minutes; 98% CI, 32-100]). CONCLUSIONS: Adding epinephrine to intrathecal or locoregional local anesthetics prolongs analgesia and motor block by no more than 60 minutes. The impact of adding epinephrine to epidural local anesthetics or to a combined spinal-epidural remains uncertain.