An international RAND/UCLA expert panel to determine the optimal diagnosis and management of burn inhalation injury.

BACKGROUND: Burn inhalation injury (BII) is a major cause of burn-related mortality and morbidity. Despite published practice guidelines, no consensus exists for the best strategies regarding diagnosis and management of BII. A modified DELPHI study using the RAND/UCLA (University of California, Los Angeles) Appropriateness Method (RAM) systematically analysed the opinions of an expert panel. Expert opinion was combined with available evidence to determine what constitutes appropriate and inappropriate judgement in the diagnosis and management of BII. METHODS: A 15-person multidisciplinary panel comprised anaesthetists, intensivists and plastic surgeons involved in the clinical management of major burn patients adopted a modified Delphi approach using the RAM method. They rated the appropriateness of statements describing diagnostic and management options for BII on a Likert scale. A modified final survey comprising 140 statements was completed, subdivided into history and physical examination (20), investigations (39), airway management (5), systemic toxicity (23), invasive mechanical ventilation (29) and pharmacotherapy (24). Median appropriateness ratings and the disagreement index (DI) were calculated to classify statements as appropriate, uncertain, or inappropriate. RESULTS: Of 140 statements, 74 were rated as appropriate, 40 as uncertain and 26 as inappropriate. Initial intubation with ≥ 8.0 mm endotracheal tubes, lung protective ventilatory strategies, initial bronchoscopic lavage, serial bronchoscopic lavage for severe BII, nebulised heparin and salbutamol administration for moderate-severe BII and N-acetylcysteine for moderate BII were rated appropriate. Non-protective ventilatory strategies, high-frequency oscillatory ventilation, high-frequency percussive ventilation, prophylactic systemic antibiotics and corticosteroids were rated inappropriate. Experts disagreed (DI ≥ 1) on six statements, classified uncertain: the use of flexible fiberoptic bronchoscopy to guide fluid requirements (DI = 1.52), intubation with endotracheal tubes of internal diameter < 8.0 mm (DI = 1.19), use of airway pressure release ventilation modality (DI = 1.19) and nebulised 5000IU heparin, N-acetylcysteine and salbutamol for mild BII (DI = 1.52, 1.70, 1.36, respectively). CONCLUSIONS: Burns experts mostly agreed on appropriate and inappropriate diagnostic and management criteria of BII as in published guidance. Uncertainty exists as to the optimal diagnosis and management of differing grades of severity of BII. Future research should investigate the accuracy of bronchoscopic grading of BII, the value of bronchial lavage in differing severity groups and the effectiveness of nebulised therapies in different severities of BII.

Evaluation of facial electromyographic pain responses in healthy participants.

Aim: Assessing pain perception through self-reports may not be possible in some patients, for example, sedated. Our group considered if facial electromyography (fEMG) could provide a useful alternative, by testing on healthy participants subjected to experimental pain. Materials & methods: Activity of four facial muscles was recorded using fEMG alongside self-reported pain scores and physiological parameters. Results: The pain stimulus elicited significant activity on all facial muscles of interest as well as increases in heart rate. Activity from two of the facial muscles correlated significantly against pain intensity. Conclusion: Pain perception can be assessed through fEMG on healthy participants. We believe that this model would be valuable to clinicians that need to diagnose pain perception in circumstances where verbal reporting is not possible.

Objectively measuring pain using facial expression: is the technology finally ready?

Currently, clinicians observe pain-related behaviors and use patient self-report measures in order to determine pain severity. This paper reviews the evidence when facial expression is used as a measure of pain. We review the literature reporting the relevance of facial expression as a diagnostic measure, which facial movements are indicative of pain, and whether such movements can be reliably used to measure pain. We conclude that although the technology for objective pain measurement is not yet ready for use in clinical settings, the potential benefits to patients in improved pain management, combined with the advances being made in sensor technology and artificial intelligence, provide opportunities for research and innovation.

Rationale, design, and organization of the PeriOperative ISchemic Evaluation (POISE) trial: a randomized controlled trial of metoprolol versus placebo in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.

BACKGROUND: Noncardiac surgery is associated with significant cardiovascular mortality, morbidity, and cost. Small trials of beta-blockers suggest that they may prevent cardiovascular events in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, but trial results are inconclusive. We have initiated the POISE trial to definitively establish the effects of beta-blocker therapy in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. METHODS: The POISE trial is a blinded, randomized, and controlled trial of controlled-release metoprolol versus placebo in 10000 patients at risk for a perioperative cardiovascular event who are undergoing noncardiac surgery. Patients will receive the study drug 2 to 4 hours before surgery and subsequently for 30 days. The primary outcome is a composite of cardiovascular death, nonfatal myocardial infarction, and nonfatal cardiac arrest at 30 days. Patients will also be followed for events at 1 year. RESULTS: To date, the POISE trial has recruited >6300 patients in 182 centers in 21 countries. Currently, the patients' mean age is 69 years; 63% are males, 43% have a history of coronary artery disease, 43% have a history of peripheral arterial disease, and 30% have diabetes. Most participants have undergone vascular (42%), intraabdominal (23%), or orthopedic (19%) surgery. CONCLUSIONS: The POISE trial is a large international trial that will provide a reliable assessment of the effects of beta-blocker therapy in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery.

How strong is the evidence for the use of perioperative beta blockers in non-cardiac surgery? Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

OBJECTIVE: To determine the effect of perioperative beta blocker treatment in patients having non-cardiac surgery. DESIGN: Systematic review and meta-analysis. DATA SOURCES: Seven search strategies, including searching two bibliographic databases and hand searching seven medical journals. STUDY SELECTION AND OUTCOMES: We included randomised controlled trials that evaluated beta blocker treatment in patients having non-cardiac surgery. Perioperative outcomes within 30 days of surgery included total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal cardiac arrest, non-fatal stroke, congestive heart failure, hypotension needing treatment, bradycardia needing treatment, and bronchospasm. RESULTS: Twenty two trials that randomised a total of 2437 patients met the eligibility criteria. Perioperative beta blockers did not show any statistically significant beneficial effects on any of the individual outcomes and the only nominally statistically significant beneficial relative risk was 0.44 (95% confidence interval 0.20 to 0.97, 99% confidence interval 0.16 to 1.24) for the composite outcome of cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and non-fatal cardiac arrest. Methods adapted from formal interim monitoring boundaries applied to cumulative meta-analysis showed that the evidence failed, by a considerable degree, to meet standards for forgoing additional studies. The individual safety outcomes in patients treated with perioperative beta blockers showed a relative risk for bradycardia needing treatment of 2.27 (95% CI 1.53 to 3.36, 99% CI 1.36 to 3.80) and a nominally statistically significant relative risk for hypotension needing treatment of 1.27 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.56, 99% CI 0.97 to 1.66). CONCLUSION: The evidence that perioperative beta blockers reduce major cardiovascular events is encouraging but too unreliable to allow definitive conclusions to be drawn.

How strong is the evidence for the use of perioperative blockers in non-cardiac surgery? Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

Objective To determine the effect of perioperative blocker treatment in patients having non-cardiac surgery. Design Systematic review and meta-analysis.Data sources Seven search strategies, including searching two bibliographic databases and hand searching seven medical journals.Study selection and outcomes We included randomised controlled trials that evaluated blocker treatment in patients having non-cardiac surgery. Perioperative outcomes within 30 days of surgery included total mortality, cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, non-fatal cardiac arrest, non-fatal stroke, congestive heart failure, hypotension needing treatment, bradycardia needing treatment, and bronchospasm. Results Twenty two trials that randomised a total of 2437 patients met the eligibility criteria. Perioperative blockers did not show any statistically significant beneficial effects on any of the individual outcomes and the only nominally statistically significant beneficial relative risk was 0.44 (95% confidence interval 0.20 to 0.97, 99% confidence interval 0.16 to 1.24) for the composite outcome of cardiovascular mortality, non-fatal myocardial infarction, and non-fatal cardiac arrest. Methods adapted from formal interim monitoring boundaries applied to cumulative meta-analysis showed that the evidence failed, by a considerable degree, to meet standards for forgoing additional studies. The individual safety outcomes in patients treated with perioperative blockers showed a relative risk for bradycardia needing treatment of 2.27 (95% CI 1.53 to 3.36, 99% CI 1.36 to 3.80) and a nominally statistically significant relative risk for hypotension needing treatment of 1.27 (95% CI 1.04 to 1.56, 99% CI 0.97 to 1.66). Conclusion The evidence that perioperative blockers reduce major cardiovascular events is encouraging but too unreliable to allow definitive conclusions to be drawn...