Guidelines for inhaled sedation in the ICU.

INTRODUCTION AND OBJECTIVES: Sedation is used in intensive care units (ICU) to improve comfort and tolerance during mechanical ventilation, invasive interventions, and nursing care. In recent years, the use of inhalation anaesthetics for this purpose has increased. Our objective was to obtain and summarise the best evidence on inhaled sedation in adult patients in the ICU, and use this to help physicians choose the most appropriate approach in terms of the impact of sedation on clinical outcomes and the risk-benefit of the chosen strategy. METHODOLOGY: Given the overall lack of literature and scientific evidence on various aspects of inhaled sedation in the ICU, we decided to use a Delphi method to achieve consensus among a group of 17 expert panellists. The processes was conducted over a 12-month period between 2022 and 2023, and followed the recommendations of the CREDES guidelines. RESULTS: The results of the Delphi survey form the basis of these 39 recommendations - 23 with a strong consensus and 15 with a weak consensus. CONCLUSION: The use of inhaled sedation in the ICU is a reliable and appropriate option in a wide variety of clinical scenarios. However, there are numerous aspects of the technique that require further study.

Revisión crítica de las recomendaciones sobre fluidoterapia perioperatoria y monitorización hemodinámica de Recuperación intensificada en cirugía del adulto (RICA): Declaración de posición del Grupo de Trabajo de Fluidoterapia y Monitorización hemodinámica de la Sección de Hemostasia, Medicina transfusional y Fluidoterapia (SHTF) de la Sociedad Española de Anestesiología y Reanimación (SEDAR) / A critical review of the Perioperative Fluid Therapy and Hemodynamic Monitoring recommendations of the Enhanced Recovery of the Adult Pathway (RICA): A position statement of the Fluid Therapy and Hemodynamic Monitoring Subcommittee of the Hemostasis, Transfusion Medicine and Fluid Therapy Section (SHTF) of the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology and Critical Care (SEDAR)

En un esfuerzo por estandarizar el manejo perioperatorio y mejorar los resultados posoperatorios de los pacientes adultos sometidos a cirugía, el Ministerio de Sanidad, a través del Grupo Español de Rehabilitación Multimodal (GERM) y el Instituto Aragonés de Ciencias de la Salud, en colaboración con diversas sociedades científicas españolas, y sobre la base de la evidencia disponible, publicó en 2021 la guía Recuperación intensificada en cirugía del adulto (RICA). Dicho documento incluye 12 medidas perioperatorias relacionadas con la fluidoterapia y la monitorización hemodinámica. La administración de fluidos y la monitorización hemodinámica no son sencillas, pero están directamente relacionadas con los resultados de los pacientes. El Subcomité de Fluidoterapia y monitorización hemodinámica de la Sección de Hemostasia, Medicina transfusional y Fluidoterapia (SHTF) de la Sociedad Española de Anestesiología y Reanimación (SEDAR) ha analizado dichas recomendaciones, concluyendo que deberían ser revisadas, ya que no siguen la metodología adecuada. (AU)

In an effort to standardize perioperative management and improve postoperative outcomes of adult patients undergoing surgery, the Ministry of Health, through the Spanish Multimodal Rehabilitation Group (GERM), and the Aragonese Institute of Health Sciences, in collaboration with multiple Spanish scientific societies and based on the available evidence, published in 2021 the Spanish Intensified Adult Recovery (RICA) guideline. This document includes 12 perioperative measures related to fluid therapy and hemodynamic monitoring. Fluid administration and hemodynamic monitoring are not straightforward but are directly related to postoperative patient outcomes. The Fluid Therapy and Hemodynamic Monitoring Subcommittee of the Hemostasis, Transfusion Medicine and Fluid Therapy Section (SHTF) of the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology and Critical Care (SEDAR) has reviewed these recommendations and concluded that they should be revised as they do not follow an adequate methodology. (AU)

A critical review of the perioperative fluid therapy and hemodynamic monitoring recommendations of the Enhanced Recovery of the Adult Pathway (RICA): A position statement of the fluid therapy and hemodynamic monitoring Subcommittee of the Hemostasis, Transfusion Medicine and Fluid Therapy Section (SHTF) of the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology and Critical Care (SEDAR).

In an effort to standardize perioperative management and improve postoperative outcomes of adult patients undergoing surgery, the Ministry of Health, through the Spanish Multimodal Rehabilitation Group (GERM), and the Aragonese Institute of Health Sciences, in collaboration with multiple Spanish scientific societies and based on the available evidence, published in 2021 the Spanish Intensified Adult Recovery (RICA) guideline. This document includes 12 perioperative measures related to fluid therapy and hemodynamic monitoring. Fluid administration and hemodynamic monitoring are not straightforward but are directly related to postoperative patient outcomes. The Fluid Therapy and Hemodynamic Monitoring Subcommittee of the Hemostasis, Transfusion Medicine and Fluid Therapy Section (SHTF) of the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology and Critical Care (SEDAR) has reviewed these recommendations and concluded that they should be revised as they do not follow an adequate methodology.

Prueba de volumen en el quirófano: subestudio planificado del estudio observacional Fluid Day / Fluid challenges in operating room: A planned sub study of the Fluid Day observational study

Antecedentes: La administración intraoperatoria de fluidos es una intervención ubicua en los pacientes quirúrgicos. Pero la administración inadecuada de fluidos puede llevar a malos resultados postoperatorios. La prueba de volumen (PV), dentro o fuera de la denominada fluidoterapia guiada por objetivos, permite probar el sistema cardiovascular y la necesidad de administración adicional de fluidos. Nuestro objetivo primario fue evaluar el modo en que el anestesiólogo realiza la PV en el quirófano en términos de tipo, volumen, variables utilizadas para impulsar la PV, y comparar la proporción de pacientes que recibieron administración adicional de fluidos basada en la respuesta a la PV. Métodos: Se trata de un subestudio planificado de un estudio observacional realizado en 131 centros en España, en pacientes sometidos a cirugía. Resultados: En el estudio se incluyeron y analizaron 396 pacientes. La cantidad media [rango intercuartílico] de fluidos administrados durante la PV fue de 250ml (200-400). La principal indicación de la PV fue el descenso de la presión arterial sistólica en 246 casos (62,2%). La segunda indicación fue el descenso de la presión arterial media (54,4%). Se utilizó el gasto cardiaco en 30 pacientes (7,58%), y la variación del volumen sistólico en 29 de entre 385 casos (7,32%). La respuesta a la PV inicial no tuvo impacto a la hora de prescribir administración adicional de fluidos. Conclusiones: La indicación y la evaluación actuales de la PV en los pacientes quirúrgicos son altamente variables. La predicción de la receptividad a los fluidos no se utiliza rutinariamente, evaluándose a menudo las variables no adecuadas para valorar la respuesta hemodinámica a la PV, pudiendo causar efectos perjudiciales.(AU)

Background: Intraoperative fluid administration is a ubiquitous intervention in surgical patients. But inadequate fluid administration may lead to poor postoperative outcomes. Fluid challenges (FCs), in or outside the so-called goal-directed fluid therapy, allows testing the cardiovascular system and the need for further fluid administration. Our primary aim was to evaluate how anesthesiologists conduct FCs in the operating room in terms of type, volume, variables used to trigger a FC and to compare the proportion of patients receiving further fluid administration based on the response to the FC. Methods: This was a planned substudy of an observational study conducted in 131 centers in Spain in patients undergoing surgery. Results: A total of 396 patients were enrolled and analyzed in the study. The median [interquartile range] amount of fluid given during a FC was 250mL (200-400). The main indication for FC was a decrease in systolic arterial pressure in 246 cases (62.2%). The second was a decrease in mean arterial pressure (54.4%). Cardiac output was used in 30 patients (7.58%), while stroke volume variation in 29 of 385 cases (7.32%). The response to the initial FC did not have an impact when prescribing further fluid administration. Conclusions: The current indication and evaluation of FC in surgical patients is highly variable. Prediction of fluid responsiveness is not routinely used, and inappropriate variables are frequently evaluated for assessing the hemodynamic response to FC, which may result in deleterious effects.(AU)

Fluid challenges in operating room: A planned sub study of the Fluid Day observational study.

BACKGROUND: Intraoperative fluid administration is a ubiquitous intervention in surgical patients. But inadequate fluid administration may lead to poor postoperative outcomes. Fluid challenges (FCs), in or outside the so-called goal-directed fluid therapy, allows testing the cardiovascular system and the need for further fluid administration. Our primary aim was to evaluate how anesthesiologists conduct FCs in the operating room in terms of type, volume, variables used to trigger a FC and to compare the proportion of patients receiving further fluid administration based on the response to the FC. METHODS: This was a planned substudy of an observational study conducted in 131 centres in Spain in patients undergoing surgery. RESULTS: A total of 396 patients were enrolled and analysed in the study. The median [interquartile range] amount of fluid given during a FC was 250ml (200-400). The main indication for FC was a decrease in systolic arterial pressure in 246 cases (62.2%). The second was a decrease in mean arterial pressure (54.4%). Cardiac output was used in 30 patients (7.58%), while stroke volume variation in 29 of 385 cases (7.32%). The response to the initial FC did not have an impact when prescribing further fluid administration. CONCLUSIONS: The current indication and evaluation of FC in surgical patients is highly variable. Prediction of fluid responsiveness is not routinely used, and inappropriate variables are frequently evaluated for assessing the hemodynamic response to FC, which may result in deleterious effects.

Research priorities in perioperative fluid therapy and hemodynamic monitoring: A Delphi Consensus Survey from the Fluid Therapy and Hemodynamic Monitoring Subcommittee of the Hemostasis, Transfusion Medicine and Fluid Therapy Section (SHTF) of the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology and Critical Care (SEDAR).

BACKGROUND: Research in fluid therapy and perioperative hemodynamic monitoring is difficult and expensive. The objectives of this study were to summarize these topics and to prioritize these topics in order of research importance. METHODS: Electronic structured Delphi questionnaire over three rounds among 30 experts in fluid therapy and hemodynamic monitoring identified through the Fluid Therapy and Hemodynamic Monitoring Subcommittee of the Hemostasis, Transfusion Medicine and Fluid Therapy Section of the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology and Critical Care. RESULTS: 77 topics were identified and ranked in order of prioritization. Topics were categorized into themes of crystalloids, colloids, hemodynamic monitoring and others. 31 topics were ranked as essential research priority. To determine whether intraoperative hemodynamic optimization algorithms based on the invasive or noninvasive Hypotension Prediction Index versus other management strategies could decrease the incidence of postoperative complications. As well as whether the use of renal stress biomarkers together with a goal-directed fluid therapy protocol could reduce hospital stay and the incidence of acute kidney injury in adult patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery, reached the highest consensus. CONCLUSIONS: The Fluid Therapy and Hemodynamic Monitoring Subcommittee of the Hemostasis, Transfusion Medicine and Fluid Therapy Section of the Spanish Society of Anesthesiology and Critical Care will use these results to carry out the research.

Intraoperative crystalloid utilization variability and association with postoperative outcomes: A post hoc analysis of two multicenter prospective cohort studies.

BACKGROUND: The optimal regimen for intravenous administration of intraoperative fluids remains unclear. Our goal was to analyze intraoperative crystalloid volume administration practices and their association with postoperative outcomes. METHODS: We extracted clinical data from two multicenter observational studies including adult patients undergoing colorectal surgery and total hip (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA). We analyzed the distribution of intraoperative fluid administration. Regression was performed using a general linear model to determine factors predictive of fluid administration. Patient outcomes and intraoperative crystalloid utilization were summarized for each surgical cohort. Regression models were developed to evaluate associations of high or low intraoperative crystalloid with the likelihood of increased postoperative complications, mainly acute kidney injury (AKI) and hospital length of stay (LOS). RESULTS: 7580 patients were included. The average adjusted intraoperative crystalloid infusion rate across all surgeries was to 7.9 (SD 4) mL/kg/h. The regression model strongly favored the type of surgery over other patient predictors. We found that high fluid volume was associated with 40% greater odds ratio (OR 1.40; 95% confidence interval 1.01-1.95, p = 0.044) of postoperative complications in patients undergoing THA, while we found no associations for the other types of surgeries, AKI and LOS CONCLUSIONS: A wide variability was observed in intraoperative crystalloid volume administration; however, this did not affect postoperative outcomes.

Efficacy of a multidisciplinary approach on postoperative morbidity and mortality of elderly patients with hip fracture.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We evaluated the efficacy of a multidisciplinary approach to reduce postoperative complications and 1-year mortality in patients, undergoing hip fracture surgery and the impact of surgical delay on mortality. DESIGN: A non-randomized intervention study with a historical control group (CG). SETTING: During the hospital stay of patients undergoing hip fracture surgery and subsequent follow-up during 12 months post-discharge. PATIENTS: 240 patients undergoing hip fracture surgery were included in the CG. 272 patients were included in the intervention group (IG). INTERVENTIONS: CG patients received the standard care given at our hospital. Patients in the IG received a new model of multidisciplinary approach to care. MEASUREMENTS: The following variables were collected: study group, age, gender, ASA physical status, comorbidity, type of fracture, type of anaesthesia, surgical delay, postoperative complications, hospital stay, destination after discharge and postoperative mortality. MAIN RESULTS: 512 patients (CG = 240; IG = 272). Mean age was 83.8 years in CG and 84.9 years in IG. Patients in the IG had a worse health status according to ASA (III-IV: 68.8% vs 51.7%; p < 0.001) and took more drugs (p < 0.001). Surgery was performed within 48 h of admission in 55.1% of patients of the IG (38.3% CG; p < 0.001). Incidence of postoperative complications (67.3% IG vs 76.2% CG p = 0.025) and hospital stay was shorter in the IG (p < 0.001). A surgical delay of >48 h (HR = 0.61; CI95%: 0.42-0.88) and allocation to the IG (HR = 0.64; CI95%: 0.44-0.93) were the protective factors for mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The multidisciplinary approach could be associated with a decrease in postoperative complications, hospital stay and mortality. Surgical delay may not increase the risk of mortality. The main objective in the management of these patients should be the optimization of their general health status before surgery rather than surgical delay.