Postoperative hyperlactataemia and preoperative cardiopulmonary exercise testing in an elective noncardiac surgical cohort: a retrospective observational study.

Background: Blood lactate concentration in the postoperative period is a marker of physiological stress and a predictor of complications and mortality. Cardiopulmonary exercise testing (CPET) is a common preoperative risk stratification tool. We aimed to investigate the association between preoperative CPET results and postoperative lactate concentration with postoperative mortality after major noncardiac surgery. Methods: We analysed data from patients undergoing major noncardiac surgery in a tertiary UK centre between 2007 and 2014 who had preoperative CPET and postoperative lactate measurements. Univariate and multivariate analyses were performed to assess the association between lactate concentration, CPET results, or both and mortality. Results: We analysed data from 1075 patients. A mean lactate concentration >2 mM in the first 12, 24, and 48 h after surgery was associated with odds ratios (ORs) and 95% confidence intervals (CIs) for 30-day mortality of 3.9 (2.1-7.3; P<0.005), 4.5 (2.4-8.4; P<0.005), and 6.1 (3.3-11.5; P<0.005), respectively. The dichotomous CPET variable, ventilatory equivalence for CO2 (V̇E/V̇co2; cut-off 34), was associated with increased risk of 30-day mortality (OR 2.5; 95% CI: 1.3-4.8; P<0.005). In a multivariable model, hyperlactataemia and poor V̇E/V̇co2 retained their significant associations with 30- and 90-day mortality when adjusted for age, BMI, and surgical risk. When looking at the combined effect of the dichotomous hyperlactataemia in the first 24 h (cut-off 2 mM) and preoperative V̇E/V̇co2, the OR for 30-day mortality was 11.53 (95% CI: 4.6-28.8; P≤0.005). Conclusions: Our study suggests that postoperative hyperlactataemia and preoperative poor V̇E/V̇co2 are independently associated with an increased risk of mortality after major noncardiac surgery.

Efficacy of supervised exercise prehabilitation programs to improve major abdominal surgery outcomes: A systematic review and meta-analysis.

The optimal package of components for a prehabilitation intervention remains unclear. The aim was to determine the efficacy of supervised exercise prehabilitation programs to enhance patient fitness and improve surgical outcomes. The protocol was preregistered (PROSPERO: CRD42020180693). PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, AMED, CENTRAL, PeDro, ClinicalTrials.gov and the WHO International Clinical Trials Registry were searched. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of supervised prehabilitation programs before major abdominal surgery were included. Physical function, cardiorespiratory capacity and surgical outcomes were the primary outcomes measures. Risk of bias was assessed according to the Cochrane Risk of Bias 1.0 tool for RCTs. Data are summarized narratively, and where possible, quantitavely. Meta-analyses results are reported as risk ratios (RR), mean difference of changes between baseline and follow-up time points or mean difference between groups and 95% confidence interval (CI). Twenty RCTs were included in the analysis with a total of 1258 patients. The average 6-min walking distance change was +33 m in the prehabilitation group compared to the usual care (UC) group after prehabilitation (95% CI: [13, 53], P < 0.01). Only in studies with more than one supervised session per week changes in 6-min-walk distance were significantly higher in the prehabilitation group compared to the UC group after prehabiliatation (Mean difference: 47 m, 95% [CI]: [20-75], P < 0.01). The change in peak volume of oxygen uptake during a maximum cardiopulmonary test was +1.47 mL·kg-1·min-1 in the prehabilitation group compared to the UC group (95% CI: [0.68, 2.25], P < 0.01). There was no significant difference in the change in oxygen uptake at anaerobic threshold between groups (Mean differences: 0.47, 95% CI: [-0.16, 1.10], P:0.14). Post-operative complications incidence was similar between groups (RR: 0.80, 95% CI: [0.61, 1.05], P:0.11), irrespective of the frequency of supervised session per week (RR: 0.67, 95% CI: [0.43, 1.03], P:0.07). In conclusion, prehabilitation programmes with more than one supervised session per week improved physical function but did not enhance surgical outcomes.

Defining effective communication for critically ill patients with an artificial airway: An international multi-professional consensus.

OBJECTIVES: To define effective communication and identify its key elements specific to critically ill patients with an artificial airway. DESIGN: A modified Consensus Development Panel methodology. SETTING: International video-conferences. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Definition of effective communication and it's key elements. RESULTS: Eight experts across four international regions and three professions agreed to form the Consensus Development Panel together with a Chair and one person with lived experience who reviewed the outputs prior to finalisation. "Communication for critically ill adult patients with an artificial airway (endotracheal or tracheostomy tube) is defined as the degree in which a patient can initiate, impart, receive, and understand information, and can range from an ineffective to effective exchange of basic to complex information between the patient and the communication partner(s). Effective communication encompasses seven key elements including: comprehension, quantity, rate, effort, duration, independence, and satisfaction. In critically ill adults, communication is impacted by factors including medical, physical and cognitive status, delirium, fatigue, emotional status, the communication partner and the nature of the ICU environment (e.g., staff wearing personal protective equipment, noisy equipment, bright lights)." The panel agreed that communication occurs on a continuum from ineffective to effective for basic and complex communication. CONCLUSION: We developed a definition and list of key elements which constitute effective communication for critically ill patients with an artificial airway. These can be used as the basis of standard terminology to support future research on the development of communication-related outcome measurement tools in this population. IMPLICATIONS FOR CLINICAL PRACTICE: This study provides international multi-professional consensus terminology and a definition of effective communication which can be used in clinical practice. This standard definition and key elements of effective communication can be included in our clinical impressions of patient communication, and be used in discussion with the patient themselves, their families and the multi-professional team, to guide care, goal development and intervention.