Effects of using the simplified airway risk index vs usual airway assessment on unanticipated difficult tracheal intubation - a cluster randomized trial with 64,273 participants.

BACKGROUND: Unanticipated difficult intubation remains a challenge in anaesthesia. The Simplified Airway Risk Index (SARI) is a multivariable risk model consisting of seven independent risk factors for difficult intubation. Our aim was to compare preoperative airway assessment based on the SARI with usual airway assessment. METHODS: From 01.10.2012 to 31.12.2013, 28 departments were cluster-randomized to apply the SARI model or usual airway assessment. The SARI group implemented the SARI model. The Non-SARI group continued usual airway assessment, thus reflecting a group of anaesthetists' heterogeneous individual airway assessments. Preoperative prediction of difficult intubation and actual intubation difficulties were registered in the Danish Anaesthesia Database for both groups. Patients who were preoperatively scheduled for intubation by advanced techniques (e.g. video laryngoscopy; flexible optic scope) were excluded from the primary analysis. Primary outcomes were the proportions of unanticipated difficult and unanticipated easy intubation. RESULTS: A total of 26 departments (15 SARI and 11 Non-SARI) and 64 273 participants were included. In the primary analyses 29 209 SARI and 30 305 Non-SARI participants were included.In SARI departments 2.4% (696) of the participants had an unanticipated difficult intubation vs 2.4% (723) in Non-SARI departments. Odds ratio (OR) adjusted for design variables was 1.03 (95% CI: 0.77-1.38). The proportion of unanticipated easy intubation was 1.42% (415) in SARI departments vs 1.00% (302) in Non-SARI departments. Adjusted OR was 1.26 (0.68-2.34). CONCLUSIONS: Using the SARI compared with usual airway assessment we detected no statistical significant changes in unanticipated difficult- or easy intubations. CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT01718561.

Randomized, double-blind comparison of ondansetron versus ondansetron plus metopimazine as antiemetic prophylaxis during platinum-based chemotherapy in patients with cancer.

PURPOSE: To investigate the antiemetic effect and tolerability of the 5-hydroxytryptamine3(5-HT3) antagonist ondansetron plus the dopamine D2 antagonist metopimazine versus ondansetron alone in patients receiving platinum-based chemotherapy. PATIENTS AND METHODS: One hundred eleven chemotherapy-naive patients who were scheduled to receive two consecutive courses of platinum-based chemotherapy were randomized between ondansetron 8 mg intravenously (IV) followed by 8 mg orally twice a day plus metopimazine 35 mg/m2 as a 24-hour continuous infusion followed by 30 mg orally four times a day for 4 days, or ondansetron plus placebo. The study used a double-blind, crossover, placebo-controlled design. RESULTS: Ninety-four patients completed the crossover. Complete response (CR; no emetic episodes) was obtained on day 1 in 77.7% of the patients who received the combination versus 50.0% of those who received ondansetron alone (P = .00002), and in 51.7% versus 31.0% on days 2 to 6 (P = .0009). The overall CR (days 1 to 6) was 48.9% versus 25.3% (P = .0002). Additionally, significantly less nausea was observed with the combination on day 1 (P = .0002), days 2 to 6 (P = .0001), and days 1 to 6 (P = .00004). Patient preference was 63.6% for the combination and 13.6% for ondansetron alone; 22.7% expressed no treatment preference (P < .0001; therapeutic gain 50.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 31.6% to 68.4%). Adverse reactions were mild and without significant differences between the two treatments. CONCLUSION: Metopimazine plus ondansetron was significantly superior to ondansetron alone, concerning all efficacy parameters assessed, in patients who received platinum-based chemotherapy.