To Örebro University

BACKGROUND: Postoperative mortality might be influenced by postoperative care, vigilance, and competence to rescue. This study aims to describe the course of events preceding death in a high-risk surgical cohort.

METHODS: We analyzed hospital records of patients who died within 30 days after surgery in 4 high volume hospitals using (1) reflective narrative thematic approach to identify recurring themes reflecting issues with conduct of care and (2) Global Trigger Tool to describe incidence, timing, and types of adverse events (AEs) leading to harm.

RESULTS: Preoperative predicted median risk of death in the studied group was 9%/13% according to SORT/P-POSSUM, respectively. Nine recurring themes were identified. Prominent themes were "consensus concerning aim and/or risk with planned surgery," "level of (intraoperative) competence and monitoring," and in the postoperative period "level of care and vigilance" on signs of deterioration. We found a total of 303 AEs, with only three patients (5%) having no adverse events. Most common severity category was "I," that is "contributed to patient's death" (n = 110, 36% of all AEs). Of these, 60% were classified as preventable or probably preventable. The peak incidence of AEs was seen on the day of index surgery. Most common types of AEs were "failure of vital functions" (n = 79, 26%), followed by infections (n = 45, 15%).

CONCLUSIONS: A high predicted risk of death and a peak of adverse events on the day of index surgery were detected. Identified themes reflect lack of documented multi-professional consensus on how to handle prevalent perioperative risk, vigilance, and postoperative level of care.

BACKGROUND: The level of post-operative mobilization according to Enhanced Recovery After Surgery (ERAS) guidelines is not always achieved. We investigated whether immediate mobilization increases postoperative physical activity. The objective was to evaluate the effects of immediate postoperative mobilization in the post-anesthesia care unit (PACU) compared to standard care.

METHODS: This randomized controlled trial, involved 144 patients, age ≥18 years, undergoing elective colorectal surgery. Patients were randomized to mobilization starting 30 min after arrival in the PACU, or to standard care. Standard care consisted of mobilization a few hours later at the ward according to ERAS guidelines. The primary outcome was physical activity, in terms of number of steps, measured with an accelerometer during postoperative days (PODs) 1-3. Secondary outcomes were physical capacity, functional mobility, time to readiness for discharge, complications, compliance with the ERAS protocol, and physical activity 1 month after surgery.

RESULTS: With the intention-to-treat analysis of 144 participants (median age 71, 58% female) 47% underwent laparoscopic-or robotic-assisted surgery. No differences in physical activity during hospital stay were found between the participants in the intervention group compared to the standard care group (adjusted mean ratio 0.97 on POD 1 [95% CI, 0.75-1.27], p = 0.84; 0.89 on POD 2 [95% CI, 0.68-1.16], p = 0.39, and 0.90 on POD 3 [95% CI, 0.69-1.17], p = 0.44); no differences were found in any of the other outcome measures.

CONCLUSIONS: Addition of the intervention of immediate mobilization to standard care did not make the patients more physically active during their hospital stay.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NTC 03357497.

BACKGROUND: Early mobilization is a significant part of the ERAS^® Society guidelines, in which patients are recommended to spend 2 h out of bed on the day of surgery. However, it is not yet known how early patients can safely be mobilized after completion of colorectal surgery. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility, and safety of providing almost immediate structured supervised mobilization starting 30 min post-surgery at the postoperative anesthesia care unit (PACU), and to describe reactions to this approach.

METHODS: This feasibility study includes 42 patients aged ≥18 years who received elective colorectal surgery at Örebro University Hospital. They underwent a structured mobilization performed by a specialized physiotherapist using a modified Surgical ICU Optimal Mobilization Score (SOMS). SOMS determines the level of mobilization at four levels from no activity to ambulating. Mobilization was considered successful at SOMS ≥ 2, corresponding to sitting on the edge of the bed as a proxy of sitting in a chair due to lack of space.

RESULTS: In all, 71% (n = 30) of the patients reached their highest level of mobilization between the second and third hour of arrival in the PACU. Before discharge to the ward, 43% (n = 18) could stand at the edge of the bed and 38% (n = 16) could ambulate. Symptoms that delayed advancement of mobilization were pain, somnolence, hypotension, nausea, and patient refusal. No serious adverse events occurred.

CONCLUSIONS: Supervised mobilization is feasible and can safely be initiated in the immediate postoperative care after colorectal surgery. Trial registration Clinical trials.gov identifier: NTC03357497.

Background: Identification of surgical populations at high risk for negative outcomes is needed for clinical and research purposes. We hypothesized that combining two classification systems, ASA (American Society of Anesthesiology physical status) and surgical severity, we could identify a high-risk population before surgery. We aimed to describe postoperative outcomes in a population selected by these two classifications system.

Methods: Data were collected in a Swedish multicentre, time-interrupted prospective, consecutive cohort study. Eligibility criteria were age >= 18 years, ASA >= 3, elective or emergent, major to Xmajor/complex (Specialist Procedure Codes used in United Kingdom), gastrointestinal, urogenital or orthopaedic procedures. Postoperative morbidity was identified by the Postoperative Morbidity Survey on postoperative days 3 +/- 1, 7 +/- 1, 10 + 5 and graded for severity by the Clavien-Dindo system. Mortality was assessed at 30, 180 and 360 days.

Results: Postoperative morbidity was 78/48/47 per cent on postoperative days 3/7/10. Majority of morbidities (67.5 per cent) were graded as >1 by Clavien-Dindo. Any type of postoperative morbidity graded >1 was associated with increased risk for death up to one year. The mortality was 5.7 per cent (61/1063) at 30 days, 13.3 per cent (142/1063) at 6 months and 19.1 per cent (160/1063) at 12 months.

Conclusion: Severity classification as major to Xmajor/complex and ASA >= 3 could be used to identify a high-risk surgical population concerning postoperative morbidity and mortality before surgery. Combining the two systems future electronic data extraction is possible of a high-risk population in tertiary hospitals.

Background and Aims: Emergency laparotomy is associated with a great risk of mortality in the elderly. The hyperadrenergic state induced by surgical trauma may play an important role in the pathophysiology of this increased risk. Studies have shown that beta-blocker exposure may be associated with decreased morbidity and mortality in the perioperative period. We aimed to study the effect of beta-blocker on mortality in geriatric patients undergoing emergency laparotomy.

Material and Methods: This is a retrospective study of patients who underwent emergency laparotomy between 1 January 2015 and 31 December 2016 at a single institution. The outcomes of interest were the association between post-operative complications and in-hospital and 1-year mortality in patients on beta-blocker therapy (BB(+)) and those who were not (BB(-)). The Poisson regression analysis was used to evaluate the association.

Results: A total of 192 patients were included of whom 62 (32.2%) had pre-operative beta-blocker therapy with continued exposure during their hospital stay. The in-hospital mortality was 17.7% in the BB(+) and 23.8% in the BB(-) cohorts (p = 0.441). One-year mortality was significantly lower in the BB(+) group compared to the BB(-) group (30.6% versus 47.7%; p = 0.038). After adjusting for confounders, the incidence of deaths during 1 year post-operatively decreased by 35% in the BB(+) group (incidence rate ratio = 0.65, p = 0.004). No significant differences in the incidence of post-operative complications between the two groups could be measured.

Conclusion: Beta-blocker therapy may be associated with reduced 1-year mortality following emergency laparotomy in geriatric patients.

Background: Retrospective studies indicate that the choice of anesthetic can affect long-term cancer survival. Propofol seems to have an advantage over sevoflurane. However, this is questioned for breast cancer. We gathered a large cohort of breast cancer surgery patients from seven Swedish hospitals and hypothesized that general anesthesia with propofol would be superior to sevoflurane anesthesia regarding long-term breast cancer survival.

Methods: We identified all patients who were anaesthetized for breast cancer surgery between 2006 and 2012. The patients were matched to the Swedish Breast Cancer Quality Register, to retrieve tumor characteristics, prognostic factors, and adjuvant treatment as well as date of death. Overall survival between patients undergoing sevoflurane and propofol anesthesia was analyzed with different statistical approaches: (a) multiple Cox regression models adjusted for demographic, oncological, and multiple control variables, (b) propensity score matching on the same variables, but also including the participating centers as a cofactor in a separate analysis.

Results: The database analysis identified 6305 patients. The 5-year survival rates were 91.0% and 81.8% for the propofol and sevoflurane group, respectively, in the final model (P = .126). Depending on the statistical adjustment method used, different results were obtained, from a non-significant to a "proposed" and even a "determined" difference in survival that favored propofol, with a maximum of 9.2 percentage points higher survival rate at 5 years (hazard ratio 1.46, 95% CI 1.10-1.95).

Conclusions: It seems that propofol may have a survival advantage compared with sevoflurane among breast cancer patients, but the inherent weaknesses of retrospective analyses were made apparent.

Background: Oesophageal pressure (PES) is used for calculation of lung and chest wall mechanics and transpulmonary pressure during mechanical ventilation. Measurements performed with a balloon catheter are suggested as a basis for setting the ventilator; however, measurements are affected by several factors. High-resolution manometry (HRM) simultaneously measures pressures at every centimetre in the whole oesophagus and thereby provides extended information about oesophageal pressure. The aim of the present study was to evaluate the factors affecting oesophageal pressure using HRM.

Methods: Oesophageal pressure was measured using a high-resolution manometry catheter in 20 mechanically ventilated patients (15 in the ICU and 5 in the OR). Different PEEP levels and different sizes of tidal volume were applied while pressures were measured continuously. In 10 patients, oesophageal pressure was also measured using a conventional balloon catheter for comparison. A retrospective analysis of oesophageal pressure measured with HRM in supine and sitting positions in 17 awake spontaneously breathing patients is also included.

Results: HRM showed large variations in end-expiratory PES (PESEE) and tidal changes in PES (PES) along the oesophagus. Mean intra-individual difference between the minimum and maximum end-expiratory oesophageal pressure (PESEE at baseline PEEP) and tidal variations in oesophageal pressure (PES at tidal volume 6ml/kg) recorded by HRM in the different sections of the oesophagus was 23.7 (7.9) cmH(2)O and 7.6 (3.9) cmH(2)O respectively. Oesophageal pressures were affected by tidal volume, level of PEEP, part of the oesophagus included and patient positioning. HRM identified simultaneous increases and decreases in PES within a majority of individual patients. Compared to sitting position, supine position increased PESEE (mean difference 12.3cmH(2)O), pressure variation within individual patients and cardiac artefacts. The pressure measured with a balloon catheter did not correspond to the average pressure measured with HRM within the same part of the oesophagus.

Conclusions: The intra-individual variability in PESEE and PES is substantial, and as a result, the balloon on the conventional catheter is affected by many different pressures along its length. Oesophageal pressures are not only affected by lung and chest wall mechanics but are a complex product of many factors, which is not obvious during conventional measurements. For correct calculations of transpulmonary pressure, factors influencing oesophageal pressures need to be known. HRM, which is available at many hospitals, can be used to increase the knowledge concerning these factors.

Trial registration: ClinicalTrials.gov,NCT02901158

BACKGROUND: Face mask ventilation (FMV) during induction of anaesthesia is associated with risk of gastric insufflation that may lead to gastric regurgitation and pulmonary aspiration. A continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) has been shown to reduce gastric regurgitation. We therefore hypothesised that CPAP followed by FMV with positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) during induction of anaesthesia would reduce the risk of gastric insufflation.

OBJECTIVE: The primary aim was to compare the incidence of gastric insufflation during FMV with a fixed PEEP level or zero PEEP (ZEEP) after anaesthesia induction. A secondary aim was to investigate the effects of FMV with or without PEEP on upper oesophageal sphincter (UES), oesophageal body and lower oesophageal sphincter (LES) pressures.

DESIGN: A randomised controlled trial.

SETTING: Single centre, Department of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, Örebro University Hospital, Sweden.

PARTICIPANTS: Thirty healthy volunteers.

INTERVENTIONS: Pre-oxygenation without or with CPAP 10 cmH2O, followed by pressure-controlled FMV with either ZEEP or PEEP 10 cmH2O after anaesthesia induction.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: A combined impedance/manometry catheter was used to detect the presence of gas and to measure oesophageal pressures. The primary outcome measure was the cumulative incidence of gastric insufflation, defined as a sudden anterograde increase in impedance of more than 1 kΩ over the LES. Secondary outcome measures were UES, oesophageal body and LES pressures.

RESULTS: The cumulative incidence of gastric insufflation related to peak inspiratory pressure (PIP), was significantly higher in the PEEP group compared with the ZEEP group (log-rank test P < 0.01). When PIP reached 30 cmH2O, 13 out of 15 in the PEEP group compared with five out of 15 had shown gastric insufflation. There was a significant reduction of oesophageal sphincter pressures within groups comparing pre-oxygenation to after anaesthesia induction, but there were no significant differences in oesophageal sphincter pressures related to the level of PEEP.

CONCLUSION: Contrary to the primary hypothesis, with increasing PIP the tested PEEP level did not protect against but facilitated gastric insufflation during FMV. This result suggests that PEEP should be used with caution after anaesthesia induction during FMV, whereas CPAP during pre-oxygenation seems to be safe.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02238691.

BACKGROUND: Esmolol may attenuate the sympathetic response to pain and reduce postoperative opioid consumption. It is not clear whether esmolol has an analgesic effect per se.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of this study was to evaluate the analgesic effect of esmolol in the absence of anaesthetics and opioids. We tested the hypothesis that esmolol would reduce the maximum pain intensity perceived during the cold pressor test (CPT) by 2 points on a 0 to 10 numeric pain rating scale (NRS) compared to placebo.

DESIGN: Randomised, placebo-controlled cross-over study.

SETTING: Postoperative recovery area, Örebro University Hospital. Study period, November 2013 to February 2014.

PARTICIPANTS: Fourteen healthy volunteers. Exclusion criteria included ongoing medication, pregnancy and breastfeeding and participation in other medical trials.

INTERVENTIONS: At separate study sessions, participants received interventions: esmolol (0.7 mg kg bolus over 1 min followed by infusion at 10 μg kg min); 0.9% normal saline bolus then remifentanil infusion at 0.2 μg kg min and 0.9% normal saline bolus and infusion according to a random sequence. All infusions were administered over 30 min.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Perceived maximum pain intensity score, pain tolerance and haemodynamic changes during CPT, and occurrence of side-effects to interventions compared to placebo, respectively.

RESULTS: Esmolol did not reduce perceived pain intensity or pain tolerance during the CPT. The NRS-max score was similar for esmolol, 8.5 (±1.4) and placebo, 8.4 (±1.3). The mean difference was 0.1 [95% confidence interval (-1.2 to 1.4)], P value equal to 0.83. Remifentanil significantly reduced NRS-max scores, 5.4 (±2.1) compared to placebo, [mean difference -3.1 (95% confidence interval (-4.4 to -1.8)), P < 0.001]. Side-effects were seen with remifentanil but not with esmolol.

CONCLUSION: No direct analgesic effect of esmolol could be demonstrated in the present study. The postoperative opioid-sparing effect demonstrated in previous studies, could therefore be secondary to other factors such as avoidance of opioid-induced hyperalgesia, synergy with coadministered opioids or altered pharmacokinetics of those drugs.

TRIAL REGISTRATION: European clinical trials database, https://eudract.ema.europa.eu/, EudraCT no. 2011-005780-24.

Background: The use of cricoid pressure is controversial, and its ability to occlude the esophagus has been questioned. In this study, high-resolution solid-state manometry was used to analyze pressure changes in the upper esophagus from cricoid pressure during modified rapid sequence induction. This is a secondary analysis of data from a previous study.

Methods: Seventeen healthy volunteers participated in a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled, cross-over study with primary aim to compare differences in the barrier pressure on the lower esophageal sphincter during rapid sequence induction with or without alfentanil. Standardized cricoid pressure of 30 N was applied 2 minutes after propolipid injection and held for 15 seconds and pressures in the esophagus were measured.

Results: Cricoid pressure resulted in a pressure increase of 127 +/- 98 mmHg (95% CI: 73-182) (placebo) and 123 +/- 74 mmHg (95% CI: 84-162) (alfentanil) at the level of the upper esophageal sphincter (UES), compared to baseline.

The pressure difference around the UES compared to the proximal esophagus during cricoid pressure application was 165 +/- 100 mmHg (placebo) and 159 +/- 87 mmHg (alfentanil) (mean +/- 1 SD).

Conclusion: This study using high-resolution solid-state manometry under clinically relevant conditions shows that 30 N cricoid pressure generates high pressure in the area of the UES, far exceeding the levels previously considered necessary to prevent regurgitation. Additional studies are needed to clarify the effectiveness of cricoid pressure in preventing passive regurgitation before it is rejected as a part of rapid sequence induction.