Dexamethasone, light anaesthesia, and tight glucose control (DeLiT) randomized controlled trial

The effect of perioperative of dexamethasone on postoperative complications after pancreaticoduodenectomy (PANDEX): a study protocol for a pragmatic multicenter randomized controlled trial

BACKGROUND

Pancreaticoduodenectomy (PD) nowadays serves as a standard treatment for patients with disorders of the pancreas, intestine, and bile duct. Although the mortality rate of patients undergoing PD has decreased significantly, postoperative complication rates remain high. Dexamethasone, a synthetic glucocorticoid with potent anti-inflammatory and metabolic effects, has been proven to have a favorable effect on certain complications. However, the role it plays in post-pancreatectomy patients has not been systematically evaluated. The aim of this study is to assess the effect of dexamethasone on postoperative complications after PD.

METHODS

The PANDEX trial is an investigator-initiated, multicentric, prospective, randomized, double-blinded, placebo-control, pragmatic study. The trial is designed to enroll 300 patients who are going to receive elective PD. Patients will be randomized to receive 0.2 mg/kg dexamethasone or saline placebo, administered as an intravenous bolus within 5 min after induction of anesthesia. The primary outcome is the Comprehensive Complication Index (CCI) score within 30 days after the operation. The secondary outcomes include postoperative major complications (Clavien-Dindo≥3), postoperative pancreatic fistula (POPF), post-pancreatectomy acute pancreatitis (PPAP), infection, and unexpected relaparotomy, as well as postoperative length of stay, 30-day mortality, and 90-day mortality.

DISCUSSION

The PANDEX trial is the first randomized controlled trial concerning the effect of dexamethasone on postoperative complications of patients undergoing PD, with the hypothesis that the intraoperative use of dexamethasone can reduce the incidence of postoperative complications and improve short-term outcomes after PD. The results of the present study will guide the perioperative use of dexamethasone and help improve the clinical management of post-pancreatectomy patients.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

ClinicalTrials.gov NCT05567094. Registered on 30 September 30 2022.

Perioperative glycaemic control for people with diabetes undergoing surgery

BACKGROUND

People with diabetes mellitus are at increased risk of postoperative complications. Data from randomised clinical trials and meta-analyses point to a potential benefit of intensive glycaemic control, targeting near-normal blood glucose, in people with hyperglycaemia (with and without diabetes mellitus) being submitted for surgical procedures. However, there is limited evidence concerning this question in people with diabetes mellitus undergoing surgery.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of perioperative glycaemic control for people with diabetes undergoing surgery.

SEARCH METHODS

For this update, we searched the databases CENTRAL, MEDLINE, LILACS, WHO ICTRP and ClinicalTrials.gov. The date of last search for all databases was 25 July 2022. We applied no language restrictions.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We included randomised controlled clinical trials (RCTs) that prespecified different targets of perioperative glycaemic control for participants with diabetes (intensive versus conventional or standard care).

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two authors independently extracted data and assessed the risk of bias. Our primary outcomes were all-cause mortality, hypoglycaemic events and infectious complications. Secondary outcomes were cardiovascular events, renal failure, length of hospital and intensive care unit (ICU) stay, health-related quality of life, socioeconomic effects, weight gain and mean blood glucose during the intervention. We summarised studies using meta-analysis with a random-effects model and calculated the risk ratio (RR) for dichotomous outcomes and the mean difference (MD) for continuous outcomes, using a 95% confidence interval (CI), or summarised outcomes with descriptive methods. We used the GRADE approach to evaluate the certainty of the evidence (CoE).

MAIN RESULTS

A total of eight additional studies were added to the 12 included studies in the previous review leading to 20 RCTs included in this update. A total of 2670 participants were randomised, of which 1320 were allocated to the intensive treatment group and 1350 to the comparison group. The duration of the intervention varied from during surgery to five days postoperative. No included trial had an overall low risk of bias. Intensive glycaemic control resulted in little or no difference in all-cause mortality compared to conventional glycaemic control (130/1263 (10.3%) and 117/1288 (9.1%) events, RR 1.08, 95% CI 0.88 to 1.33; I2 = 0%; 2551 participants, 18 studies; high CoE). Hypoglycaemic events, both severe and non-severe, were mainly experienced in the intensive glycaemic control group. Intensive glycaemic control may slightly increase hypoglycaemic events compared to conventional glycaemic control (141/1184 (11.9%) and 41/1226 (3.3%) events, RR 3.36, 95% CI 1.69 to 6.67; I2 = 64%; 2410 participants, 17 studies; low CoE), as well as those considered severe events (37/927 (4.0%) and 6/969 (0.6%), RR 4.73, 95% CI 2.12 to 10.55; I2 = 0%; 1896 participants, 11 studies; low CoE). Intensive glycaemic control, compared to conventional glycaemic control, may result in little to no difference in the rate of infectious complications (160/1228 (13.0%) versus 224/1225 (18.2%) events, RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.55 to 1.04; P = 0.09; I2 = 55%; 2453 participants, 18 studies; low CoE). Analysis of the predefined secondary outcomes revealed that intensive glycaemic control may result in a decrease in cardiovascular events compared to conventional glycaemic control (107/955 (11.2%) versus 125/978 (12.7%) events, RR 0.73, 95% CI 0.55 to 0.97; P = 0.03; I2 = 44%; 1454 participants, 12 studies; low CoE). Further, intensive glycaemic control resulted in little or no difference in renal failure events compared to conventional glycaemic control (137/1029 (13.3%) and 158/1057 (14.9%), RR 0.92, 95% CI 0.69 to 1.22; P = 0.56; I2 = 38%; 2086 participants, 14 studies; low CoE). We found little to no difference between intensive glycaemic control and conventional glycaemic control in length of ICU stay (MD -0.10 days, 95% CI -0.57 to 0.38; P = 0.69; I2 = 69%; 1687 participants, 11 studies; low CoE), and length of hospital stay (MD -0.79 days, 95% CI -1.79 to 0.21; P = 0.12; I2 = 77%; 1520 participants, 12 studies; very low CoE). Due to the differences within included studies, we did not pool data for the reduction of mean blood glucose. Intensive glycaemic control resulted in a mean lowering of blood glucose, ranging from 13.42 mg/dL to 91.30 mg/dL. One trial assessed health-related quality of life in 12/37 participants in the intensive glycaemic control group, and 13/44 participants in the conventional glycaemic control group; no important difference was shown in the measured physical health composite score of the short-form 12-item health survey (SF-12). One substudy reported a cost analysis of the population of an included study showing a higher total hospital cost in the conventional glycaemic control group, USD 42,052 (32,858 to 56,421) compared to the intensive glycaemic control group, USD 40,884 (31.216 to 49,992). It is important to point out that there is relevant heterogeneity between studies for several outcomes. We identified two ongoing trials. The results of these studies could add new information in future updates on this topic.

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

High-certainty evidence indicates that perioperative intensive glycaemic control in people with diabetes undergoing surgery does not reduce all-cause mortality compared to conventional glycaemic control. There is low-certainty evidence that intensive glycaemic control may reduce the risk of cardiovascular events, but cause little to no difference to the risk of infectious complications after the intervention, while it may increase the risk of hypoglycaemia. There are no clear differences between the groups for the other outcomes. There are uncertainties among the intensive and conventional groups regarding the optimal glycaemic algorithm and target blood glucose concentrations. In addition, we found poor data on health-related quality of life, socio-economic effects and weight gain. It is also relevant to underline the heterogeneity among studies regarding clinical outcomes and methodological approaches. More studies are needed that consider these factors and provide a higher quality of evidence, especially for outcomes such as hypoglycaemia and infectious complications.

Association Between Intraoperative Dexamethasone and Postoperative Mortality in Patients Undergoing Oncologic Surgery: A Multicentric Cohort Study

OBJECTIVE

We examined the effects of dexamethasone on postoperative mortality, recurrence-free survival, and side effects in patients undergoing oncologic operations.

BACKGROUND

Dexamethasone prevents nausea and vomiting after anesthesia and may affect cancer proliferation.

METHODS

A total of 30,561 adult patients undergoing solid cancer resection between 2005 and 2020 were included. Multivariable logistic regression was applied to investigate the effect of dexamethasone on 1-year mortality and recurrence-free survival. Effect modification by the cancer's potential for immunogenicity, defined as a recommendation for checkpoint inhibitor therapy based on the National Comprehensive Cancer Network guidelines, was investigated through interaction term analysis. Key safety endpoints were dexamethasone-associated risk of hyperglycemia >180 mg/dL within 24 hours and surgical site infections within 30 days after surgery.

RESULTS

Dexamethasone was administered to 38.2% (11,666/30,561) of patients (6.5±2.3 mg). Overall, 3.2% (n=980/30,561) died and 15.4% (n=4718/30,561) experienced cancer recurrence within 1 year of the operation. Dexamethasone was associated with a -0.6% (95% confidence interval: -1.1, -0.2, P =0.007) 1-year mortality risk reduction [adjusted odds ratio (OR adj ): 0.79 (0.67, 0.94), P =0.009; hazard ratio=0.82 (0.69, 0.96), P =0.016] and higher odds of recurrence-free survival [OR adj : 1.28 (1.18, 1.39), P <0.001]. This effect was only present in patients with solid cancers who were defined as not to respond to checkpoint inhibitor therapy [OR adj : 0.70 (0.57, 0.87), P =0.001 vs OR adj : 1.13 (0.85, 1.50), P =0.40]. A high (>0.09 mg/kg) dose of dexamethasone increased the risk of postoperative hyperglycemia [OR adj : 1.55 (1.32, 1.82), P <0.001], but not for surgical site infections [OR adj : 0.84 (0.42, 1.71), P =0.63].

CONCLUSIONS

Dexamethasone is associated with decreased 1-year mortality and cancer recurrence in patients undergoing surgical resection of cancers that are not candidates for immune modulators. Dexamethasone increased the risk of postoperative hyperglycemia, however, no increase in surgical site infections was identified.

Evidence-based guideline for the prevention and management of perioperative infection

BACKGROUND

We have updated the guideline for preventing and managing perioperative infection in China, given the global issues with antimicrobial resistance and the need to optimize antimicrobial usage and improve hospital infection control levels.

METHODS

We conducted a comprehensive evaluation of the evidence for prevention and management of perioperative infection, based on the concepts of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) system. The strength of recommendations was graded and voted using the Delphi method and the nominal group technique. Revisions were made to the guidelines in response to feedback from the experts.

RESULTS

There were 17 questions prepared, for which 37 recommendations were made. According to the GRADE system, we evaluated the body of evidence for each clinical question. Based on the meta-analysis results, recommendations were graded using the Delphi method to generate useful information.

CONCLUSIONS

This guideline provides evidence to perioperative antimicrobial prophylaxis that increased the rational use of prophylactic antimicrobial use, with substantial improvement in the risk-benefit trade-off.

Depth of anaesthesia and mortality after cardiac or noncardiac surgery: a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials

BACKGROUND

Recent randomised controlled trials have failed to show a benefit in mortality by using processed electroencephalography (pEEG) to guide lighter anaesthesia. We performed a meta-analysis of mortality data from randomised trials of pEEG monitoring to assess the evidence of any protective effect of pEEG-guided light anaesthesia compared with deep anaesthesia in adults aged ≥18 yr.

METHODS

Our study followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) guidelines. In February 2022, we searched three databases (Cochrane CENTRAL, OVID Medline, EMBASE) for RCTs of pEEG monitoring that provided mortality data at 30 days, 90 days, and/or 1 yr or longer.

RESULTS

We included 16 articles from 12 RCTs with 48 827 total participants. We observed no statistically significant mortality reduction with light anaesthesia compared with deep anaesthesia in patients aged ≥18 yr when all studies were pooled (odds ratio [OR]=0.99; 95% confidence interval (CI), 0.92-1.08). This result did not change significantly when analysing mortality at 30 days, 90 days, 1 yr or longer. We observed no mortality benefit for pEEG monitoring compared with usual care (OR=1.02; 95% CI, 0.89-1.18), targeting higher pEEG index values compared with lower values (OR=0.89; 95% CI, 0.60-1.32), or low pEEG index value alerts compared with no alerts (OR=1.02; 95% CI, 0.41-2.52).

CONCLUSIONS

pEEG-guided lighter anaesthesia does not appear to reduce the risk of postoperative mortality. The absence of a plausible rationale for why deeper anaesthesia should increase mortality has hampered appropriate design of definitive clinical trials.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

CRD42022285195 (PROSPERO).

Effects of anesthetic depth on postoperative pain and delirium: a meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials with trial sequential analysis

BACKGROUND

Whether anesthetic depth affects postoperative outcomes remains controversial. This meta-analysis aimed to evaluate the effects of deep vs. light anesthesia on postoperative pain, cognitive function, recovery from anesthesia, complications, and mortality.

METHODS

PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane CENTRAL databases were searched until January 2022 for randomized controlled trials comparing deep and light anesthesia in adult surgical patients. The co-primary outcomes were postoperative pain and delirium (assessed using the confusion assessment method). We conducted a meta-analysis using a random-effects model. We assessed publication bias using the Begg's rank correlation test and Egger's linear regression. We evaluated the evidence using the trial sequential analysis and Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) methodology. We conducted subgroup analyses for pain scores at different postoperative time points and delirium according to cardiac or non-cardiac surgery.

RESULTS

A total of 26 trials with 10,743 patients were included. Deep anesthesia compared with light anesthesia (a mean difference in bispectral index of -12 to -11) was associated with lower pain scores at rest at 0 to 1 h postoperatively (weighted mean difference = -0.72, 95% confidence interval [CI] = -1.25 to -0.18, P  = 0.009; moderate-quality evidence) and an increased incidence of postoperative delirium (24.95% vs. 15.92%; risk ratio = 1.57, 95% CI = 1.28-1.91, P  < 0.0001; high-quality evidence). No publication bias was detected. For the exploratory secondary outcomes, deep anesthesia was associated with prolonged postoperative recovery, without affecting neurocognitive outcomes, major complications, or mortality. In the subgroup analyses, the deep anesthesia group had lower pain scores at rest and on movement during 24 h postoperatively, without statistically significant subgroup differences, and deep anesthesia was associated with an increased incidence of delirium after non-cardiac and cardiac surgeries, without statistically significant subgroup differences.

CONCLUSIONS

Deep anesthesia reduced early postoperative pain but increased postoperative delirium. The current evidence does not support the use of deep anesthesia in clinical practice.

Intravenous bolus-infusion versus sliding scale of insulin for intra-operative glycemic control in elective laparotomy surgeries

Abstract

Background

The aim of this study was to assess the bolus-infusion to the sliding scale of insulin approaches, regarding percentage of the operative time with the target capillary blood glucose (CBG) range, total insulin units given to the patients, development of hypoglycemia, and the peri-operative changes in serum potassium (s.k) in elective laparotomy surgeries. Sixty patients, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status II, were randomly divided to either the bolus-insulin infusion (BII) group, or the sliding scale of insulin (SSI) group.

Results

The intra-operative target CBG range was achieved in both groups, with no statistically significant difference between them. However, in the post anesthesia care unit (PACU), the number of patients who achieved the target CBG range was significantly more in the BII group. The decrease in the CBG was statistically significant in the SSI group than in the BII group; starting from 30 minutes after the initial intra-venous (IV) insulin injected, to 240 minutes intra-operatively and in the PACU. No patient in either groups developed hypoglycemia. The mean intra-operative time needed to achieve the target CBG range was statistically significant less in the SSI group. The mean percentage of the operative time with the target CBG range was statistically non-significant higher in the SSI group. The mean total insulin units given were statistically non-significant higher in the SSI group. The peri-operative changes in s.k were statistically non-significant between the two groups.

Conclusions

The BII approach slowly achieved the target CBG range intra-operatively and maintained this target in the PACU, with mean 54.6 ± 28.9% operative time with the target CBG range, and with less mean total insulin units needed than the SSI approach.

Benefit of a flash dose of corticosteroids in digestive surgical oncology: a multicenter, randomized, double blind, placebo-controlled trial (CORTIFRENCH)

Background

The modulation of perioperative inflammation seems crucial to improve postoperative morbidity and cancer-related outcomes in patients undergoing oncological surgery. Data from the literature suggest that perioperative corticosteroids decrease inflammatory markers and might be associated with fewer complications in esophageal, liver, pancreatic and colorectal surgery. Their benefit on cancer-related outcomes has not been assessed.

Methods

The CORTIFRENCH trial is a phase III multicenter randomized double-blind placebo-controlled trial to assess the impact of a flash dose of preoperative corticosteroids versus placebo on postoperative morbidity and cancer-related outcomes after elective curative-intent surgery for digestive cancer. The primary endpoint is the frequency of patients with postoperative major complications occurring within 30 days after surgery (defined as all complications with Clavien-Dindo grade > 2). The secondary endpoints are the overall survival at 3 years, the disease-free survival at 3 years, the frequency of patients with intraabdominal infections and postoperative infections within 30 days after surgery and the hospital length of stay. We hypothesize a reduced risk of major complications and a better disease-survival at 3 years in the experimental group. Allowing for 5% of drop-out, 1 200 patients (600 per arm) should be included.

Discussion

This will be the first trial focusing on the impact of perioperative corticosteroids on cancer related outcomes. If significant, it might be a strong improvement on oncological outcomes for patients undergoing surgery for digestive cancers.

Trial registration

ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT03875690, Registered on March 15, 2019, URL: https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT03875690.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12885-022-09998-z.

Glycemic Control Regimens in the Prevention of Surgical Site Infections: A Meta-Analysis of Randomized Clinical Trials

Background

Increased risk of surgical site infections (SSIs) caused by hyperglycemia makes it necessary to follow perioperative glucose lowering strategies to reduce postoperative complications. A meta-analysis was conducted to understand the efficacy of intensive vs. conventional blood glucose lowering regimens on the incidence of SSIs and hypoglycemia from various randomized controlled studies (RCTs).

Materials and Methods

A systematic literature review was conducted using MEDLINE and Central databases for RCTs that involved intensive (lower blood glucose target levels) vs. conventional (higher blood glucose target levels) strategies in patients undergoing various types of surgeries. The primary outcomes were SSIs or postoperative wound infections. Hypoglycemia and mortality outcomes were also studied. A random-effects model was used to calculate the pooled risk ratio (RR), and subgroup analyses were performed.

Results

A total of 29 RCTs were included in the meta-analysis with the information from 14,126 patients. A reduction in overall incidence of SSIs was found (RR 0.63, 0.50-0.80, p = 0.0002, I 2= 56%). Subgroup analyses showed that intensive insulin regimens decreased the risk of SSIs in patients with diabetes, in cardiac and abdominal surgical procedures, and during the intraoperative and postoperative phases of surgery. However, the risk of hypoglycemia and mortality was increased in the intensive group compared to the conventional group.

Conclusion

The results of the meta-analysis provide support for the use of intensive insulin regimens during the perioperative phase for decreasing the incidence of SSIs in certain patient populations and surgical categories.

Perioperative ADministration of Dexamethasone And blood Glucose concentrations in patients undergoing elective non-cardiac surgery - the randomised controlled PADDAG trial

BACKGROUND

The hyperglycaemic effect of dexamethasone in diabetic and nondiabetic patients in the peri-operative period is unknown.

OBJECTIVE

To assess the effect of a single dose of intra-operative dexamethasone on peri-operative blood glucose.

DESIGN

Multicentre, stratified, randomised trial.

SETTING

University hospitals in Australia and Hong Kong.

PATIENTS

A total of 302 adults scheduled for elective, noncardiac and nonobstetric surgical procedures under general anaesthesia, stratified by diabetes mellitus status, were randomised to receive placebo, 4 or 8 mg dexamethasone administered intravenously after induction of anaesthesia.

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Maximum blood glucose within 24 h of surgery, and the interaction between glycated haemoglobin (HbA1c) and dexamethasone were the primary and secondary outcomes.

RESULTS

The median [IQR] baseline blood glucose in the nondiabetes stratum in the placebo (n=81), 4 mg (n=81) and 8 mg dexamethasone (n=77) trial arms were respectively 5.3 [4.6 to 5.8], 5.0 [4.7 to 5.4] and 5.0 [4.2 to 5.9] mmol l-1. In the diabetes stratum these values were 6.6 [6.0 to 8.3]; (n=22), 6.1 [5.5 to 10.4]; (n=22) and 6.7 [5.6 to 8.3]; (n=19) mmol l-1. The median [IQR] maximum peri-operative blood glucose values in the nondiabetes stratum were 6.0 [5.3 to 6.8], 6.3 [5.5 to 7.3] and 6.3 [5.8 to 7.4] mmol l-1 in the control, dexamethasone 4 mg and dexamethasone 8 mg arms, respectively. In the diabetes stratum these values were 10.3 [8.1 to 12.4], 12.6 [10.3 to 18.3] and 13.6 [11.2 to 20.1] mmol l-1. There was a significant interaction between pre-operative HbA1c value and 8 mg dexamethasone: every 1% increment in HbA1c produced a 4.0 mmol l-1 elevation in maximal peri-operative glucose concentration.

CONCLUSION

Dexamethasone 4 mg or 8 mg did not induce greater hyperglycaemia compared with placebo for nondiabetic and well controlled diabetic patients. Maximal peri-operative blood glucose concentrations in patients with diabetes were related to baseline HbA1c values in a concentration-dependent fashion after 8 mg of dexamethasone.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

Australia and New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry (ACTRN12614001145695): URL: https://www.anzctr.org.au/Trial/Registration/TrialReview.aspx?id=367272.

Effect of electroencephalogram-guided anaesthesia administration on 1 yr mortality: 1 yr follow-up of a randomised clinical trial

BACKGROUND

Intraoperative EEG suppression duration has been associated with postoperative delirium and mortality. In a clinical trial testing anaesthesia titration to avoid EEG suppression, the intervention did not decrease the incidence of postoperative delirium, but was associated with reduced 30 day mortality. The present study evaluated whether the EEG-guided anaesthesia intervention continued to be associated with reduced 1 yr mortality.

METHODS

This manuscript reports 1 yr follow-up of patients from a single-centre RCT, including a post-hoc secondary outcome (1 yr mortality) in addition to pre-specified secondary outcomes. The trial included patients aged 60 yr or older undergoing surgery with general anaesthesia between January 2015 and May 2018. Patients were randomised to receive EEG-guided anaesthesia or usual care. The previously reported primary outcome was postoperative delirium. The outcome of the current study was all-cause 1 yr mortality.

RESULTS

Of the 1232 patients enrolled, 614 patients were randomised to EEG-guided anaesthesia and 618 patients to usual care. One year mortality was 57/591 (9.6%) in the guided group and 62/601 (10.3%) in the usual-care group. No significant difference in mortality was observed (adjusted absolute risk difference, -0.7%; 99.5% confidence interval, -5.8% to 4.3%; P=0.68).

CONCLUSIONS

An EEG-guided anaesthesia intervention aiming to decrease duration of EEG suppression during surgery did not significantly decrease 1 yr mortality. These findings, in the context of other studies, do not provide supportive evidence for EEG-guided anaesthesia to prevent intermediate term postoperative death.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT02241655.

Dexamethasone and Surgical-Site Infection

BACKGROUND

The glucocorticoid dexamethasone prevents nausea and vomiting after surgery, but there is concern that it may increase the risk of surgical-site infection.

METHODS

In this pragmatic, international, noninferiority trial, we randomly assigned 8880 adult patients who were undergoing nonurgent, noncardiac surgery of at least 2 hours' duration, with a skin incision length longer than 5 cm and a postoperative overnight hospital stay, to receive 8 mg of intravenous dexamethasone or matching placebo while under anesthesia. Randomization was stratified according to diabetes status and trial center. The primary outcome was surgical-site infection within 30 days after surgery. The prespecified noninferiority margin was 2.0 percentage points.

RESULTS

A total of 8725 participants were included in the modified intention-to-treat population (4372 in the dexamethasone group and 4353 in the placebo group), of whom 13.2% (576 in the dexamethasone group and 572 in the placebo group) had diabetes mellitus. Of the 8678 patients included in the primary analysis, surgical-site infection occurred in 8.1% (354 of 4350 patients) assigned to dexamethasone and in 9.1% (394 of 4328) assigned to placebo (risk difference adjusted for diabetes status, -0.9 percentage points; 95.6% confidence interval [CI], -2.1 to 0.3; P<0.001 for noninferiority). The results for superficial, deep, and organ-space surgical-site infections and in patients with diabetes were similar to those of the primary analysis. Postoperative nausea and vomiting in the first 24 hours after surgery occurred in 42.2% of patients in the dexamethasone group and in 53.9% in the placebo group (risk ratio, 0.78; 95% CI, 0.75 to 0.82). Hyperglycemic events in patients without diabetes occurred in 22 of 3787 (0.6%) in the dexamethasone group and in 6 of 3776 (0.2%) in the placebo group.

CONCLUSIONS

Dexamethasone was noninferior to placebo with respect to the incidence of surgical-site infection within 30 days after nonurgent, noncardiac surgery. (Funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and others; PADDI Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry number, ACTRN12614001226695.).

Effective reduction in stress induced postoperative hyperglycemia in bariatric surgery by better carb loading

BACKGROUND

Preoperative carbohydrate loading is a recommended component of enhanced recovery protocols (ERP's), however the impact on postoperative stress-induced insulin resistance remains poorly studied in both diabetics and non-diabetics.

METHODS

Using our ERP, a preoperative grape juice group (Grape) was compared to the use of 25 g maltodextrin/3 g citrulline (G.E.D.™, SOF Health, LLC) for carbohydrate loading.

RESULTS

The population included 171 patients (Grape n = 96; GED n = 75). Glycemic variability was significantly worse for the Grape group on POD 0 in both non-diabetic (70% vs 41%; p < 0.05) and diabetic patients (66% vs 34%; p < 0.05). Significantly more Grape patients required postoperative insulin regardless of diabetic status.

CONCLUSION

Following bariatric surgery, the impact of stress induced hyperglycemia is primarily on POD 0 in non-diabetics whereas the effect extends into POD 1 for diabetics. Preoperative loading with G.E.D.™ versus grape juice is associated with a significantly lower rate of glycemic variation and postoperative insulin requirement, demonstrating that drink composition and treatment process reduces the severity of postoperative stress induced hyperglycemia in bariatric surgery patients.

Anaesthetic depth and complications after major surgery: an international, randomised controlled trial

BACKGROUND

An association between increasing anaesthetic depth and decreased postoperative survival has been shown in observational studies; however, evidence from randomised controlled trials is lacking. Our aim was to compare all-cause 1-year mortality in older patients having major surgery and randomly assigned to light or deep general anaesthesia.

METHODS

In an international trial, we recruited patients from 73 centres in seven countries who were aged 60 years and older, with significant comorbidity, having surgery with expected duration of more than 2 h, and an anticipated hospital stay of at least 2 days. We randomly assigned patients who had increased risk of complications after major surgery to receive light general anaesthesia (bispectral index [BIS] target 50) or deep general anaesthesia (BIS target 35). Anaesthetists also nominated an appropriate range for mean arterial pressure for each patient during surgery. Patients were randomly assigned in permuted blocks by region immediately before surgery, with the patient and assessors masked to group allocation. The primary outcome was 1-year all-cause mortality. The trial is registered with the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12612000632897, and is closed to accrual.

FINDINGS

Patients were enrolled between Dec 19, 2012, and Dec 12, 2017. Of the 18 026 patients screened as eligible, 6644 were enrolled, randomly assigned to treatment or control, and formed the intention-to-treat population (3316 in the BIS 50 group and 3328 in the BIS 35 group). The median BIS was 47·2 (IQR 43·7 to 50·5) in the BIS 50 group and 38·8 (36·3 to 42·4) in the BIS 35 group. Mean arterial pressure was 3·5 mm Hg (4%) higher (median 84·5 [IQR 78·0 to 91·3] and 81·0 [75·4 to 87·6], respectively) and volatile anaesthetic use was 0·26 minimum alveolar concentration (30%) lower (0·62 [0·52 to 0·73] and 0·88 [0·74 to 1·04], respectively) in the BIS 50 than the BIS 35 group. 1-year mortality was 6·5% (212 patients) in the BIS 50 group and 7·2% (238 patients) in the BIS 35 group (hazard ratio 0·88, 95% CI 0·73 to 1·07, absolute risk reduction 0·8%, 95% CI -0·5 to 2·0). Grade 3 adverse events occurred in 954 (29%) patients in the BIS 50 group and 909 (27%) patients in the BIS 35 group; and grade 4 adverse events in 265 (8%) and 259 (8%) patients, respectively. The most commonly reported adverse events were infections, vascular disorders, cardiac disorders, and neoplasms.

INTERPRETATION

Among patients at increased risk of complications after major surgery, light general anaesthesia was not associated with lower 1-year mortality than deep general anaesthesia. Our trial defines a broad range of anaesthetic depth over which anaesthesia may be safely delivered when titrating volatile anaesthetic concentrations using a processed electroencephalographic monitor.

FUNDING

Health Research Council of New Zealand; National Health and Medical Research Council, Australia; Research Grant Council of Hong Kong; National Institute for Health and Research, UK; and National Institutes of Health, USA.

Electroencephalography and Brain Oxygenation Monitoring in the Perioperative Period

Maintaining brain function and integrity is a pivotal part of anesthesiological practice. The present overview aims to describe the current role of the 2 most frequently used monitoring methods for evaluation brain function in the perioperative period, ie, electroencephalography (EEG) and brain oxygenation monitoring. Available evidence suggests that EEG-derived parameters give additional information about depth of anesthesia for optimizing anesthetic titration. The effects on reduction of drug consumption or recovery time are heterogeneous, but most studies show a reduction of recovery times if anesthesia is titrated along processed EEG. It has been hypothesized that future EEG-derived indices will allow a better understanding of the neurophysiological principles of anesthetic-induced alteration of consciousness instead of the probabilistic approach most often used nowadays.Brain oxygenation can be either measured directly in brain parenchyma via a surgical burr hole, estimated from the venous outflow of the brain via a catheter in the jugular bulb, or assessed noninvasively by near-infrared spectroscopy. The latter method has increasingly been accepted clinically due to its ease of use and increasing evidence that near-infrared spectroscopy-derived cerebral oxygen saturation levels are associated with neurological and/or general perioperative complications and increased mortality. Furthermore, a goal-directed strategy aiming to avoid cerebral desaturations might help to reduce these complications. Recent evidence points out that this technology may additionally be used to assess autoregulation of cerebral blood flow and thereby help to titrate arterial blood pressure to the individual needs and for bedside diagnosis of disturbed autoregulation.

Processed EEG monitoring for anesthesia and intensive care practice

Individual response to sedatives and hypnotics is characterized by high variability and the identification of a personalized dose during anesthesia in the operating room and during sedation in the intensive care unit may have beneficial effects. Although the brain is the main target of general intravenous and inhaled anesthetic agents, electroencephalography (EEG) is not routinely utilized to explore cerebral response to sedation and anesthesia probably because EEG trace reading is complex and requires encephalographers' skills. Automated processing algorithms (processed EEG, pEEG) of raw EEG traces provide easy-to-use indices that can be utilized to optimize anesthetic management. A large number of high-quality studies and the recommendations of international scientific societies have confirmed the deleterious consequences of inadequate or excessively deep anesthesia (and sedation) level. In this context, anesthesia in the operating rooms and moderate/deep sedation in intensive care units driven by pEEG monitors could become a standard practice in the near future. The aim of the present review was to provide an overview of current knowledge and debate on available technologies for pEEG monitoring and their role in clinical practice for anesthesia and sedation.

The perioperative administration of dexamethasone and infection (PADDI) trial protocol: rationale and design of a pragmatic multicentre non-inferiority study

INTRODUCTION

The intraoperative administration of dexamethasone for prophylaxis against postoperative nausea and vomiting is a common and recommended practice. The safety of the administration of this immunosuppressive agent at a time of significant immunological disruption has not been rigorously evaluated in terms of infective complications.

METHODS/ANALYSIS

This is a pragmatic, multicentre, randomised, controlled, non-inferiority trial. A total of 8880 patients undergoing elective major surgery will be enrolled. Participants will be randomly allocated to receive either dexamethasone 8 mg or placebo intravenously following the induction of anaesthesia in a 1:1 ratio, stratified by centre and diabetes status. Patient enrolment into the trial is ongoing. The primary outcome is surgical site infection at 30 days following surgery, defined according to the Centre for Disease Control criteria.

ETHICS/DISSEMINATION

The PADDI trial has been approved by the ethics committees of over 45 participating sites in Australia, New Zealand, Hong Kong, South Africa and the Netherlands. The trial has been endorsed by the Australia and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists Clinical Trials Network and the Australian Society for Infectious Diseases Clinical Research Network. Participant recruitment began in March 2016 and is expected to be complete in mid-2019. Publication of the results of the PADDI trial is anticipated to occur in early 2020.

TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER

ACTRN12614001226695.

The effects of dexamethasone, light anesthesia, and tight glucose control on postoperative fatigue and quality of life after major noncardiac surgery: A randomized trial

STUDY OBJECTIVES

The postoperative period is associated with an inflammatory response that may contribute to a number of complications including postoperative fatigue (POF) that impair patients' quality of life (QoL). We studied the impact of three potentially anti-inflammatory interventions (steroid administration, tight intraoperative glucose control, and light anesthesia) on POF and QoL in patients having major noncardiac surgery.

DESIGN

A randomized Trial.

SETTING

Operating room and postoperative recovery area/ICU/hospital floors.

PATIENTS

Patients undergoing major noncardiac surgery.

INTERVENTIONS

Patients were randomized to perioperative IV dexamethasone (a total of 14 mg tapered over 3 days) versus placebo, intensive versus conventional glucose control (target 80-110 vs. 180-200 mg·dL^-1), and light versus deep anesthesia (Bispectral Index target of 55 vs. 35) in a 3-way factorial design.

MEASUREMENTS

In this planned sub-analysis, QoL was measured using SF-12 preoperatively and on postoperative day (POD) 30. POF was measured using Christensen VAS, pre-operatively, POD 1, and POD 3. We assessed the effect of each intervention on POF and on the physical and mental components of SF-12 summary scores with repeated-measures linear regression models.

MAIN RESULTS

326 patients with complete data were included in the SF-12 analysis and 306 were included in the QoL analysis. No difference was found between any of the intervention groups on fatigue or mean 30-day physical and mental components of SF-12 scores, after adjusting for preoperative score and imbalanced baseline variables (all P-value >0.07 for POF and >0.40 for QoL).

CONCLUSIONS

Steroid administration, tight intraoperative glucose control, and light anesthesia do not improve quality of life or postoperative fatigue after major surgery.

Effects of perioperative tight glycemic control on postoperative outcomes: a meta-analysis

Background The optimal glycemic target during the perioperative period is still controversial. We aimed to explore the effects of tight glycemic control (TGC) on surgical mortality and morbidity. Methods PubMed, EMBASE and CENTRAL were searched from January 1, 1946 to February 28, 2018. Appropriate trails comparing the postoperative outcomes (mortality, hypoglycemic events, acute kidney injury, etc.) between different levels of TGC and liberal glycemic control were identified. Quality assessments were performed with the Jadad scale combined with the allocation concealment evaluation. Pooled relative risk (RR) and 95% CI were calculated using random effects models. Heterogeneity was detected by the I2 test. Results Twenty-six trials involving a total of 9315 patients were included in the final analysis. The overall mortality did not differ between tight and liberal glycemic control (RR, 0.92; 95% CI, 0.78-1.07; I 2 = 20.1%). Among subgroup analyses, obvious decreased risks of mortality were found in the short-term mortality, non-diabetic conditions, cardiac surgery conditions and compared to the very liberal glycemic target. Furthermore, TGC was associated with decreased risks for acute kidney injury, sepsis, surgical site infection, atrial fibrillation and increased risks of hypoglycemia and severe hypoglycemia. Conclusions Compared to liberal control, perioperative TGC (the upper level of glucose goal ≤150 mg/dL) was associated with significant reduction of short-term mortality, cardic surgery mortality, non-diabetic patients mortality and some postoperative complications. In spite of increased risks of hypoglycemic events, perioperative TGC will benefits patients when it is done carefully.

Adverse side effects of dexamethasone in surgical patients

BACKGROUND

In the perioperative period, dexamethasone is widely and effectively used for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), for pain management, and to facilitate early discharge after ambulatory surgery.Long-term treatment with steroids has many side effects, such as adrenal insufficiency, increased infection risk, hyperglycaemia, high blood pressure, osteoporosis, and development of diabetes mellitus. However, whether a single steroid load during surgery has negative effects during the postoperative period has not yet been studied.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of a steroid load of dexamethasone on postoperative systemic or wound infection, delayed wound healing, and blood glucose change in adult surgical patients (with planned subgroup analysis of patients with and without diabetes).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science for relevant articles on 29 January 2018. We searched without language or date restriction two clinical trial registries to identify ongoing studies, and we handsearched the reference lists of relevant publications to identify all eligible trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomized controlled trials comparing an incidental steroid load of dexamethasone versus a control intervention for adult patients undergoing surgery. We required that studies include a follow-up of 30 days for proper assessment of the number of postoperative infections, delayed wound healing, and the glycaemic response.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data from relevant studies, and assessed all included studies for bias. We resolved differences by discussion and pooled included studies in a meta-analysis. We calculated Peto odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes. Our primary outcomes were postoperative systemic or wound infection, delayed wound healing, and glycaemic response within 24 hours. We created a funnel plot for the primary outcome postoperative (wound or systemic) infection. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in the meta-analysis 37 studies that included adults undergoing a large variety of surgical procedures (i.e. abdominal surgery, cardiac surgery, neurosurgery, and orthopaedic surgery). We excluded one previously included study, as this study was recently retracted. Age range of participants was 18 to 80 years. There is probably little or no difference in the risk of postoperative (wound or systemic) infection with dexamethasone compared with no treatment, placebo, or active control (ramosetron, ondansetron, or tropisetron) (Peto OR 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.27; 4603 participants, 26 studies; I² = 32%; moderate-quality evidence). The effects of dexamethasone on delayed wound healing are unclear because the wide confidence interval includes both meaningful benefit and harm (Peto OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.43; 1072 participants, eight studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). Dexamethasone may produce a mild increase in glucose levels among participants without diabetes during the first 12 hours after surgery (MD 13 mg/dL, 95% CI 6 to 21; 10 studies; 595 participants; I² = 50%; low-quality evidence). We identified two studies reporting on glycaemic response after dexamethasone in participants with diabetes within 24 hours after surgery (MD 32 mg/dL, 95% CI 15 to 49; 74 participants; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A single dose of dexamethasone probably does not increase the risk for postoperative infection. It is uncertain whether dexamethasone has an effect on delayed wound healing in the general surgical population owing to imprecision in trial results. Participants with increased risk for delayed wound healing (e.g. participants with diabetes, those taking immunosuppressive drugs) were not included in the randomized studies reporting on delayed wound healing included in this meta-analysis; therefore our findings should be extrapolated to the clinical setting with caution. Furthermore, one has to keep in mind that dexamethasone induces a mild increase in glucose. For patients with diabetes, very limited evidence suggests a more pronounced increase in glucose. Whether this influences wound healing in a clinically relevant way remains to be established. Once assessed, the two studies awaiting classification and three that are ongoing may alter the conclusions of this review.

Intraoperative dexamethasone does not increase the risk of postoperative wound infection: a propensity score-matched post hoc analysis of the ENIGMA-II trial (EnDEX)

BACKGROUND

In a post hoc analysis of the ENIGMA-II trial, we sought to determine whether intraoperative dexamethasone was associated with adverse safety outcomes.

METHODS

Inverse probability weighting with estimated propensity scores was used to determine the association of dexamethasone administration with postoperative infection, quality of recovery, and adverse safety outcomes for 5499 of the 7112 non-cardiac surgery subjects enrolled in ENIGMA-II.

RESULTS

Dexamethasone was administered to 2178 (40%) of the 5499 subjects included in this analysis and was not associated with wound infection [189 (8.7%) vs 275 (8.3%); propensity score-adjusted relative risk (RR) 1.10; 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.89-1.34; P=0.38], severe postoperative nausea and vomiting on day 1 [242 (7.3%) vs 189 (8.7%); propensity score-adjusted RR 1.06; 95% CI 0.86-1.30; P=0.59], quality of recovery score [median 14, interquartile range (IQR) 12-15, vs median 14, IQR 12-16, P=0.10), length of stay in the postanaesthesia care unit [propensity score-adjusted median (IQR) 2.0 (1.3, 2.9) vs 1.9 (1.3, 3.1), P=0.60], or the primary outcome of the main trial. Dexamethasone administration was associated with a decrease in fever on days 1-3 [182 (8.4%) vs 488 (14.7%); RR 0.61; 95% CI 0.5-0.74; P<0.001] and shorter lengths of stay in hospital [propensity score-adjusted median (IQR) 5.0 (2.9, 8.2) vs 5.3 (3.1, 9.1), P<0.001]. Neither diabetes mellitus nor surgical wound contamination status altered these outcomes.

CONCLUSION

Dexamethasone administration to high-risk non-cardiac surgical patients did not increase the risk of postoperative wound infection or other adverse events up to day 30, and appears to be safe in patients either with or without diabetes mellitus.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT00430989.

Adverse side effects of dexamethasone in surgical patients

BACKGROUND

In the perioperative period, dexamethasone is widely and effectively used for prophylaxis of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), for pain management, and to facilitate early discharge after ambulatory surgery.Long-term treatment with steroids has many side effects, such as adrenal insufficiency, increased infection risk, hyperglycaemia, high blood pressure, osteoporosis, and development of diabetes mellitus. However, whether a single steroid load during surgery has negative effects during the postoperative period has not yet been studied.

OBJECTIVES

To assess the effects of a steroid load of dexamethasone on postoperative systemic or wound infection, delayed wound healing, and blood glucose change in adult surgical patients (with planned subgroup analysis of patients with and without diabetes).

SEARCH METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, Embase, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL), in the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science for relevant articles on 29 January 2018. We searched without language or date restriction two clinical trial registries to identify ongoing studies, and we handsearched the reference lists of relevant publications to identify all eligible trials.

SELECTION CRITERIA

We searched for randomized controlled trials comparing an incidental steroid load of dexamethasone versus a control intervention for adult patients undergoing surgery. We required that studies include a follow-up of 30 days for proper assessment of the number of postoperative infections, delayed wound healing, and the glycaemic response.

DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS

Two review authors independently screened studies for eligibility, extracted data from relevant studies, and assessed all included studies for bias. We resolved differences by discussion and pooled included studies in a meta-analysis. We calculated Peto odds ratios (ORs) for dichotomous outcomes and mean differences (MDs) for continuous outcomes. Our primary outcomes were postoperative systemic or wound infection, delayed wound healing, and glycaemic response within 24 hours. We created a funnel plot for the primary outcome postoperative (wound or systemic) infection. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome.

MAIN RESULTS

We included in the meta-analysis 38 studies that included adults undergoing a large variety of surgical procedures (i.e. abdominal surgery, cardiac surgery, neurosurgery, and orthopaedic surgery). Age range of participants was 18 to 80 years. There is probably little or no difference in the risk of postoperative (wound or systemic) infection with dexamethasone compared with no treatment, placebo, or active control (ramosetron, ondansetron, or tropisetron) (Peto OR 1.01, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.80 to 1.27; 4931 participants, 27 studies; I² = 27%; moderate-quality evidence). The effects of dexamethasone on delayed wound healing are unclear because the wide confidence interval includes both meaningful benefit and harm (Peto OR 0.99, 95% CI 0.28 to 3.43; 1072 participants, eight studies; I² = 0%; low-quality evidence). Dexamethasone may produce a mild increase in glucose levels among participants without diabetes during the first 12 hours after surgery (MD 13 mg/dL, 95% CI 6 to 21; 10 studies; 595 participants; I² = 50%; low-quality evidence). We identified two studies reporting on glycaemic response after dexamethasone in participants with diabetes within 24 hours after surgery (MD 32 mg/dL, 95% CI 15 to 49; 74 participants; I² = 0%; very low-quality evidence).

AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS

A single dose of dexamethasone probably does not increase the risk for postoperative infection. It is uncertain whether dexamethasone has an effect on delayed wound healing in the general surgical population owing to imprecision in trial results. Participants with increased risk for delayed wound healing (e.g. participants with diabetes, those taking immunosuppressive drugs) were not included in the randomized studies reporting on delayed wound healing included in this meta-analysis; therefore our findings should be extrapolated to the clinical setting with caution. Furthermore, one has to keep in mind that dexamethasone induces a mild increase in glucose. For patients with diabetes, very limited evidence suggests a more pronounced increase in glucose. Whether this influences wound healing in a clinically relevant way remains to be established. Once assessed, the three studies awaiting classification and two that are ongoing may alter the conclusions of this review.

Intraoperative hyperglycemia is independently associated with infectious complications after non-cardiac surgery

Background

Perioperative hyperglycemia and its associated increase in morbidity and mortality have been well studied in the critical care and cardiac surgery literature. However, there is little data regarding the impact of intraoperative hyperglycemia on post-operative infectious complications in non-cardiac surgery.

Methods

All National Surgery Quality Improvement Program patients undergoing general, vascular, and urological surgery at our tertiary care center were reviewed. After integrating intraoperative glucose measurements from our intraoperative electronic health record, we categorized patients as experiencing mild (8.3–11.0 mmol/L), moderate (11.1–16.6 mmol/L), and severe (≥ 16.7 mmol/L) intraoperative hyperglycemia. Using multiple logistic regression to adjust for patient comorbidities and surgical factors, we evaluated the association of hyperglycemia with the primary outcome of postoperative surgical site infection, pneumonia, urinary tract infection, or sepsis within 30 days.

Results

Of 13,954 patients reviewed, 3150 patients met inclusion criteria and had an intraoperative glucose measurement. 49% (n = 1531) of patients experienced hyperglycemia and 15% (n = 482) patients experienced an infectious complication. Patients with mild (adjusted odds ratio 1.30, 95% confidence interval [1.01 to 1.68], p-value = 0.04) and moderate hyperglycemia (adjusted odds ratio 1.57, 95% confidence interval [1.08–2.28], p-value = 0.02) had a statistically significant risk-adjusted increase in infectious complications. The model c-statistic was 0.72 [95% confidence interval 0.69–0.74].

Conclusions

This is one of the first studies to demonstrate an independent relationship between intraoperative hyperglycemia and postoperative infectious complications. Future studies are needed to evaluate a causal relationship and impact of treatment.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12871-018-0546-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Behavior of C-reactive protein in association with surgery of facial fracture and the influence of dexamethasone

PURPOSE

To clarify pre- and postoperative C-reactive protein (CRP) levels in patients with facial fractures and to investigate the influence of perioperatively administered dexamethasone on postoperative CRP levels.

PATIENTS AND METHODS

Facial fracture patients were randomized to receive perioperatively a total dose of 30 mg of dexamethasone (Oradexon®), whereas patients in the control group received no glucocorticoid. The analysis included patients who had CRP measured pre- and postoperatively.

RESULTS

A total of 73 adult patients with facial fractures were included in the final analysis. Mean CRP level was elevated preoperatively and the level increased further after surgery. However, postoperative CRP rise was significantly impeded by dexamethasone (p < 0.001), regardless of gender, age, treatment delay, site of fracture, surgical approach, and duration of surgery. CRP rise halved on the 1st postoperative day when dexamethasone was used. In addition, dexamethasone resulted in a CRP decrease on the 2nd postoperative day, whereas the CRP rise continued in the control group.

CONCLUSIONS

CRP rise is a normal body response after facial fracture and surgery that can be markedly reduced with dexamethasone. CRP changes should be considered with caution if perioperative dexamethasone is used.

Steroids and Survival in Critically Ill Adult Patients: A Meta-analysis of 135 Randomized Trials

OBJECTIVE

Corticosteroids have important effects on intermediate outcomes in critically ill patients, but their effect on survival is unknown. The objective of this meta-analysis was to analyze the effect on mortality of corticosteroids in critical and perioperative settings.

DESIGN

A meta-analysis of randomized trials.

SETTING

PubMed, Embase, BioMed Central, Google Scholar, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched to February 1, 2018, for randomized trials comparing corticosteroids with placebo or standard care.

PARTICIPANTS

Critically ill or surgical adult patients.

INTERVENTIONS

Corticosteroids compared with placebo or standard care.

MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS

A total of 44,553 patients from 135 studies were included. Overall, mortality in the corticosteroid group and in the control group were similar (16% v 16%; p = 0.9). Subanalyses identified a beneficial effect of corticosteroids on survival in patients with respiratory system diseases (9% v 13%; p < 0.001) and bacterial meningitis (28% v 32%; p= 0.04), and a detrimental effect on survival in patients with traumatic brain injury (22% v 19%; p < 0.001). No differences in mortality were found in patients with cardiac diseases (7% v 6%; p = 0.7), in patients undergoing cardiac surgery (2.8% v 3.2% p = 0.14), and when treatment duration or patient age were considered.

CONCLUSIONS

This meta-analysis documents the safety of corticosteroids in the overall critically ill population with the notable exception of brain injury patients, a setting where the authors confirmed their detrimental effect on survival. A possible beneficial effect of corticosteroids on survival was found among patients with respiratory diseases and in patients with bacterial meningitis.

Effect of anesthesia depth on postoperative clinical outcome in patients with supratentorial tumor (DEPTH): study protocol for a randomized controlled trial

INTRODUCTION

Recent studies have shown that deep anaesthesia is associated with poor outcomes. However, no randomised controlled trials have been conducted to test the causality in patients undergoing brain tumour resection.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

DEPTH is a multicenter, randomised, parallel-group, blind trial. The depth of general anaesthesia will be monitored using the bispectral index (BIS). Patients elected for supratentorial tumour resection will be randomly allocated to the deep or the light anaesthesia group in which the target BIS value is 35 or 50, respectively. BIS will be maintained at the target value for more than 90% of the total anaesthesia period. The primary outcome is the disability-free survival rate at postoperative 30 days and 1 year. The secondary outcomes are the mortality and morbidity within 30 days after surgery.

ETHICS APPROVAL AND DISSEMINATION

Ethical approval has been granted by the Medical Ethics Committee of Beijing Tiantan Hospital, Capital Medicine University. The reference number is KY2016-059-02. The results of this study will be disseminated through presentations at scientific conferences and publication in scientific journals.

TRIAL REGISTRATION

NCT03033693.

Postoperative Interleukin-6 Level and Early Detection of Complications After Elective Major Abdominal Surgery

OBJECTIVE

To assess the association of systemic inflammation and outcome after major abdominal surgery.

BACKGROUND

Major abdominal surgery carries a high postoperative morbidity and mortality rate. Studies suggest that inflammation is associated with unfavorable outcome.

METHODS

Levels of C-reactive protein (CRP), interleukin-6 (IL-6), and tumor necrosis factor-α and the systemic inflammatory response syndrome (SIRS) were assessed in 137 patients undergoing major abdominal surgery. Blood samples were drawn on days 0, 1, 3, and 7, and SIRS was scored during 48 hours after surgery. Primary outcome was a composite of mortality, pneumonia, sepsis, anastomotic dehiscence, wound infection, noncardiac respiratory failure, atrial fibrillation, congestive heart failure, myocardial infarction, and reoperation within 30 days of surgery.

RESULTS

An IL-6 level more than 432 pg/mL on day 1 was associated with an increased risk of complications (adjusted odds ratio: 3.3; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 1.3-8.5) and a longer median length of hospital stay (7 vs 12 days, P < 0.001). As a single test, an IL-6 cut-off level of 432 pg/mL on day 1 yielded a specificity of 70% and a sensitivity of 64% for the prediction of complications (area under the curve: 0.67; 95% CI: 0.56-0.77). Levels of CRP started to discriminate from day 3 onward with a specificity of 87% and a sensitivity of 58% for a cut-off level of 203 mg/L (AUC: 0.73; 95% CI: 0.63-0.83).

CONCLUSIONS

A high IL-6 level on day 1 is associated with postoperative complications. Levels of IL-6 help distinguish between patients at low and high risk for complications before changes in levels of CRP.

Safety of Perioperative Glucocorticoids in Elective Noncardiac Surgery

Background

Glucocorticoids are increasingly used perioperatively, principally to prevent nausea and vomiting. Safety concerns focus on the potential for hyperglycemia and increased infection. The authors hypothesized that glucocorticoids predispose to such adverse outcomes in a dose-dependent fashion after elective noncardiac surgery.

Methods

The authors conducted a systematic literature search of the major medical databases from their inception to April 2016. Randomized glucocorticoid trials in adults specifically reporting on a safety outcome were included and meta-analyzed with Peto odds ratio method or the quality effects model. Subanalyses were performed according to a dexamethasone dose equivalent of low (less than 8 mg), medium (8 to 16 mg), and high (more than 16 mg). The primary endpoints of any wound infection and peak perioperative glucose concentrations were subject to meta-regression.

Results

Fifty-six trials from 18 countries were identified, predominantly assessing dexamethasone. Glucocorticoids did not impact on any wound infection (odds ratio, 0.8; 95% CI, 0.6 to 1.2) but did result in a clinically unimportant increase in peak perioperative glucose concentration (weighted mean difference, 20.0 mg/dl; CI, 11.4 to 28.6; P &lt; 0.001 or 1.1 mM; CI, 0.6 to 1.6). Glucocorticoids reduced peak postoperative C-reactive protein concentrations (weighted mean difference, −22.1 mg/l; CI, −31.7 to −12.5; P &lt; 0.001), but other adverse outcomes and length of stay were unchanged. No dose–effect relationships were apparent.

Conclusions

The evidence at present does not highlight any safety concerns with respect to the use of perioperative glucocorticoids and subsequent infection, hyperglycemia, or other adverse outcomes. Nevertheless, collated trials lacked sufficient surveillance and power to detect clinically important differences in complications such as wound infection.

Meta-analysis of lower perioperative blood glucose target levels for reduction of surgical-site infection

Background

There is a clear association between hyperglycaemia and surgical-site infection (SSI). Intensive glucose control may involve a risk of hypoglycaemia, which in turn results in potentially severe complications. A systematic review was undertaken of studies comparing intensive versus conventional glucose control protocols in relation to reduction of SSI and other outcomes, including hypoglycaemia, mortality and stroke.

Methods

PubMed, Embase, CENTRAL, CINAHL and WHO databases from 1 January 1990 to 1 August 2015 were searched. Inclusion criteria were RCTs comparing intensive with conventional glucose control protocols, and reporting on the incidence of SSI. Meta-analyses were performed with a random-effects model, and meta-regression was subsequently undertaken. Targeted blood glucose levels, achieved blood glucose levels, and important adverse events were summarized.

Results

Fifteen RCTs were included. The summary estimate showed a significant benefit for an intensive compared with a conventional glucose control protocol in reducing SSI (odds ratio (OR) 0·43, 95 per cent c.i. 0·29 to 0·64; P &lt; 0·001). A significantly higher risk of hypoglycaemic events was found for the intensive group compared with the conventional group (OR 5·55, 2·58 to 11·96), with no increased risk of death (OR 0·74, 0·45 to 1·23) or stroke (OR 1·37, 0·26 to 7·20). These results were consistent both in patients with and those without diabetes, and in studies with moderately strict and very strict glucose control.

Conclusion

Stricter and lower blood glucose target levels of less than 150 mg/dl (8·3 mmol/l), using an intensive protocol in the perioperative period, reduce SSI with an inherent risk of hypoglycaemic events but without a significant increase in serious adverse events.

New WHO recommendations on intraoperative and postoperative measures for surgical site infection prevention: an evidence-based global perspective

Surgical site infections (SSIs) are the most common health-care-associated infections in developing countries, but they also represent a substantial epidemiological burden in high-income countries. The prevention of these infections is complex and requires the integration of a range of preventive measures before, during, and after surgery. No international guidelines are available and inconsistencies in the interpretation of evidence and recommendations in national guidelines have been identified. Considering the prevention of SSIs as a priority for patient safety, WHO has developed evidence-based and expert consensus-based recommendations on the basis of an extensive list of preventive measures. We present in this Review 16 recommendations specific to the intraoperative and postoperative periods. The WHO recommendations were developed with a global perspective and they take into account the balance between benefits and harms, the evidence quality level, cost and resource use implications, and patient values and preferences.

Rationale and Design of the Balanced Anesthesia Study: A Prospective Randomized Clinical Trial of Two Levels of Anesthetic Depth on Patient Outcome After Major Surgery

BACKGROUND

An association between relatively deep anesthesia, as guided by the bispectral index (BIS), and increased postoperative mortality has been demonstrated in 6 of 8 published observational studies, but association does not necessarily mean causality. Small clinical trials of anesthetic depth have demonstrated increased delirium and postoperative cognitive dysfunction in patients who were relatively deeply anesthetized, but have been inadequately powered to study mortality. A large-scale randomized study is required to determine whether causality exists.

METHODS

The primary hypothesis of our study is that "light" anesthesia, defined as a BIS target of 50, will reduce all-cause mortality within 1 year of surgery in comparison with "deep" anesthesia, defined as a BIS target of 35, in patients aged ≥60 years presenting for major surgery under general anesthesia. The trial is an international multicenter, randomized, parallel-group, double-blind (patients and investigators) prospective, intention-to-treat, safety and efficacy study. The relative reduction in mortality in the light anesthesia group is expected to be 20%, giving an absolute risk reduction from 10% to 8%. Power analysis using a = 0.049 and b = 0.2 indicates that 3250 patients are required in each group.

RESULTS

The study is underway, and 1325 patients have been recruited in 40 centers in 5 countries. It is anticipated that the study will be completed in 3 years.

CONCLUSIONS

This randomized controlled trial should definitively answer the question of whether titrating anesthetic depth makes a difference to patient outcome in a vulnerable patient group.

Predictors of Patient Medication Compliance on the Day of Surgery and the Effects of Providing Patients with Standardized yet Simplified Medication Instructions

Background:

Anesthesiologists are responsible for optimizing patients’ preoperative medications, including maximizing their compliance with preoperative medication instructions. The authors hypothesized that a standardized, simplified instruction sheet presented and verbally reinforced during the preanesthesia clinic visit would improve patient medication compliance on the day of surgery.

Methods:

An unmatched case-control design was applied, with nonrandomized, preintervention (controls) and postintervention (cases) data collected. In the preintervention group, patient education/instruction regarding taking medications on the day of surgery continued in the existing, unstandardized manner. In the postintervention group, patients were given a simplified, multicolored Preoperative Patient Medication Instruction Sheet, which was consistently verbally reviewed with patients. Group differences and independent variable associations were analyzed with conventional inferential biostatistics.

Results:

A total of 521 and 531 patients were enrolled in the preintervention group and postintervention group, respectively. Of this, 309 patients (60%) of preintervention group versus 391 patients (74%) of postintervention group (P &lt; 0.001) were compliant with their preoperative medication instructions on the day of surgery. Use of the Preoperative Medication Instruction Sheet (adjusted odds ratio [aOR] = 1.83; P &lt; 0.001), Caucasian race (aOR = 1.74; P = 0.007), and recalling receiving both verbal/written preoperative medication instructions (aOR = 1.51; P = 0.006) were associated with greater patient medication compliance. Older age (aOR = 0.67; P = 0.014) and higher American Society of Anesthesiologists status (aOR = 0.60; P = 0.004) were associated with lesser patient medication compliance.

Conclusions:

A standardized, multicolored, pictorial Preoperative Patient Medication Instruction Sheet, with patient communication in both verbal/written forms, seems to improve patient medication compliance on the day of surgery. African-Americans, older patients, and those with greater comorbidities may require a more concerted effort to achieve an adequate preoperative medication compliance.

A pilot study for a prospective, randomized, double-blind trial of the influence of anesthetic depth on long-term outcome

BACKGROUND

Deep general anesthesia has been associated with increased mortality in 5 observational studies. The association may be causal or an epiphenomenon due to increased anesthetic sensitivity in high-risk patients. We conducted a pilot study to assess the feasibility of performing a definitive randomized controlled trial. The aims of the study were to determine whether anesthetic depth targeting in a high-risk group was feasible and to document anesthetic doses and arterial blood pressures associated with "deep" and "light" general anesthesia.

METHODS

ASA physical status III and IV patients, aged ≥60 years, having surgery lasting ≥2 hours, with expected hospital stay ≥2 days, and receiving general anesthesia were randomly allocated to a Bispectral Index (BIS) or spectral entropy (SE) target of 35 ("low" group) or 50 ("high" group). The primary end point was mean BIS or SE. Secondary end points were postanesthesia care unit length of stay and pain scores, quality of recovery score, hospital length of stay, postoperative complications, and death. A composite end point of postoperative complications (pneumonia, myocardial infarction, stroke, pulmonary embolism, heart failure, and death) was determined at 1 year.

RESULTS

One hundred twenty-five patients were recruited. The mean of the median BIS/SE values for each patient during the maintenance phase of anesthesia in the low and high groups was significantly different: 39 vs 48 (mean difference 8 [95% confidence interval {CI95}, 6 to 10], P < 0.001). There was also a significant difference in mean volatile anesthetic administration (minimum alveolar concentration): 0.98 vs 0.64 (mean difference -0.35 [CI95, -0.44 to -0.26], P < 0.001) and target propofol concentrations: 4.0 vs 3.1 μg/mL (mean difference -0.8 [CI95, -1.2 to -0.3], P = 0.004). Intraoperative mean arterial blood pressures were similar (85 vs 87 mm Hg; mean difference 2 [CI95, -2 to 6], P = 0.86), and there were no differences in short-term recovery characteristics or hospital length of stay. There was a significant difference in the incidence of wound infection at 30 days (13% vs 3%; risk difference -10% [CI95, -21 to -0.1], P = 0.04). At 1 year, the composite rates of complications in the low and high groups were 28% and 17% (risk difference -11 [CI95, -25 to 4], P = 0.15) and mortality rates were 12% and 9%, respectively (risk difference -2 [CI95, -14 to 9], P = 0.70).

CONCLUSIONS

This pilot study demonstrated that depth of anesthesia targeting with BIS or SE was achievable in a high-risk population with adequate separation of processed electroencephalogram monitor targets. The expected incidence of postoperative complications and mortality occurred. We conclude that a large, multicenter, randomized controlled trial is feasible.