-
Journal of Anaesthesiology, Clinical... 2019The epidemic of opioid crisis started getting recognised as a public health emergency in view of increasing opioid-related deaths occurring due to undetected respiratory... (Review)
Review
The epidemic of opioid crisis started getting recognised as a public health emergency in view of increasing opioid-related deaths occurring due to undetected respiratory depression. Prescribing opioids at discharge has become an independent risk factor for chronic opioid use, following which, prescription practices have undergone a radical change. A call to action has been voiced recently to end the opioid epidemic although with the pain practitioners still struggling to make opioids readily available. American Society of Anesthesiologist (ASA) has called for reducing patient exposure to opioids in the surgical setting. Opioid sparing strategies have emerged embracing loco-regional techniques and non-opioid based multimodal pain management whereas opioid free anesthesia is the combination of various opioid sparing strategies culminating in complete elimination of opioid usage. The movement away from opioid usage perioperatively is a massive but necessary shift in anesthesia which has rationalised perioperative opioid usage. Ideal way moving forward would be to adapt selective low opioid effective dosing which is both procedure and patient specific while reserving it as rescue analgesia, postoperatively. Many unknowns persist in the domain of immunologic effects of opioids, as complex interplay of factors gets associated during real time surgery towards outcome. At present it would be too premature to conclude upon opioid-induced immunosuppression from the existing evidence. Till evidence is established, there are no recommendations to change current clinical practice. At the same time, consideration for multimodal opioid sparing strategies should be initiated in each patient undergoing surgery.
PubMed: 31920226
DOI: 10.4103/joacp.JOACP_128_19 -
Minerva Anestesiologica Apr 2016Benzodiazepines are frequently used as a premedication. In day-case surgery, anesthetists are reluctant to administer benzodiazepines preoperatively for reasons of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
INTRODUCTION
Benzodiazepines are frequently used as a premedication. In day-case surgery, anesthetists are reluctant to administer benzodiazepines preoperatively for reasons of delayed recovery. However, premedication with benzodiazepines might be beneficial regarding postoperative somatic symptoms/complaints (i.e. time to recovery and postoperative side effects) and psychological phenomena.
EVIDENCE ACQUISITION
A systematic review with meta-analysis was performed using all important search engines. Study methodological quality was assessed using risk of bias tables. Mean differences (MD) and odds ratios (OR) were used for continuous data (time to recovery and psychological phenomena) and categorical data (postoperative somatic symptoms) respectively. Random effects modelling was applied. Nineteen studies were included. Overall time to recovery was significantly delayed in patients receiving benzodiazepines (MD 1.75; 95% CI 0.82 to 2.69) although time to discharge was not significantly affected. Postoperative side effects were significantly reduced in patients receiving benzodiazepines (OR 0.47; 95% CI 0.36 to 0.63). Regarding psychological outcome, only anxiety could be statistically analyzed showing no statistical difference (MD 1.47; 95% CI -1.01 to 3.96).
EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS
Although overall time to recovery was significantly prolonged by benzodiazepine premedication, withholding premedication in day-case surgery patients is not justified for such reason, as time to discharge was not negatively affected. Furthermore, benzodiazepines show to have beneficial effects on postoperative side effects.
CONCLUSIONS
For a firm conclusion regarding psychological phenomena, more research is needed. Anaesthetists should take into account this new evidence when they apply their premedication regime in day-case surgery.
Topics: Ambulatory Surgical Procedures; Anesthesia Recovery Period; Anesthesiologists; Anxiety; Attitude of Health Personnel; Benzodiazepines; Humans; Postoperative Period; Premedication; Recovery of Function; Time Factors
PubMed: 26418233
DOI: No ID Found -
Journal of Cardiothoracic and Vascular... Feb 2018A careful choice of perioperative care strategies is pivotal to improve survival in cardiac surgery. However, there is no general agreement or particular attention to... (Review)
Review
OBJECTIVE
A careful choice of perioperative care strategies is pivotal to improve survival in cardiac surgery. However, there is no general agreement or particular attention to which nonsurgical interventions can reduce mortality in this setting. The authors sought to address this issue with a consensus-based approach.
DESIGN
A systematic review of the literature followed by a consensus-based voting process.
SETTING
A web-based international consensus conference.
PARTICIPANTS
More than 400 physicians from 52 countries participated in this web-based consensus conference.
INTERVENTIONS
The authors identified all studies published in peer-reviewed journals that reported on interventions with a statistically significant effect on mortality in the setting of cardiac surgery through a systematic Medline/PubMed search and contacts with experts. These studies were discussed during a consensus meeting and those considered eligible for inclusion in this study were voted on by clinicians worldwide.
MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS
Eleven interventions finally were selected: 10 were shown to reduce mortality (aspirin, glycemic control, high-volume surgeons, prophylactic intra-aortic balloon pump, levosimendan, leuko-depleted red blood cells transfusion, noninvasive ventilation, tranexamic acid, vacuum-assisted closure, and volatile agents), whereas 1 (aprotinin) increased mortality. A significant difference in the percentages of agreement among different countries and a variable gap between agreement and clinical practice were found for most of the interventions.
CONCLUSIONS
This updated consensus process identified 11 nonsurgical interventions with possible survival implications for patients undergoing cardiac surgery. This list of interventions may help cardiac anesthesiologists and intensivists worldwide in their daily clinical practice and can contribute to direct future research in the field.
Topics: Cardiac Surgical Procedures; Congresses as Topic; Consensus; Consensus Development Conferences as Topic; Humans; Internet; Mortality; Perioperative Care; Postoperative Complications; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 29122431
DOI: 10.1053/j.jvca.2017.06.017 -
Anesthesia and Pain Medicine Jul 2023The knotting or in vivo entrapment of epidural catheters is an uncommon but challenging issue for anesthesiologists. This study aimed to identify the possible causes...
BACKGROUND
The knotting or in vivo entrapment of epidural catheters is an uncommon but challenging issue for anesthesiologists. This study aimed to identify the possible causes behind entrapped epidural catheters and the effective methods for their removal.
METHODS
A systematic review of relevant case reports and series was conducted using the patient/population, intervention, comparison and outcome framework and keywords such as "epidural," "catheter," "knotting," "stuck," "entrapped," and "entrapment." The Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement was followed, and the review protocol was registered with International Prospective Register for Systematic Reviews (CRD42021291266).
RESULTS
The analysis included 59 cases with a mean depth of catheter insertion from the skin of 11.825 cm and an average duration of 8.17 h for the detection of non-functioning catheters. In 27 cases (45.8%), a radiological knot was found, with an average length of 2.59 cm from the tip. The chi-squared test revealed a significant difference between the initial and final positions of catheter insertion (P = 0.049).
CONCLUSIONS
Deep insertion was the primary cause of epidural catheter entrapment. To remove the entrapped catheters, the lateral decubitus position should be attempted first, followed by the position used during insertion. Based on these findings, recommendations for the prevention and removal of entrapped catheters have been formulated.
PubMed: 37468204
DOI: 10.17085/apm.23013 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Aug 2018Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, reduces the incidence and severity of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Postoperative administration of non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) reduces patient opioid requirements and, in turn, reduces the incidence and severity of opioid-induced adverse events (AEs).
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse effects of single-dose intravenous diclofenac, compared with placebo or an active comparator, for moderate to severe postoperative pain in adults.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the following databases without language restrictions: the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (Cochrane Register of Studies Online), MEDLINE, and Embase on 22 May 2018. We checked clinical trials registers and reference lists of retrieved articles for additional studies.
SELECTION CRITERIA
We included randomized trials that compared a single postoperative dose of intravenous diclofenac with placebo or another active treatment, for treating acute postoperative pain in adults following any surgery.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
We used standard methodological procedures expected by Cochrane. Two review authors independently considered trials for review inclusion, assessed risk of bias, and extracted data.Our primary outcome was the number of participants in each arm achieving at least 50% pain relief over a four- and six-hour period.Our secondary outcomes were time to, and number of participants using rescue medication; withdrawals due to lack of efficacy, AEs, and for any cause; and number of participants experiencing any AE, serious AEs (SAEs), and NSAID-related AEs. We performed a post hoc analysis of opioid-related AEs, to enable indirect comparisons with other analyses of postoperative analgesics.For subgroup analysis, we planned to analyze different doses and formulations of parenteral diclofenac separately.We assessed the overall quality of the evidence for each outcome using GRADE and created two 'Summary of findings' tables.
MAIN RESULTS
We included eight studies, involving 1756 participants undergoing various surgeries (dental, mixed minor, abdominal, and orthopedic), with 20 to 175 participants receiving intravenous diclofenac in each study. Mean study population ages ranged from 24.5 years to 54.5 years. Intravenous diclofenac doses varied among and within studies, ranging from 3.75 mg to 75 mg. Five studies assessed newer formulations of parenteral diclofenac that could be administered as an undiluted intravenous bolus. Most studies had an unclear risk of bias for several domains and a high risk of bias due to small sample size. The overall quality of evidence for each outcome was generally low for reasons including unclear risk of bias in studies, imprecision, and low event numbers.Primary outcomeThree studies (277 participants) produced a number needed to treat for an additional beneficial outcome (NNTB) for at least 50% of maximum pain relief versus placebo of 2.4 (95% confidence interval (CI) 1.9 to 3.1) over four hours (low-quality evidence). Four studies (436 participants) produced an NNTB of 3.8 versus placebo (95% CI 2.9 to 5.9) over six hours (low-quality evidence). No studies provided data for the comparison of intravenous diclofenac with another NSAID over four hours. At six hours there was no difference between intravenous diclofenac and another NSAID (low-quality evidence).Secondary outcomesFor secondary efficacy outcomes, intravenous diclofenac was generally superior to placebo and similar to other NSAIDs.For time to rescue medication, comparison of intravenous diclofenac versus placebo demonstrated a median of 226 minutes for diclofenac versus 80 minutes for placebo (5 studies, 542 participants, low-quality evidence). There were insufficient data for pooled analysis for comparisons of diclofenac with another NSAID (very low-quality evidence).For the number of participants using rescue medication, two studies (235 participants) compared diclofenac with placebo. The number needed to treat to prevent one additional harmful event (NNTp) (here, the need for rescue medication) compared with placebo was 3.0 (2.2 to 4.5, low-quality evidence). The comparison of diclofenac with another NSAID included only one study (98 participants). The NNTp was 4.5 (2.5 to 33) for ketorolac versus diclofenac (very low-quality evidence).The numbers of participants withdrawing were generally low and inconsistently reported (very low-quality evidence). Participant withdrawals were: 6% (8/140) diclofenac versus 5% (7/128) placebo, and 9% (8/87) diclofenac versus 7% (6/82) another NSAID for lack of efficacy; 2% (4/211) diclofenac versus 0% (0/198) placebo, and 3% (4/138) diclofenac versus 2% (2/129) another NSAID due to AEs; and 11% (21/191) diclofenac versus 17% (30/179) placebo, and 18% (21/118) diclofenac versus 15% (17/111) another NSAID for any cause.Overall adverse event rates were similar between intravenous diclofenac and placebo (71% in both groups, 2 studies, 296 participants) and between intravenous diclofenac and another NSAID (55% and 58%, respectively, 2 studies, 265 participants) (low-quality evidence for both comparisons). Serious and specific AEs were rare, preventing meta-analysis.There were sufficient data for a dose-effect analysis for our primary outcome for only one alternative dose, 18.75 mg. Analysis of the highest dose employed in each study demonstrated a relative benefit compared with placebo of 1.9 (1.4 to 2.4), whereas for the group receiving 18.75 mg, the relative benefit versus placebo was 1.6 (1.2 to 2.1, 2 studies). Compared to another NSAID, the high-dose analysis demonstrated a relative benefit of 0.9 (0.8 to 1.1), for the group receiving 18.75 mg, the relative benefit was 0.78 (0.65 to 0.93). For direct comparison of high dose versus 18.75 mg, the proportion of participants with at least 50% pain relief was 66% (90/137) for the high-dose arm versus 57% (77/135) in the low-dose arm. There were insufficient data for subgroup meta-analysis of different diclofenac formulations.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
The amount and quality of evidence for the use of intravenous diclofenac as a treatment for postoperative pain is low. The available evidence indicates that postoperative intravenous diclofenac administration offers good pain relief for the majority of patients, but further research may impact this estimate. Adverse events appear to occur at a similar rate to other NSAIDs. Insufficient information is available to assess whether intravenous diclofenac has a different rate of bleeding, renal dysfunction, or cardiovascular events versus other NSAIDs. There was insufficient information to evaluate the efficacy and safety of newer versus traditional formulations of intravenous diclofenac. There was a lack of studies in major and cardiovascular surgeries and in elderly populations, which may be at increased risk for adverse events.
Topics: Acute Pain; Adult; Analgesics, Opioid; Anti-Inflammatory Agents, Non-Steroidal; Diclofenac; Humans; Injections, Intravenous; Pain, Postoperative; Placebos; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic
PubMed: 30153336
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012498.pub2 -
BMC Medicine Jan 2018Elective surgeries can be associated with significant harm to older adults. The present study aimed to identify the prognostic factors associated with the development of... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
BACKGROUND
Elective surgeries can be associated with significant harm to older adults. The present study aimed to identify the prognostic factors associated with the development of postoperative complications among older adults undergoing elective surgery.
METHODS
Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, and AgeLine were searched for articles published between inception and April 21, 2016. Prospective studies reporting prognostic factors associated with postoperative complications (composite outcome of medical and surgical complications), functional decline, mortality, post-hospitalization discharge destination, and prolonged hospitalization among older adults undergoing elective surgery were included. Study characteristics and prognostic factors associated with the outcomes of interest were extracted independently by two reviewers. Random effects meta-analysis models were used to derive pooled effect estimates for prognostic factors and incidences of adverse outcomes.
RESULTS
Of the 5692 titles and abstracts that were screened for inclusion, 44 studies (12,281 patients) reported on the following adverse postoperative outcomes: postoperative complications (n =28), postoperative mortality (n = 11), length of hospitalization (n = 21), functional decline (n = 6), and destination at discharge from hospital (n = 13). The pooled incidence of postoperative complications was 25.17% (95% confidence interval (CI) 18.03-33.98%, number needed to follow = 4). The geriatric syndromes of frailty (odds ratio (OR) 2.16, 95% CI 1.29-3.62) and cognitive impairment (OR 2.01, 95% CI 1.44-2.81) were associated with developing postoperative complications; however, there was no association with traditionally assessed prognostic factors such as age (OR 1.07, 95% CI 1.00-1.14) or American Society of Anesthesiologists status (OR 2.62, 95% CI 0.78-8.79). Besides frailty, other potentially modifiable prognostic factors, including depressive symptoms (OR 1.77, 95% CI 1.22-2.56) and smoking (OR 2.43, 95% CI 1.32-4.46), were also associated with developing postoperative complications.
CONCLUSION
Geriatric syndromes are important prognostic factors for postoperative complications. We identified potentially modifiable prognostic factors (e.g., frailty, depressive symptoms, and smoking) associated with developing postoperative complications that can be targeted preoperatively to optimize care.
Topics: Elective Surgical Procedures; Health Services for the Aged; Hospitalization; Humans; Incidence; Odds Ratio; Patient Discharge; Postoperative Complications; Prognosis; Prospective Studies; Risk Assessment
PubMed: 29325567
DOI: 10.1186/s12916-017-0986-2 -
PloS One 2024During cesarean section, hypotension is a frequent side effect of spinal anesthesia. As a sitting or lateral position is required for spinal anesthesia performance,... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis
STUDY OBJECTIVE
During cesarean section, hypotension is a frequent side effect of spinal anesthesia. As a sitting or lateral position is required for spinal anesthesia performance, which of these two positions is more likely to cause intraoperative nausea, vomiting, and hypotension is still unknown. This meta-analysis compared the effects of these two positions on maternal hemodynamics and intraoperative nausea and vomiting.
DESIGN
Systematic review and meta-analysis.
SETTING
Operating room.
PATIENTS
This study included 803 patients from 12 randomized controlled trials (RCTs).
INTERVENTIONS
Neuraxial anesthesia in sitting position vs. lateral position.
MEASUREMENTS
We chose RCTs comparing the effects of spinal anesthesia in the sitting and lateral positions on maternal hemodynamics by thoroughly searching PubMed, Embase, the Cochrane Library, and the Web of Science for articles published from database inception until October 31, 2022. The Cochrane Handbook was used to assess the methodological quality of each RCT; the results were analyzed using RevMan 5.4 software; and the Egger test was used to assess publication bias.
MAIN RESULTS
12 randomised controlled trials with 803 participants were ultimately included in the final analysis. No significant differences were observed between the two positions in terms of the incidence of hypotension(RR, 0.82; 95% CI, 0.58-1.16; P = 0.26; I2 = 66%), lowest systolic blood pressure(MD, -0.81; 95% CI, -7.38-5.75; P = 0.81; I2 = 86%), the dose of ephedrine(MD, -1.19; 95% CI, -4.91-2.52; P = 0.53; I2 = 83%), and number of parturients requiring ephedrine(RR, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.64-1.46; P = 0.88; I2 = 74%). For the incidence of intraoperative nausea and vomiting, there was no statistical difference between the two positions.
CONCLUSION
Parturients undergoing elective cesarean section under spinal anesthesia in the sitting or lateral position experienced similar incidence of hypotension, and there were no significant differences between these two positions in terms of the amount of ephedrine administered or the number of patients needing ephedrine. In both positions, the frequency of nausea and vomiting was comparable. The ideal position for anesthesia can be chosen based on the preferences and individual circumstances of the parturient and anesthesiologist.
Topics: Humans; Cesarean Section; Female; Pregnancy; Hemodynamics; Anesthesia, Spinal; Sitting Position; Hypotension; Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic; Anesthesia, Obstetrical; Posture
PubMed: 38758837
DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0303256 -
The Cochrane Database of Systematic... Jul 2017Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization guidelines for... (Review)
Review
BACKGROUND
Pain is a common feature of childhood and adolescence around the world, and for many young people, that pain is chronic. The World Health Organization guidelines for pharmacological treatments for children's persisting pain acknowledge that pain in children is a major public health concern of high significance in most parts of the world. While in the past, pain was largely dismissed and was frequently left untreated, views on children's pain have changed over time, and relief of pain is now seen as importantWe designed a suite of seven reviews on chronic non-cancer pain and cancer pain (looking at antidepressants, antiepileptic drugs, non-steroidal anti-inflammatory drugs, opioids, and paracetamol as priority areas) in order to review the evidence for children's pain utilising pharmacological interventions in children and adolescents.As the leading cause of morbidity in children and adolescents in the world today, chronic disease (and its associated pain) is a major health concern. Chronic pain (lasting three months or longer) can arise in the paediatric population in a variety of pathophysiological classifications: nociceptive, neuropathic, idiopathic, visceral, nerve damage pain, chronic musculoskeletal pain, and chronic abdominal pain, and other unknown reasons.Opioids are used worldwide for the treatment of pain. They bind to opioid receptors in the central nervous system (mu, kappa, delta, and sigma) and can be agonists, antagonists, mixed agonist-antagonists, or partial agonists. Opioids are generally available in healthcare settings across most high-income countries, but access may be restricted in low- and middle-income countries. For example, opioids currently available in the UK include: buprenorphine, codeine, fentanyl, hydromorphone, methadone, morphine, oxycodone, and tramadol. Opioids are used in varying doses (generally based on body weight for paediatric patients) by means of parenteral, transmucosal, transdermal, or oral administration (immediate release or modified release). To achieve adequate pain relief in children using opioids, with an acceptable grade of adverse effects, the recommended method is a lower dose gradually titrated to effect in the child.
OBJECTIVES
To assess the analgesic efficacy and adverse events of opioids used to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents aged between birth and 17 years, in any setting.
SEARCH METHODS
We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) via the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE via Ovid, and Embase via Ovid from inception to 6 September 2016. We also searched the reference lists of retrieved studies and reviews, and searched online clinical trial registries.
SELECTION CRITERIA
Randomised controlled trials, with or without blinding, of any dose and any route, treating chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents, comparing opioids with placebo or an active comparator.
DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS
Two review authors independently assessed studies for eligibility. We planned to use dichotomous data to calculate risk ratio and number needed to treat, using standard methods. We assessed GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) and planned to create a 'Summary of findings' table.
MAIN RESULTS
No studies were eligible for inclusion in this review. We rated the quality of the evidence as very low. We downgraded the quality of evidence by three levels due to the lack of data reported for any outcome.
AUTHORS' CONCLUSIONS
There was no evidence from randomised controlled trials to support or refute the use of opioids to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents. We are unable to comment about efficacy or harm from the use of opioids to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents.We know from adult randomised controlled trials that some opioids, such as morphine and codeine, can be effective in certain chronic pain conditions.This means that no conclusions could be made about efficacy or harm in the use of opioids to treat chronic non-cancer pain in children and adolescents.
Topics: Adolescent; Analgesics, Opioid; Child; Child, Preschool; Chronic Pain; Humans; Infant; Infant, Newborn
PubMed: 28745394
DOI: 10.1002/14651858.CD012538.pub2 -
International Wound Journal Jun 2017To identify risk factors for periprosthetic joint infection following primary total joint arthroplasty, a systematic search was performed in Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
To identify risk factors for periprosthetic joint infection following primary total joint arthroplasty, a systematic search was performed in Pubmed, Embase and Cochrane library databases. Pooled odds ratios (ORs) or standardised mean differences (SMDs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated. Patient characteristics, surgical-related factors and comorbidities, as potential risk factors, were investigated. The main factors associated with infection after total joint arthroplasty (TJA) were male gender (OR, 1·48; 95% CI, 1.19-1.85), age (SMD, -0·10; 95% CI, -0.17--0.03), obesity (OR, 1·54; 95% CI, 1·25-1·90), alcohol abuse (OR, 1·88; 95% CI, 1·32-2·68), American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) scale > 2 (OR, 2·06; 95% CI, 1·77-2·39), operative time (SMD, 0·49; 95% CI, 0·19-0·78), drain usage (OR, 0·36; 95% CI, 0·18-0·74), diabetes mellitus (OR, 1·58; 95% CI, 1·37-1·81), urinary tract infection (OR, 1·53; 95% CI, 1.09-2.16) and rheumatoid arthritis (OR, 1·57; 95% CI, 1·30-1·88). Among these risk factors, ASA score > 2 was a high risk factor, and drain usage was a protective factor. There was positive evidence for some factors that could be used to prevent the onset of infection after TJA.
Topics: Adult; Aged; Aged, 80 and over; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Hip; Arthroplasty, Replacement, Knee; Female; Humans; Male; Middle Aged; Osteoarthritis; Prosthesis-Related Infections; Reoperation; Risk Factors
PubMed: 27397553
DOI: 10.1111/iwj.12640 -
Anesthesiology Mar 2016Automatic suspension of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders during general anesthesia does not sufficiently address a patient's right to self-determination and is a practice... (Meta-Analysis)
Meta-Analysis Review
Automatic suspension of do-not-resuscitate (DNR) orders during general anesthesia does not sufficiently address a patient's right to self-determination and is a practice still observed among anesthesiologists today. To provide an evidence base for ethical management of DNR orders during anesthesia and surgery, the authors performed a systematic review of the literature to quantify the survival after perioperative cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR). Results show that the probability of surviving perioperative CPR ranged from 32.0 to 55.7% when measured within the first 24 h after arrest with a neurologically favorable outcome expectancy between 45.3 and 66.8% at follow-up, which suggests a viable survival of approximately 25%. Because CPR generally proves successful in less than 15% of out-of-hospital cardiac arrests, the altered outcome probabilities that the conditions in the operating room bring on warrant reevaluation of DNR orders during the perioperative period. By preoperatively communicating the evidence to patients, they can make better informed decisions while reducing the level of moral distress that anesthesiologists may experience when certain patients decide to retain their DNR orders.
Topics: Cardiopulmonary Resuscitation; Disease Management; Evidence-Based Medicine; Humans; Resuscitation Orders; Survival Rate
PubMed: 26418698
DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0000000000000873