BackgroundThe Acute Physiology and Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) IV model has not yet been validated in Korea. The aim of this study was to compare the ability of the APACHE IV with those of APACHE II, Simplified Acute Physiology Score (SAPS) 3, and Korean SAPS 3 in predicting hospital mortality in a surgical intensive care unit (SICU) population.MethodsWe retrospectively reviewed electronic medical records for patients admitted to the SICU from March 2011 to February 2012 in a university hospital. Measurements of discrimination and calibration were performed using the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and the Hosmer-Lemeshow test, respectively. We calculated the standardized mortality ratio (SMR, actual mortality predicted mortality) for the four models.ResultsThe study included 1,314 patients. The hospital mortality rate was 3.3%. The discriminative powers of all models were similar and very reliable. The AUCs were 0.80 for APACHE IV, 0.85 for APACHE II, 0.86 for SAPS 3, and 0.86 for Korean SAPS 3. Hosmer and Lemeshow C and H statistics showed poor calibration for all of the models (P < 0.05). The SMRs of APACHE IV, APACHE II, SAPS 3, and Korean SAPS 3 were 0.21, 0.11 0.23, 0.34, and 0.25, respectively.ConclusionsThe APACHE IV revealed good discrimination but poor calibration. The overall discrimination and calibration of APACHE IV were similar to those of APACHE II, SAPS 3, and Korean SAPS 3 in this study. A high level of customization is required to improve calibration in this study setting.

Background: Maintaining cervical immobilization is essential during tracheal intubation in patients with unstable cervical spines. When using the Macintosh laryngoscope for intubation in patients with cervical immobilization, substantial neck extension is required for visualization of the glottis. However, the C-MAC D-Blade videolaryngoscope may require less neck extension due to its acute angulation. We hypothesized that C-MAC D-Blade videolaryngoscopic intubation would result in less cervical spine movement than Macintosh laryngoscopic intubation. We compared the effects of C-MAC D-Blade videolaryngoscopic intubation and Macintosh laryngoscopic intubation in terms of cervical spine motion during intubation in patients with simulated cervical immobilization. Methods: In this randomized crossover study, the cervical spine angle was measured at the occiput-C1, C1-C2, and C2-C5 segments before and during tracheal intubation with either a C-MAC D-Blade videolaryngoscope or Macintosh laryngoscope in 20 patients, with application of a neck collar for simulated cervical immobilization. Cervical spine motion was defined as the change in angle measured before and during tracheal intubation. Results: The cervical spine motion at the occiput-C1 segment was measured at 12.1 ± 4.2°and 6.8 ± 5.0°during Macintosh laryngoscopic and C-MAC D-blade videolaryngoscopic intubation, respectively, corresponding to a 44% reduction in cervical spine motion when using the latter device (mean difference, − 5.3; 98.33% CI: − 8.8 to − 1.8; p = 0.001). However, there was no significant difference between the two intubation devices at the C1-C2 segment (− 0.6; 98.33% CI: − 3.4 to 2.2; p = 0.639) or C2-C5 segment (0.2; 98.33% CI: − 6.0 to 6.4; p = 0.929). Conclusions: The C-MAC D-Blade videolaryngoscope causes less upper cervical spine motion than the Macintosh laryngoscope during tracheal intubation of patients with simulated cervical immobilization. Trial registration: This study was registered at ClinicalTrials.gov on June 26, 2018 (NCT03567902).

We observed few cardiopulmonary benefits but poor surgical conditions in the low intra-abdominal pressure during laparoscopy. Considering cardiopulmonary dynamics and surgical conditions, the standard intra-abdominal pressure may be preferable to the low pressure for laparoscopic surgery.

People can hear and pay attention to familiar terms such as their own name better than general terms, referred to as the cocktail party effect. We performed a prospective, randomised, double-blind trial to investigate whether calling the patient's name compared with a general term facilitated a patient's response and recovery from general anaesthesia. We enrolled women having breast cancer surgery with general anaesthesia using propofol and remifentanil. Patients were randomly allocated into two groups depending on whether the patient's name or a general term was called, followed by the verbal command -'open your eyes!'during emergence from anaesthesia; this pre-recorded sentence was played to the patient using headphones. Fifty patients were allocated to the name group and 51 to the control group. Our primary outcome was the time from discontinuation of anaesthesia until eye opening. The mean (SD) time was 337 (154) s in the name group and 404 (170) s in the control group (p = 0.041). The time to i-gel â removal was 385 (152) vs. 454 (173) s (p = 0.036), the time until achieving a bispectral index of 60 was 174 (133) vs. 205 (160) s (p = 0.3), and the length of stay in the postanaesthesia care unit was 43.8 (3.4) vs. 47.3 (7.

No abstract