Background: Observational studies have suggested that accelerated surgery is associated with improved outcomes in patients with a hip fracture. The HIP ATTACK trial assessed whether accelerated surgery could reduce mortality and major complications. Methods:We randomised 2970 patients from 69 hospitals in 17 countries. Patients with a hip fracture that required surgery and were ≥45 years of age were eligible. Patients were randomly assigned to accelerated surgery (goal of surgery within 6 hours of diagnosis; 1487 patients) or standard care (1483 patients). The co-primary outcomes were 1.) mortality, and 2.) a composite of major complications (i.e., mortality and non-fatal myocardial infarction, stroke, venous thromboembolism, sepsis, pneumonia, life-threatening bleeding, and major bleeding) at 90 days after randomisation. Outcome adjudicators were masked to treatment allocation, and patients were analysed according to the intention-to-treat principle; ClinicalTrials.gov, NCT02027896. Findings:The median time from hip fracture diagnosis to surgery was 6 hours (interquartile range [IQR] 4-9) in the accelerated-surgery group and 24 hours (IQR 10-42) in the standard-care group, p<0.0001. Death occurred in 140 patients (9%) assigned to accelerated surgery and 154 patients (10%) assigned to standard care; hazard ratio (HR) 0.91, 95% CI 0.72-1.14; absolute risk reduction (ARR) 1%, 95% CI -1-3%; p=0.40. The primary composite outcome occurred in 321 patients (22%) randomised to accelerated surgery and 331 patients (22%) randomised to standard care; HR 0.97, 95% CI 0.83-1.13; ARR 1%, 95% CI -2-3%; p=0.71.Interpretation: Among patients with a hip fracture, accelerated surgery did not significantly lower the risk of mortality or a composite of major complications compared to standard care.

From 1996 to 2011, 57 high-risk patients with BS (35 males; mean age: 43 ± 16 years) underwent an automated implantable cardioverter defibrillator implantation at our center using propofol as induction drug of general anesthesia. Three patients had a history of spontaneous type I ECG, three had aborted sudden death, and 51 had a history of recurrent or unexplained syncope. The induction dose ranged between 0.8 mg/kg and 5.0 mg/kg (2.2 ± 0.7 mg/kg). Only one case received propofol to maintain anesthesia. The surgical procedure involved an anesthetic period of 75 ± 25 minutes. No patient developed a malignant rhythm during induction and maintenance of anesthesia. All patients were then safely discharged from the postanesthetic care unit after 1 hour. No adverse events were noticed during the recovery phase. In our study, administration of a single-dose propofol in patients with BS was safe. Nevertheless, extreme caution is still recommended when conducting general anesthesia in patients with BS, especially if BS patients are sedated with propofol for longer periods.

Background Brugada Syndrome is an inherited arrhythmogenic disease, characterized by the typical coved type ST-segment elevation in the right precordial leads from V1 through V3. The BrugadaDrugs.org Advisory Board recommends avoiding administration of propofol in patients with Brugada Syndrome. Since prospective studies are lacking, it was the purpose of this study to assess the electrocardiographic effects of propofol and etomidate on the ST- and QRS-segments. In this trial, it was hypothesized that administration of propofol or etomidate in bolus for induction of anesthesia, in patients with Brugada Syndrome, do not clinically affect the ST- and QRS-segments and do not induce arrhythmias. Methods In this prospective, double-blinded trial, 98 patients with established Brugada syndrome were randomized to receive propofol (2 to 3 mg/kg-1) or etomidate (0.2 to 0.3 mg/kg-1) for induction of anesthesia. The primary endpoints were the changes of the ST- and QRS-segment, and the occurrence of new arrhythmias upon induction of anesthesia. Results The analysis included 80 patients: 43 were administered propofol and 37 etomidate. None of the patients had a ST elevation greater than or equal to 0.2 mV, one in each group had a ST elevation of 0.15 mV. An ST depression up to −0.15mV was observed eleven times with propofol and five with etomidate. A QRS-prolongation of 25% upon induction was seen in one patient with propofol and three with etomidate. This trial failed to establish any evidence to suggest that changes in either group differed, with most percentiles being zero (median [25th, 75th], 0 [0, 0] vs. 0 [0, 0]). Finally, no new arrhythmias occurred perioperatively in both groups. Conclusions In this trial, there does not appear to be a significant difference in electrocardiographic changes in patients with Brugada syndrome when propofol versus etomidate were administered for induction of anesthesia. This study did not investigate electrocardiographic changes related to propofol used as an infusion for maintenance of anesthesia, so future studies would be warranted before conclusions about safety of propofol infusions in patients with Brugada syndrome can be determined. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic What This Article Tells Us That Is New

No abstract