No abstract

Background and objectivesElderly individuals have a greater sensitivity to sedation, and the most commonly used drugs for sedation are benzodiazepines, which exhibit some complication. Therefore, this study aimed to compare the use of dexmedetomidine and midazolam regarding proper sedation and postoperative complications in elderly individuals who require intraoperative sedation.MethodsThis study was a parallel-randomized clinical trial, which included 120 patients aged >70 years undergoing regional anesthesia and sedation. The exclusion criteria consisted of bradycardia, heart failure, respiratory failure, a Glasgow Coma Scale ≤14, liver failure and refusal to participate. Patients were divided into two groups: the first group received midazolam (MDZ), while the second group received dexmedetomidine (DEX). The doses were titrated to achieve an intraoperative Richmond Agitation-Sedation Scale (RASS) score between −3 and −1. Incidences of complications were recorded.ResultsDuring a 120 min follow-up, the depth of sedation (RASS score) revealed variations less often in the DEX group (p=0.002). Patients in the DEX group (n=67) had lower rates of intraoperative complications (19.4% vs 73.6%, p<0.001). Intraoperatively, the incidence rates of psychomotor agitation (15.1% vs 1.5%, p=0.005), arterial hypotension (28.3% vs 3.0%, p<0.001) and respiratory depression (73.6% vs 0%, p<0.001) were higher in the MDZ group (n=53). During postanesthesia care, the incidence rates of shivering (p<0.001), residual sedation (p=0.04) and use of supplemental oxygen (p<0.001) were significantly lower in the DEX group.ConclusionsThe use of DEX for sedation during surgery provides better control over the depth of sedation and produces fewer complications in elderly individuals.Trial registration number NCT02878837.

No abstract

The ACERTO project is a multimodal perioperative care protocol. Implemented in 2005, the project in the last 15 years has disseminated the idea of a modern perioperative care protocol, based on evidence and with interdisciplinary team work. Dozens of published studies, using the protocol, have shown benefits such as reduced hospital stay, postoperative complications and hospital costs. Disseminated in Brazil, the project is supported by the Brazilian College of Surgeons and the Brazilian Society of Parenteral and Enteral Nutrition, among others. This article compiles publications by the authors who belong to the CNPq research group “Acerto em Nutrição e Cirurgia”, refers to the experience of other national authors in various surgical specialties, and finally outlines the evolution of the ACERTO project in the timeline.

OBJECTIVES:Acute kidney injury is associated with many conditions, and no interventions to improve the outcomes of established acute kidney injury have been developed. We performed this study to determine whether goal-directed therapy conducted during the early stages of acute kidney injury could change the course of the disease.METHODS:This was a multicenter prospective randomized controlled study. Patients with early acute kidney injury in the critical care unit were randomly allocated to a standard care (control) group or a goal-directed therapy group with 8h of intensive treatment to maximize oxygen delivery, and all patients were evaluated during a period of 72h. ClinicalTrials.gov: NCT02414906.RESULTS:A total of 143 patients were eligible for the study, and 99 patients were randomized. Central venous oxygen saturation was significantly increased and the serum lactate level significantly was decreased from baseline levels in the goal-directed therapy group (p=0.001) compared to the control group (p=0.572). No significant differences in the change in serum creatinine level (p=0.96), persistence of acute kidney injury beyond 72h (p=0.064) or the need for renal replacement therapy (p=0.82) were observed between the two groups. In-hospital mortality was significantly lower in the goal-directed therapy group than in the control group (33% vs. 51%; RR: 0.61, 95% CI: 0.37-1.00, p=0.048, number needed to treat=5).CONCLUSIONS:Goal-directed therapy for patients in the early stages of acute kidney injury did not change the disease course.

Background and objectives Patients who develop post-operative acute kidney injury (AKI) have a poor prognosis, especially when undergoing high-risk surgery. Therefore, the objective of this study was to evaluate the outcome of patients with AKI acquired after non-cardiac surgery and the possible risk factors for this complication. Methods A multicenter, prospective cohort study with patients admitted to intensive care units (ICUs) after non-cardiac surgery was conducted to assess whether they developed AKI. The patients who developed AKI were then compared to non-AKI patients. Results A total of 29 ICUs participated, of which 904 high-risk surgical patients were involved in the study. The occurrence of AKI in the post-operative period was 15.8%, and the mortality rate of post-operative AKI patients at 28 days was 27.6%. AKI was strongly associated with 28-day mortality (OR = 2.91; 95% CI 1.51–5.62; p = 0.001), and a higher length of ICU and hospital stay ( p < 0.001). Independent factors for the risk of developing AKI were pre-operative anemia (OR = 7.01; 95% CI 1.69–29.07), elective surgery (OR = 0.45; 95% CI 0.21–0.97), SAPS 3 (OR = 1.04; 95% CI 1.02–1.06), post-operative vasopressor use (OR = 2.47; 95% CI 1.34–4.55), post-operative infection (OR = 8.82; 95% CI 2.43–32.05) and the need for reoperation (OR= 7.15; 95% CI 2.58–19.79). Conclusion AKI was associated with the risk of death in surgical patients and those with anemia before surgery, who had a higher SAPS 3, needed a post-operative vasopressor, or had a post-operative infection or needed reoperation were more likely to develop AKI post-operatively.

Background: Several studies suggest that hemodynamic optimization therapies can reduce complications, the length of hospital stay and costs. However, Brazilian data are scarce. Therefore, the objective of this analysis was to evaluate whether the improvement demonstrated by hemodynamic optimization therapy in surgical patients could result in lower costs from the perspective of the Brazilian public unified health system. Methods: A meta-analysis was performed comparing surgical patients who underwent hemodynamic optimization therapy (intervention) with patients who underwent standard therapy (control) in terms of complications and hospital costs. The cost-effectiveness analysis evaluated the clinical and financial benefits of hemodynamic optimization protocols for surgical patients. The analysis considered the clinical outcomes of randomized studies published in the last 20 years that involved surgeries and hemodynamic optimization therapy. Indirect costs (equipment depreciation, estate and management activities) were not included in the analysis. Results: A total of 21 clinical trials with a total of 4872 surgical patients were selected. Comparison of the intervention and control groups showed lower rates of infectious (RR = 0.66; 95% CI = 0.58-0.74), renal (RR = 0.68; 95% CI = 0.54-0.87), and cardiovascular (RR = 0.87; 95% CI = 0.76-0.99) complications and a nonstatistically significant lower rate of respiratory complications (RR = 0.82; 95% CI = 0.67-1.02). There was no difference in mortality (RR = 1.02; 95% CI = 0.80-1.3) between groups. In the analysis of total costs, the intervention group showed a cost reduction of R$396,024.83-BRL ($90,161.38-USD) for every 1000 patients treated compared to the control group. The patients in the intervention group showed greater effectiveness, with 1.0 fewer days in the intensive care unit and hospital. In addition, there were 333 fewer patients with complications, with a consequent reduction of R$1,630,341.47-BRL ($371,173.27-USD) for every 1000 patients treated. Conclusions: Hemodynamic optimization therapy is cost-effective and would increase the efficiency of and decrease the burden of the Brazilian public health system.

Background: Health resources are limited and need to be rationally distributed. Studies suggest that hemodynamic optimization therapy can reduce length of hospital stay, complications and costs. However, Brazilian data are scarce. Therefore, the objective of this analysis was to evaluate whether the improvement demonstrated by hemodynamic optimization therapy in surgical patients could result in lower costs from the perspective of the Brazilian public unified health s ystem (SUS). Method: A meta-analysis was performed comparing surgical patients who underwent hemodynamic optimization therapy (intervention) with patients submitted to standard therapy (control) in terms of complications and hospital costs. The cost-effectiveness analysis evaluated the clinical and financial benefits of hemodynamic optimization protocols for surgical patients. The analysis considered the clinical outcomes of randomized studies published in the last 20 years that involved surgeries and hemodynamic optimization therapy. Indirect costs were not included in the analysis. Results: A total of 21 clinical trials with a total of 4872 surgical patients were selected. Comparison of the intervention and control groups showed lower rates of infectious (RR=0.66; 95% CI=0.58-0.74), renal (RR=0.68; 95% CI=0.54-0.87), and cardiovascular complications (RR=0.87; 95% CI=0.76-0.99) and a tendency toward lower rates of respiratory complications (RR=0.82; 95% CI=0.67-1.02). There was no difference in mortality (RR=1.02; 95% CI=0.80-1.3) between groups. In the analysis of total costs, the intervention group showed a cost reduction of R$396,024.83 for every 1000 patients treated compared to the control group. The patients in the intervention group showed greater effectiveness, with 1.0 fewer day in the ICU and hospital. In addition, there were 333 fewer patients with complications, with a consequent reduction of R$1,630,341.47 for every 1000 patients treated. Conclusions: Hemodynamic optimization therapy is cost-effective and would increase efficiency and decrease the burden of the Brazilian public health system.