Anaesthesia with volatile agents appears to reduce mortality after cardiac surgery when compared with TIVA, especially when sevoflurane or desflurane is used. A large, multicentre trial is warranted to confirm that long-term survival is significantly affected by the choice of anaesthetic.

Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine.

Awake fiberoptic intubation is one of the recommended strategies for surgical patients with anticipated difficult airway, especially when concurrent difficult ventilation is expected. We performed the first systematic review of randomized controlled trials assessing different protocols for awake fiberoptic intubation in anticipated difficult airway, including studies investigating elective awake fiberoptic intubation for scheduled surgery; randomized controlled trials comparing different methods for performing awake fiberoptic intubation; and adult patients with anticipated difficult airway. We excluded studies in the nonoperating theater settings, randomized controlled trials comparing awake fiberoptic intubation with other techniques, and studies based on simulation. Primary outcomes were success rate and death; secondary outcomes were major adverse events. Thirty-seven randomized controlled trials evaluating 2045 patients and 4 areas were identified: premedication, local anesthesia, sedation, and ancillary techniques to facilitate awake fiberoptic intubation. Quality of evidence was moderate–low and based on small-sampled randomized controlled trials. Overall, 12 of 2045 intubation failures (0.59%) and 7 of 2045 severe adverse events (0.34%) occurred, with no permanent consequences or death. All evaluated methods to achieve local anesthesia performed similarly well. No differences were observed in success rate with different sedatives. Dexmedetomidine resulted in fewer desaturation episodes compared to propofol and opioids with or without midazolam (relative risk, 0.51 [95% CI, 0.28–0.95]; P = .03); occurrence of desaturation was similar with remifentanil versus propofol, while incidence of apnoea was lower with sevoflurane versus propofol (relative risk, 0.43 [95% CI, 0.22–0.81]; P = .01). A high degree of efficacy and safety was observed with minimal differences among different protocols; dexmedetomidine might offer a better safety profile compared to other sedatives.

Bispectral Index Scale (BIS)-guided closed-loop delivery of anesthetics has been extensively studied. We performed a meta-analysis of all the randomized clinical trials comparing efficacy and performance between BIS-guided closed-loop delivery and manually controlled administration of total IV anesthesia. Scopus, PubMed, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of clinical trials were searched for pertinent studies. Inclusion criteria were random allocation to treatment and closed-loop delivery systems versus manually controlled administration of total IV anesthesia in any surgical setting. Exclusion criteria were duplicate publications and nonadult studies. Twelve studies were included, randomly allocating 1284 patients. Use of closed-loop anesthetic delivery systems was associated with a significant reduction in the dose of propofol administered for induction of anesthesia (mean difference [MD] = 0.37 [0.17-0.57], P for effect <0.00001, P for heterogeneity = 0.001, I = 74%) and a significant reduction in recovery time (MD = 1.62 [0.60-2.64], P for effect<0.0001, P for heterogeneity = 0.06, I = 47%). The target depth of anesthesia was preserved more frequently with closed-loop anesthetic delivery than with manual control (MD = -15.17 [-23.11 to -7.24], P for effect <0.00001, P for heterogeneity <0.00001, I = 83%). There were no differences in the time required to induce anesthesia and the total propofol dose. Closed-loop anesthetic delivery performed better than manual-control delivery. Both median absolute performance error and wobble index were significantly lower in closed-loop anesthetic delivery systems group (MD = 5.82 [3.17-8.46], P for effect <0.00001, P for heterogeneity <0.00001, I = 90% and MD = 0.92 [0.13-1.72], P for effect = 0.003, P for heterogeneity = 0.07, I = 45%). When compared with manual control, BIS-guided anesthetic delivery of total IV anesthesia reduces propofol requirements during induction, better maintains a target depth of anesthesia, and reduces recovery time.

BACKGROUND: Use of noninvasive ventilation (NIV) for the treatment of patients with acute respiratory failure (ARF) has greatly increased in the last decades. In contrast, the increasing knowledge of its effectiveness and physician confidence in managing this technique have been accompanied by a declining number of available ICU beds. As a consequence, the application of NIV outside the ICU has been reported as a growing phenomenon. Previously published surveys highlighted a great heterogeneity in NIV use, clinical indications, settings, and efficacy. Moreover, they revealed a marked heterogeneity with regard to staff training and technical and organizational aspects. We performed the first worldwide web-based survey focused on NIV use in general wards for ARF. METHODS: A questionnaire to obtain data regarding hospital and ICU characteristics, settings and modalities of NIV application and monitoring, estimated outcomes, technical and organizational aspects, and observed complications was developed. The multiple-choice anonymous questionnaire to be filled out online was distributed worldwide by mail, LinkedIn, and Facebook professional groups. RESULTS: One-hundred fifty-seven questionnaires were filled out and analyzed. Respondents were from 51 countries from all 5 continents. NIV application in general wards was reported by 66% of respondents. Treatments were reported as increasing in 57% of cases. Limited training and human resources were the most common reasons for not using NIV in general wards. Overall, most respondents perceived that NIV avoids tracheal intubation in most cases; worsening of ARF, intolerance, and inability to manage secretions were the most commonly reported causes of NIV failure. CONCLUSIONS: Use of NIV in general wards was reported as effective, common, and gradually increasing. Improvement in staff training and introduction of protocols could help to make this technique safer and more common when applied in general wards setting.