The present guidelines are the most recent data on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) and an update on the 2 previous sets of guidelines published in 2003 and 2007. These guidelines were compiled by a multidisciplinary international panel of individuals with interest and expertise in PONV under the auspices of the Society for Ambulatory Anesthesia. The panel members critically and systematically evaluated the current medical literature on PONV to provide an evidence-based reference tool for the management of adults and children who are undergoing surgery and are at increased risk for PONV. These guidelines identify patients at risk for PONV in adults and children; recommend approaches for reducing baseline risks for PONV; identify the most effective antiemetic single therapy and combination therapy regimens for PONV prophylaxis, including nonpharmacologic approaches; recommend strategies for treatment of PONV when it occurs; provide an algorithm for the management of individuals at increased risk for PONV as well as steps to ensure PONV prevention and treatment are implemented in the clinical setting.
BIS-guided anesthesia reduced anesthetic exposure and decreased the risk of POCD at 3 months after surgery. For every 1000 elderly patients undergoing major surgery, anesthetic delivery titrated to a range of BIS between 40 and 60 would prevent 23 patients from POCD and 83 patients from delirium.
Among patients undergoing noncardiac surgery, peak postoperative hsTnT during the first 3 days after surgery was significantly associated with 30-day mortality. Elevated postoperative hsTnT without an ischemic feature was also associated with 30-day mortality.
Among patients at increased risk for complications during major abdominal surgery, a restrictive fluid regimen was not associated with a higher rate of disability-free survival than a liberal fluid regimen and was associated with a higher rate of acute kidney injury. (Funded by the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council and others; RELIEF ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT01424150 .).
Background:
Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19)–related critical illness and acute illness are associated with a risk of venous thromboembolism (VTE).
Objective:
These evidence-based guidelines of the American Society of Hematology (ASH) are intended to support patients, clinicians, and other health care professionals in decisions about the use of anticoagulation for thromboprophylaxis for patients with COVID-19–related critical illness and acute illness who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE.
Methods:
ASH formed a multidisciplinary guideline panel and applied strict management strategies to minimize potential bias from conflicts of interest. The panel included 3 patient representatives. The McMaster University GRADE Centre supported the guideline-development process, including performing systematic evidence reviews (up to 19 August 2020). The panel prioritized clinical questions and outcomes according to their importance for clinicians and patients. The panel used the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) approach, including GRADE Evidence-to-Decision frameworks, to assess evidence and make recommendations, which were subject to public comment.
Results:
The panel agreed on 2 recommendations. The panel issued conditional recommendations in favor of prophylactic-intensity anticoagulation over intermediate-intensity or therapeutic-intensity anticoagulation for patients with COVID-19–related critical illness or acute illness who do not have confirmed or suspected VTE.
Conclusions:
These recommendations were based on very low certainty in the evidence, underscoring the need for high-quality, randomized controlled trials comparing different intensities of anticoagulation. They will be updated using a living recommendation approach as new evidence becomes available.
Avoidance of nitrous oxide and the concomitant increase in inspired oxygen concentration decreases the incidence of complications after major surgery, but does not significantly affect the duration of hospital stay. The routine use of nitrous oxide in patients undergoing major surgery should be questioned.
BackgroundHigh-flow nasal cannula (HFNC) is an emerging therapy for respiratory failure but the extent of exhaled air dispersion during treatment is unknown. We examined exhaled air dispersion during HFNC therapy versus continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) on a human patient simulator (HPS) in an isolation room with 16 air changes·h−1.MethodsThe HPS was programmed to represent different severity of lung injury. CPAP was delivered at 5–20 cmH2O via nasal pillows (Respironics Nuance Pro Gel or ResMed Swift FX) or an oronasal mask (ResMed Quattro Air). HFNC, humidified to 37°C, was delivered at 10–60 L·min−1 to the HPS. Exhaled airflow was marked with intrapulmonary smoke for visualisation and revealed by laser light-sheet. Normalised exhaled air concentration was estimated from the light scattered by the smoke particles. Significant exposure was defined when there was ≥20% normalised smoke concentration.ResultsIn the normal lung condition, mean±sd exhaled air dispersion, along the sagittal plane, increased from 186±34 to 264±27 mm and from 207±11 to 332±34 mm when CPAP was increased from 5 to 20 cmH2O via Respironics and ResMed nasal pillows, respectively. Leakage from the oronasal mask was negligible. Mean±sd exhaled air distances increased from 65±15 to 172±33 mm when HFNC was increased from 10 to 60 L·min−1. Air leakage to 620 mm occurred laterally when HFNC and the interface tube became loose.ConclusionExhaled air dispersion during HFNC and CPAP via different interfaces is limited provided there is good mask interface fitting.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.