BackgroundMiddle East respiratory syndrome (MERS) is caused by a coronavirus (MERS‐CoV) and is characterized by hypoxemic respiratory failure. The objective of this study is to compare the outcomes of MERS-CoV patients before and after the availability of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) as a rescue therapy in severely hypoxemic patients who failed conventional strategies.MethodsWe collected data retrospectively on MERS-CoV patients with refractory respiratory failure from April 2014 to December 2015 in 5 intensive care units (ICUs) in Saudi Arabia. Patients were classified into two groups: ECMO versus conventional therapy. Our primary outcome was in-hospital mortality; secondary outcomes included ICU and hospital length of stay.ResultsThirty-five patients were included; 17 received ECMO and 18 received conventional therapy. Both groups had similar baseline characteristics. The ECMO group had lower in-hospital mortality (65 vs. 100%, P = 0.02), longer ICU stay (median 25 vs. 8 days, respectively, P < 0.01), and similar hospital stay (median 41 vs. 31 days, P = 0.421). In addition, patients in the ECMO group had better PaO2/FiO2 at days 7 and 14 of admission to the ICU (124 vs. 63, and 138 vs. 36, P < 0.05), and less use of norepinephrine at days 1 and 14 (29 vs. 80%; and 36 vs. 93%, P < 0.05).ConclusionsECMO use, as a rescue therapy, was associated with lower mortality in MERS patients with refractory hypoxemia. The results of this, largest to date, support the use of ECMO as a rescue therapy in patients with severe MERS-CoV.

The European Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesiology (EACTA) and the Society of Cardiovascular Anesthesia (SCA) aimed to create joint recommendations for the perioperative management of patients with suspected or proven SARS-CoV-2 infection undergoing cardiac surgery or invasive cardiac procedures. To produce appropriate recommendations, we combined the evidence from the literature review, re-evaluating the clinical experience of routine cardiac surgery in similar cases during the Middle East Respiratory Syndrome (MERS-CoV) outbreak and the current pandemic with suspected COVID-19 patients, and the expert opinions through broad discussions within EACTA and SCA. We took into consideration the balance between established procedures and the feasibility during the present outbreak. We represent an agreement between the European and United States practices in managing patients during the COVID-19 pandemic. The recommendations take into consideration a broad spectrum of issues with a focus on preoperative testing, safety concerns, overall approaches to general and specific aspects of preparation for anesthesia, airway management, transesophageal echocardiography, perioperative ventilation, coagulation, and hemodynamic control and postoperative care. As the COVID-19 pandemic is spreading, it will continue to represent a challenge for the worldwide anesthesiology community. To allow these recommendations to be updated as long as possible, we provided weblinks to international public and academic sources providing timely updated data. Our document should be the basis of future Task Forces to develop a more comprehensive consensus considering new evidence uncovered during the COVID-19 pandemic.

No abstract

Introduction The management of postoperative pain in anaesthesia is evolving with a deeper understanding of associating multiple modalities and analgesic medications. However, the motivations and barriers regarding the adoption of opioid-sparing analgesia are not well known. Methods We designed a modified Delphi survey to explore the perspectives and opinions of expert panellists with regard to opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia. 29 anaesthetists underwent an evolving three-round questionnaire to determine the level of agreement on certain aspects of multimodal analgesia, with the last round deciding if each statement was a priority. Results The results were aggregated and a consensus, defined as achievement of over 75% on the Likert scale, was reached for five out of eight statements. The panellists agreed there was a strong body of evidence supporting opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia. However, there existed multiple barriers to widespread adoption, foremost the lack of training and education, as well as the reluctance to change existing practices. Practical issues such as cost effectiveness, increased workload, or the lack of supply of anaesthetic agents were not perceived to be as critical in preventing adoption. Conclusion Thus, a focus on developing specific guidelines for multimodal analgesia and addressing gaps in education may improve the adoption of opioid-sparing analgesia.

No abstract

Background Thoracic endovascular aortic repair (TEVAR) is the standard-of-care for treating traumatic aortic injury (TAI). Few retrospective studies compared TEVAR to open repair in blunt traumatic aortic injury (BTAI). Our objectives were to compare the early outcomes of TEVAR for blunt traumatic descending aortic injury to open repair (OR) in polytraumatic patients involved in motor vehicle accidents (MVA). Results Between February 2005 and April 2017, 71 patients with TAI due to MVA presented to our institution. All patients with descending aortic injuries were considered for open repair (n = 41) or TEVAR (n = 30) if there was no contraindication. The primary outcome was mortality, and secondary outcomes were stroke, paraplegia, intensive care unit (ICU), and hospital stay. The mean age was 28.4 ± 10.1 years in the OR group and 33.3 ± 16.6 years in TEVAR-group (P = 0.13). The injury severity scores were 41 ± 10 in the OR group and 33 ± 17 in the TEVAR group (P = 0.03). Patients in the OR group underwent emergency repair with a mean time of 0.56 ± 0.18 days from arrival. The TEVAR group had a longer time interval between arrival and procedure (2.1 ± 1.7 days, P = 0.001). The OR group had more blood transfusion (24 (58.5%) vs. 8 (27.5%), P = 0.002), renal impairment (6 (14.6%) vs. 1 (5.50%), P = 0.23), and wound infection (21 (51.2%) vs. 3 (10%), P < 0.001). Three TEVAR patients had a perioperative stroke compared to two patients in the OR group (P = 0.64). There was no difference in the mean ICU (6 ± 8.9 vs. 5.3 ± 2.9 days; P = 0.1) or hospital stay (20.1 ± 12.3 vs. 20.1 ± 18.3, P = 0.62) between the two groups. There were four deaths in the OR group and none in the TEVAR group (P = 0.13). Conclusion The results of TEVAR were comparable with the open repair for traumatic aortic injury with good early postoperative outcomes. TEVAR repair could be associated with lower mortality, blood transfusion, and infective complications. However, the complexity of the injury and technical challenges were higher in the open group.

No abstract

No abstract