Background Excessive or inadequate fluid administration causes complications, but despite this, fluid administration during noncardiac surgery is highly variable. Goal-directed management helps optimize the amount and timing of fluid administration; however, implementation is difficult because algorithms are complex. The authors therefore tested the performance of the Acumen Assisted Fluid Management software (Edwards Lifesciences, USA), which is designed to guide optimal intravenous fluid administration during surgery. Methods In this multicenter, prospective, single-arm cohort evaluation, the authors enrolled 330 adults scheduled for moderate- to high-risk noncardiac surgery that required arterial catheter insertion and mechanical ventilation. Clinicians chose a fluid strategy based on a desired 10%, 15%, or 20% increase in stroke volume (SV) in response to a fluid bolus. Dedicated fluid management software prompted “test” or “recommended” boluses, and clinicians were free to initiate a “user” bolus of 100 to 500 ml of crystalloid or colloid. Clinicians were free to accept or decline the software prompts. The authors primarily compared the fraction of software-recommended boluses that produced suitable increases in SV to a 30% reference rate. On an exploratory basis, we compared responses to software-recommended and clinician-initiated boluses. Results Four hundred twenty-four of 479 (89%) software-recommended fluid boluses and 508 of 592 (86%) clinician-initiated fluid boluses were analyzed per protocol. Of those, 66% (95% CI, 62 to 70%) of delivered fluid boluses recommended by the software resulted in desired increases in SV, compared with the 30% reference rate, whereas only 41% (95% CI, 38 to 44%) of clinician-initiated boluses did ( P < 0.0001). The mean ± SD increase in SV after boluses recommended by the software was 14.2 ± 13.9% versus 8.3 ± 12.1% ( P < 0.0001) for those initiated by clinicians. Conclusions Fluid boluses recommended by the software resulted in desired SV increases more often, and with greater absolute SV increase, than clinician-initiated boluses. Automated assessment of fluid responsiveness may help clinicians optimize intraoperative fluid management during noncardiac surgery. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic Intraoperative fluid management, restrictive or liberal fluid administration, and goal-directed protocols are controversial Automated software using artificial intelligence techniques is being developed for various intraoperative management tasks What This Article Tells Us That Is New This multicenter, prospective study of investigational fluid management software in patients with an arterial catheter evaluated the fraction of software-recommended boluses producing a target increase in stroke volume A higher percentage of software-recommended boluses met the target increase, compared to a historical reference rate and to clinician-initiated boluses

Background Experimental and observational research suggests that combined epidural–general anesthesia may improve long-term survival after cancer surgery by reducing anesthetic and opioid consumption and by blunting surgery-related inflammation. This study therefore tested the primary hypothesis that combined epidural–general anesthesia improves long-term survival in elderly patients. Methods This article presents a long-term follow-up of patients enrolled in a previous trial conducted at five hospitals. Patients aged 60 to 90 yr and scheduled for major noncardiac thoracic and abdominal surgeries were randomly assigned to either combined epidural–general anesthesia with postoperative epidural analgesia or general anesthesia alone with postoperative intravenous analgesia. The primary outcome was overall postoperative survival. Secondary outcomes included cancer-specific, recurrence-free, and event-free survival. Results Among 1,802 patients who were enrolled and randomized in the underlying trial, 1,712 were included in the long-term analysis; 92% had surgery for cancer. The median follow-up duration was 66 months (interquartile range, 61 to 80). Among patients assigned to combined epidural–general anesthesia, 355 of 853 (42%) died compared with 326 of 859 (38%) deaths in patients assigned to general anesthesia alone: adjusted hazard ratio, 1.07; 95% CI, 0.92 to 1.24; P = 0.408. Cancer-specific survival was similar with combined epidural–general anesthesia (327 of 853 [38%]) and general anesthesia alone (292 of 859 [34%]): adjusted hazard ratio, 1.09; 95% CI, 0.93 to 1.28; P = 0.290. Recurrence-free survival was 401 of 853 [47%] for patients who had combined epidural–general anesthesia versus 389 of 859 [45%] with general anesthesia alone: adjusted hazard ratio, 0.97; 95% CI, 0.84 to 1.12; P = 0.692. Event-free survival was 466 of 853 [55%] in patients who had combined epidural–general anesthesia versus 450 of 859 [52%] for general anesthesia alone: adjusted hazard ratio, 0.99; 95% CI, 0.86 to 1.12; P = 0.815. Conclusions In elderly patients having major thoracic and abdominal surgery, combined epidural–general anesthesia with epidural analgesia did not improve overall or cancer-specific long-term mortality. Nor did epidural analgesia improve recurrence-free survival. Either approach can therefore reasonably be selected based on patient and clinician preference. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic Some experimental and observational research suggests that combined epidural–general anesthesia may improve long-term survival after cancer surgery What This Article Tells Us That Is New In patients aged 60 to 90 yr having major noncardiac thoracic and abdominal surgery, combined epidural–general anesthesia compared to general anesthesia alone did not improve overall or cancer-specific long-term survival Combined epidural–general anesthesia also did not improve recurrence-free survival

Background Delirium is a common and serious postoperative complication, especially in the elderly. Epidural anesthesia may reduce delirium by improving analgesia, reducing opioid consumption, and blunting stress response to surgery. This trial therefore tested the hypothesis that combined epidural–general anesthesia reduces the incidence of postoperative delirium in elderly patients recovering from major noncardiac surgery. Methods Patients aged 60 to 90 yr scheduled for major noncardiac thoracic or abdominal surgeries expected to last 2 h or more were enrolled. Participants were randomized 1:1 to either combined epidural–general anesthesia with postoperative epidural analgesia or general anesthesia with postoperative intravenous analgesia. The primary outcome was the incidence of delirium, which was assessed with the Confusion Assessment Method for the Intensive Care Unit twice daily during the initial 7 postoperative days. Results Between November 2011 and May 2015, 1,802 patients were randomized to combined epidural–general anesthesia (n = 901) or general anesthesia alone (n = 901). Among these, 1,720 patients (mean age, 70 yr; 35% women) completed the study and were included in the intention-to-treat analysis. Delirium was significantly less common in the combined epidural–general anesthesia group (15 [1.8%] of 857 patients) than in the general anesthesia group (43 [5.0%] of 863 patients; relative risk, 0.351; 95% CI, 0.197 to 0.627; P < 0.001; number needed to treat 31). Intraoperative hypotension (systolic blood pressure less than 80 mmHg) was more common in patients assigned to epidural anesthesia (421 [49%] vs . 288 [33%]; relative risk, 1.47, 95% CI, 1.31 to 1.65; P < 0.001), and more epidural patients were given vasopressors (495 [58%] vs . 387 [45%]; relative risk, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.17 to 1.41; P < 0.001). Conclusions Older patients randomized to combined epidural-general anesthesia for major thoracic and abdominal surgeries had one third as much delirium but 50% more hypotension. Clinicians should consider combining epidural and general anesthesia in patients at risk of postoperative delirium, and avoiding the combination in patients at risk of hypotension. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic Postoperative delirium is common after major surgery in older patients and is associated with major short-term and long-term complications Putative causes for delirium include severe pain and high-dose opioids Epidural analgesia can provide high-quality analgesia postoperatively What This Article Tells Us That Is New In a randomized trial comparing epidural–general anesthesia versus general anesthesia alone in older patients having major surgery, delirium was less common with epidural–general anesthesia Intraoperative hypotension was more common in the epidural–general anesthesia group

Background Percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation is an analgesic technique involving the percutaneous implantation of a lead followed by the delivery of electric current using an external pulse generator. Percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation has been used extensively for chronic pain, but only uncontrolled series have been published for acute postoperative pain. The current multicenter study was undertaken to (1) determine the feasibility and optimize the protocol for a subsequent clinical trial and (2) estimate the treatment effect of percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation on postoperative pain and opioid consumption. Methods Preoperatively, an electrical lead was percutaneously implanted to target the sciatic nerve for major foot/ankle surgery ( e.g. , hallux valgus correction), the femoral nerve for anterior cruciate ligament reconstruction, or the brachial plexus for rotator cuff repair, followed by a single injection of long-acting local anesthetic along the same nerve/plexus. Postoperatively, participants were randomized to 14 days of either electrical stimulation (n = 32) or sham stimulation (n = 34) using an external pulse generator in a double-masked fashion. The dual primary treatment effect outcome measures were (1) cumulative opioid consumption (in oral morphine equivalents) and (2) mean values of the “average” daily pain scores measured on the 0 to 10 Numeric Rating Scale within the first 7 postoperative days. Results During the first 7 postoperative days, opioid consumption in participants given active stimulation was a median (interquartile range) of 5 mg (0 to 30) versus 48 mg (25 to 90) in patients given sham treatment (ratio of geometric means, 0.20 [97.5% CI, 0.07 to 0.57]; P < 0.001). During this same period, the average pain intensity in patients given active stimulation was a mean ± SD of 1.1 ± 1.1 versus 3.1 ± 1.7 in those given sham (difference, −1.8 [97.5% CI, −2.6 to −0.9]; P < 0.001). Conclusions Percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation reduced pain scores and opioid requirements free of systemic side effects during at least the initial week after ambulatory orthopedic surgery. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic Postoperative pain management relies primarily on pharmacologic approaches with limited effectiveness Peripheral nerve stimulation is effective in controlling some forms of chronic pain but has not been tested in the postoperative setting What This Article Tells Us That Is New The use of active versus sham percutaneous peripheral nerve stimulation was associated with a reduction in pain scores and opioid consumption in the first 7 days after upper and lower extremity surgery Peripheral nerve stimulation may also reduce pain’s interference with physical and emotional functioning with few side effects

Background Regional anesthesia and analgesia reduce the stress response to surgery and decrease the need for volatile anesthesia and opioids, thereby preserving cancer-specific immune defenses. This study therefore tested the primary hypothesis that combining epidural anesthesia–analgesia with general anesthesia improves recurrence-free survival after lung cancer surgery. Methods Adults scheduled for video-assisted thoracoscopic lung cancer resections were randomized 1:1 to general anesthesia and intravenous opioid analgesia or combined epidural–general anesthesia and epidural analgesia. The primary outcome was recurrence-free survival (time from surgery to the earliest date of recurrence/metastasis or all-cause death). Secondary outcomes included overall survival (time from surgery to all-cause death) and cancer-specific survival (time from surgery to cancer-specific death). Long-term outcome assessors were blinded to treatment. Results Between May 2015 and November 2017, 400 patients were enrolled and randomized to general anesthesia alone (n = 200) or combined epidural–general anesthesia (n = 200). All were included in the analysis. The median follow-up duration was 32 months (interquartile range, 24 to 48). Recurrence-free survival was similar in each group, with 54 events (27%) with general anesthesia alone versus 48 events (24%) with combined epidural–general anesthesia (adjusted hazard ratio, 0.90; 95% CI, 0.60 to 1.35; P = 0.608). Overall survival was also similar with 25 events (13%) versus 31 (16%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.12; 95% CI, 0.64 to 1.96; P = 0.697). There was also no significant difference in cancer-specific survival with 24 events (12%) versus 29 (15%; adjusted hazard ratio, 1.08; 95% CI, 0.61 to 1.91; P = 0.802). Patients assigned to combined epidural–general had more intraoperative hypotension: 94 patients (47%) versus 121 (61%; relative risk, 1.29; 95% CI, 1.07 to 1.55; P = 0.007). Conclusions Epidural anesthesia–analgesia for major lung cancer surgery did not improve recurrence-free, overall, or cancer-specific survival compared with general anesthesia alone, although the CI included both substantial benefit and harm. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic Regional anesthesia and analgesia reduces the stress of surgery and decreases the need for volatile anesthesia and opioids. Observational studies have reported mixed results with regard to the beneficial effects of regional anesthesia for cancer surgery. Recent trials have failed to demonstrate a benefit. What This Article Tells Us That Is New In a randomized trial of adults scheduled for video-assisted thoracoscopic lung cancer resection comparing combined epidural–general to general anesthesia, there was no difference between groups in recurrence-free survival time. There was also no difference in overall survival.

Background Whether supplemental oxygen worsens long-term mortality remains unclear, with contradictory trial results. The authors therefore tested the hypothesis that supplemental oxygen (80% vs. 30%) increases the hazard for long-term mortality. Methods The authors conducted a post hoc analysis of a large multiple crossover cluster trial in which more than 5,000 colorectal surgeries on 4,088 adults were allocated to receive either 30% or 80% inspired oxygen during general anesthesia. The authors assessed the effect of 80% versus 30% target-inspired oxygen on long-term mortality and calculated Kaplan–Meier survival estimates. Analysis was restricted to patients with a home address in Ohio because the authors could obtain reliable vital status information from the Ohio Department of Health (Columbus, Ohio) for them. Results A total of 3,471 qualifying colorectal surgeries performed in 2,801 patients were analyzed, including 1,753 (51%) surgeries in 1,577 patients given 80% oxygen and 1,718 surgeries in 1,551 patients given 30% oxygen. The observed incidence of death after a median of 3 yr was 13% (234 of 1,753) in the 80% oxygen group and 14% (245 of 1,718) in the 30% oxygen group. The estimated hazard ratio for mortality was 0.94 (95% CI, 0.78 to 1.13; P = 0.493). Conclusions In this post hoc analysis of a large, controlled trial, supplemental oxygen did not increase postoperative mortality. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic It remains unclear whether supplemental intraoperative oxygen (80% vs. 30%) worsens postoperative mortality. What This Article Tells Us That Is New In a post hoc analysis of a controlled trial of 3,471 colorectal surgeries, the incidence of death after a median of 3 yr of follow-up was 13% with 80% oxygen and 14% with 30% oxygen, giving an estimated hazard ratio for mortality of 0.94 (95% CI, 0.78 to 1.13; P = 0.493). Supplemental oxygen does not increase mortality.

Background Recent work suggests that having aortic valve surgery in the morning increases risk for cardiac-related complications. This study therefore explored whether mortality and cardiac complications, specifically low cardiac output syndrome, differ for morning and afternoon cardiac surgeries. Methods The study included adults who had aortic and/or mitral valve repair/replacement and/or coronary artery bypass grafting from 2011 to 2018. The components of the in-hospital composite outcome were in-hospital mortality and low cardiac output syndrome, defined by requirement for at least two inotropic agents at 24 to 48 h postoperatively or need for mechanical circulatory support. Patients who had aortic cross-clamping between 8 and 11 am (morning surgery) versus between 2 and 5 pm (afternoon surgery) were compared on the incidence of the composite outcome. Results Among 9,734 qualifying operations, 0.4% (29 of 6,859) died after morning, and 0.7% (20 of 2,875) died after afternoon surgery. The composite of in-hospital mortality and low cardiac output syndrome occurred in 2.8% (195 of 6,859) of morning patients and 3.4% (97 of 2,875) of afternoon patients: morning versus afternoon confounder-adjusted odds ratio, 0.96 (95% CI, 0.75 to 1.24; P = 0.770). There was no evidence of interaction between morning versus afternoon and surgery type ( P = 0.965), and operation time was statistically nonsignificant for surgery subgroups. Conclusions Patients having aortic valve surgery, mitral valve surgery, and/or coronary artery bypass grafting with aortic cross-clamping in the morning and afternoon did not have significantly different outcomes. No evidence was found to suggest that morning or afternoon surgical timing alters postoperative risk. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic Whether complications differ with morning and afternoon cardiac surgery remains unclear What This Article Tells Us That Is New A retrospective cohort study evaluated 9,734 patients who had aortic valve, mitral valve, and/or coronary artery bypass graft surgery over 7 yr at a single center The confounder-adjusted incidence of the composite outcome of in-hospital low cardiac output syndrome or mortality was similar for morning and afternoon surgery The results do not support selective morning or afternoon scheduling for cardiac surgery

Intraoperative hypotension is common during noncardiac surgery and associated with myocardial injury, acute kidney injury, and death. Postoperative hypotension is also common and associated with myocardial injury and death, and largely missed by conventional monitoring.

The esophagus and nasopharynx are usually the best temperature monitoring sites during general anesthesia. Alternatives suitable for neuraxial anesthesia and postoperative care include oral and axillary temperatures, along with zero-heat flux forehead temperature.

Background The Hypotension Prediction Index is a commercially available algorithm, based on arterial waveform features, that predicts hypotension defined as mean arterial pressure less than 65 mmHg for at least 1 min. We therefore tested the primary hypothesis that index guidance reduces the duration and severity of hypotension during noncardiac surgery. Methods We enrolled adults having moderate- or high-risk noncardiac surgery with invasive arterial pressure monitoring. Participating patients were randomized to hemodynamic management with or without index guidance. Clinicians caring for patients assigned to guidance were alerted when the index exceeded 85 (range, 0 to 100) and a treatment algorithm based on advanced hemodynamic parameters suggested vasopressor administration, fluid administration, inotrope administration, or observation. Primary outcome was the amount of hypotension, defined as time-weighted average mean arterial pressure less than 65 mmHg. Secondary outcomes were time-weighted mean pressures less than 60 and 55 mmHg. Results Among 214 enrolled patients, guidance was provided for 105 (49%) patients randomly assigned to the index guidance group. The median (first quartile, third quartile) time-weighted average mean arterial pressure less than 65 mmHg was 0.14 (0.03, 0.37) in guided patients versus 0.14 (0.03, 0.39) mmHg in unguided patients: median difference (95% CI) of 0 (–0.03 to 0.04), P = 0.757. Index guidance therefore did not reduce amount of hypotension less than 65 mmHg, nor did it reduce hypotension less than 60 or 55 mmHg. Post hoc , guidance was associated with less hypotension when analysis was restricted to episodes during which clinicians intervened. Conclusions In this pilot trial, index guidance did not reduce the amount of intraoperative hypotension. Half of the alerts were not followed by treatment, presumably due to short warning time, complex treatment algorithm, or clinicians ignoring the alert. In the future we plan to use a lower index alert threshold and a simpler treatment algorithm that emphasizes prompt treatment. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic Hypotension prediction algorithms commonly use arterial waveform features derived from arterial blood pressure monitoring. Whether they reduce the duration and severity of hypotension, especially in noncardiac surgery, is unknown. What This Article Tells Us That Is New Of 214 noncardiac surgical patients, 105 (49%) patients randomized to management with a hypotension prediction algorithm, intraoperative hypotension was not reduced compared with controls. A lower alert threshold enabling adequate warning time and a simpler treatment algorithm that emphasizes prompt treatment after alert may help.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text.

Background Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers improve cognitive function. The authors therefore tested the primary hypothesis that preoperative use of angiotensin inhibitors is associated with less delirium in critical care patients. Post hoc , the association between postoperative use of angiotensin system inhibitors and delirium was assessed. Methods The authors conducted a single-site cohort study of adults admitted to Cleveland Clinic critical care units after noncardiac procedures between 2013 and 2018 who had at least one Confusion Assessment Method delirium assessment. Patients with preexisting dementia, Alzheimer’s disease or other cognitive decline, and patients who had neurosurgical procedures were excluded. For the primary analysis, the confounder-adjusted association between preoperative angiotensin inhibitor use and the incidence of postoperative delirium was assessed. Post hoc , the confounder-adjusted association between postoperative angiotensin system inhibitor use and the incidence of delirium was assessed. Results The incidence of delirium was 39% (551 of 1,396) among patients who were treated preoperatively with angiotensin system inhibitors and 39% (1,344 of 3,468) in patients who were not. The adjusted odds ratio of experiencing delirium during critical care was 0.98 (95% CI, 0.86 to 1.10; P = 0.700) for preoperative use of angiotensin system inhibitors versus control. Delirium was observed in 23% (100 of 440) of patients who used angiotensin system inhibitors postoperatively before intensive care discharge, and in 41% (1,795 of 4,424) of patients who did not (unadjusted P < 0.001). The confounder-adjusted odds ratio for experiencing delirium in patients who used angiotensin system inhibitors postoperatively was 0.55 (95% CI, 0.43 to 0.72; P < 0.001). Conclusions Preoperative use of angiotensin system inhibitors is not associated with reduced postoperative delirium. In contrast, treatment during intensive care was associated with lower odds of delirium. Randomized trials of postoperative angiotensin-converting enzymes inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers seem justified. Editor’s Perspective What We Already Know about This Topic Postoperative delirium is common in surgical intensive care patients Angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers improve cognitive function What This Article Tells Us That Is New In a single-center cohort study of adults admitted to a surgical intensive care unit, preoperative use of angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers was not associated with reduced postoperative delirium However, rapidly starting angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin receptor blockers postoperatively was associated with reduced delirium