Cristina Santonocito

Cardiac surgery is continuously evolving, with increasing skills required by the cardiac anaesthesiologist. Following the advent of intraoperative echocardiography, we are witnessing a potential new revolution for the cardiac anaesthesiologist. A new era has indeed started with the implementation of thoracic fascial blocks (TFBs) in the field of cardiac surgery. TFBs provide several advantages in the context of multimodal analgesia, with improved pain control and reduction of the side effects related to large doses of opioids. We envisage that implementation of TFBs is likely to become a pivotal concept in the field of enhanced recovery after cardiac surgery. We describe the main TFBs for the anterior and/or antero-lateral chest wall, and their peculiar use in cardiac surgery. In particular, we discuss indications and tips and tricks to enhance clinical results for the following blocks: (1) Pecto-Intercostal Plane (superficial and deep); (2) Rectus Sheath; (3) Interpectoral Plane and Pectoserratus Plane; (4) Serratus Anterior Plane; (5) Erector Spinae Plane. Nonetheless, the scientific evidence for the use of TFBs in the field of cardiac anaesthesia is not robust yet, mostly based on small-sized single-centre studies, making it difficult to achieve a high quality of evidence. Further, it remains unclear which cardiac surgery patients may benefit the most from these techniques.

Echocardiography is crucial for evaluating patients at risk of clinical deterioration. Left ventricular ejection fraction (LVEF) and velocity time integral (VTI) aid in diagnosing shock, but bedside calculations can be time-consuming and prone to variability. Artificial intelligence technology shows promise in providing assistance to clinicians performing point-of-care echocardiography. We conducted a systematic review, utilizing a comprehensive literature search on PubMed, to evaluate the interchangeability of LVEF and/or VTI measurements obtained through automated mode as compared to the echocardiographic reference methods in non-cardiology settings, e.g., Simpson´s method (LVEF) or manual trace (VTI). Eight studies were included, four studying automated-LVEF, three automated-VTI, and one both. When reported, the feasibility of automated measurements ranged from 78.4 to 93.3%. The automated-LVEF had a mean bias ranging from 0 to 2.9% for experienced operators and from 0% to -10.2% for non-experienced ones, but in both cases, with wide limits of agreement (LoA). For the automated-VTI, the mean bias ranged between − 1.7 cm and − 1.9 cm. The correlation between automated and reference methods for automated-LVEF ranged between 0.63 and 0.86 for experienced and between 0.56 and 0.81 for non-experienced operators. Only one study reported a correlation between automated-VTI and manual VTI (0.86 for experienced and 0.79 for non-experienced operators). We found limited studies reporting the interchangeability of automated LVEF or VTI measurements versus a reference approach. The accuracy and precision of these automated methods should be considered within the clinical context and decision-making. Such variability could be acceptable, especially in the hands of trained operators. PROSPERO number CRD42024564868.

Background: Simulation offers the opportunity to train healthcare professionals in complex scenarios, such as those with as traumatized patients. Methods: We conducted an observational cross-sectional research simulating trauma with cervical immobilization. We compared five techniques/devices: direct laryngoscopy (DL), videolaryngoscopy (VLS, Glidescope or McGrath), combined laryngo-bronchoscopy intubation (CLBI) and articulating video stylet (ProVu). The primary outcomes were as follows: (1) success rate (SR) by third attempt (each lasting up to 60 s), and (2) corrected time-to-intubation (cTTI, accounting for failed attempts). Results: In a single center, we enrolled 42 consultants experienced in DL/VLS, but reporting no experience with ProVu, and hypothesized that ProVu would have offered encouraging performances. By the third attempt, ProVu had a SR of 73.8%, identical to Glidescope (p = 1.00) and inferior only to McGrath (97.6%; p = 0.003). The cTTI (seconds) of ProVu (57.5 [45–174]) was similar to Glidescope (51.2 [29–159]; p = 0.391), inferior to DL and McGrath (31.0 [22–46]; p = 0.001; and 49.6 [27–88]; p = 0.014, respectively), and superior to CLBI (157.5 [41–180]; p = 0.023). Conclusions: In consultants with no experience, as compared to DL and VLS, the video stylet ProVu showed encouraging results under simulated circumstances of cervical immobilization. The results should be interpreted in light of the participants being novices to ProVu and skilled in DL/VLS. Adequate training is required before the clinical introduction of any airway device.

Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (ECPR) is a complex, life-saving procedure that uses mechanical support for patients with refractory cardiac arrest, representing the pinnacle of extracorporeal membrane oxygenation (ECMO) applications. Effective ECPR requires precise patient selection, rapid mobilization of a multidisciplinary team, and skilled cannulation techniques. Establishing a program necessitates a cohesive ECMO system that promotes interdisciplinary collaboration, which is essential for managing acute cardiogenic shock and severe pulmonary failure. ECPR is suited for selected patients, emphasizing the need to optimize every step of cardiac arrest management—from public education to advanced post-resuscitation care. The flexibility of ECMO teams allows them to manage various emergencies such as cardiogenic shock, massive pulmonary embolism, and severe asthma, showcasing the program’s adaptability. Launching an ECPR program involves addressing logistical, financial, and organizational challenges. This includes gaining administrative approval, assembling a diverse team, and crafting detailed protocols and training regimens. The development process entails organizing teams, refining protocols, and training extensively to ensure operational readiness. A systematic approach to building an ECPR program involves establishing a team, defining patient selection criteria, and evaluating caseloads. Critical elements like patient transport protocols and anticoagulation management are vital for the program’s success. In conclusion, initiating an ECPR program demands thorough planning, collaborative effort across specialties, and ongoing evaluation to improve outcomes in critical cardiac emergencies. This guide offers practical insights to support institutions in navigating the complexities of ECPR program development and maintenance.

Millions of critically ill patients are discharged from intensive care units (ICUs) every year. These ICU survivors may suffer from a condition known as post-intensive care syndrome (PICS) which includes a wide range of cognitive, psychological, and physical impairments. This article will provide an extensive review of PICS. ICU survivors may experience cognitive deficits in memory and attention, with a slow-down of mental processing and problem-solving. From psychological perspectives, depression, anxiety, and post-traumatic stress disorder are the most common issues suffered after ICU discharge. These psycho-cognitive impairments might be coupled with ICU-acquired weakness (polyneuropathy and/or myopathy), further reducing the quality of life, the ability to return to work, and other daily activities. The burden of ICU survivors extends to families too, leading to the so-called PICS-family (or PICS-F), which entails the psychological impairments suffered by the family and, in particular, by the caregiver of the ICU survivor. The development of PICS (and PICS-F) is likely multifactorial, and both patient- and ICU-related factors may influence it. Whilst the prevention of PICS is complex, it is important to identify the patients at higher risk of PICS, and clinicians should be aware of the tools available for diagnosis. Stakeholders should implement strategies to achieve PICS prevention and to support its effective treatment during the recovery phase with dedicated pathways and supporting care.

Background: Propofol is the most commonly used hypnotic agent used during sedation and general anesthesia (GA) practice, offering faster recovery compared to benzodiazepines. However, cardiovascular impact of propofol and pain at injection are commonly encountered side effects. Ciprofol is a novel disubstituted phenol derivative, and there is growing evidence regarding its clinical use.Methods: We conducted a systematic literature search (updated on 23 July 2023) to evaluate safety and efficacy of ciprofol in comparison to propofol in patients undergoing procedures under sedation or GA. We focused on randomized controlled trials (RCTs) only, extrapolating data on onset and offset, and on the side effects and the pain at injection.Results: The search revealed 14 RCTs, all conducted in China. Eight RCTs studied patients undergoing sedation, and six focused on GA. Bolus of ciprofol for sedation or induction of GA varied from 0.2 to 0.5 mg/kg. In four studies using ciprofol for maintenance of GA, it was 0.8–2.4 mg/kg/h. Ciprofol pharmacokinetics seemed characterized by slower onset and offset as compared to propofol. Pain during injection was less frequent in the ciprofol group in all the 13 studies reporting it. Eight studies reported “adverse events” as a pooled outcome, and in five cases, the incidence was higher in the propofol group, not different in the remaining ones. Occurrence of hypotension was the most commonly investigated side effects, and it seemed less frequent with ciprofol.Conclusion: Ciprofol for sedation or GA may be safer than propofol, though its pharmacokinetics may be less advantageous.Graphical

Simulation for airway management allows for acquaintance with new devices and techniques. Endotracheal intubation (ETI), most commonly performed with direct laryngoscopy (DL) or video laryngoscopy (VLS), can be achieved also with combined laryngo-bronchoscopy intubation (CLBI). Finally, an articulating video stylet (ProVu) has been recently introduced. A single-center observational cross-sectional study was performed in a normal simulated airway scenario comparing DL, VLS-Glidescope, VLS-McGrath, CLBI and ProVu regarding the success rate (SR) and corrected time-to-intubation (cTTI, which accounts for the SR). Up to three attempts/device were allowed (maximum of 60 s each). Forty-two consultants with no experience with ProVu participated (15 ± 9 years after training completion). The DL was significantly faster (cTTI) than all other devices (p = 0.033 vs. VLSs, and p < 0.001 for CLBI and Provu), no differences were seen between the two VLSs (p = 0.775), and the VLSs were faster than CLBI and ProVu. Provu had a faster cTTI than CLBI (p = 0.004). The DL and VLSs showed similar SRs, and all the laryngoscopes had a higher SR than CLBI and ProVu at the first attempt. However, by the third attempt, the SR was not different between the DL/VLSs and ProVu (p = 0.241/p = 0.616); ProVu was superior to CLBI (p = 0.038). In consultants with no prior experience, ProVu shows encouraging results compared to DL/VLSs under simulated normal airway circumstances and further studies are warranted.