Karen Hovhannisyan

Background: Compared to the general population, patients with alcohol and drug addiction have an increased risk of additional hazardous lifestyles and suffer from more chronic diseases, adding to their already significantly higher morbidity and mortality. The objective of this study was to test the efficacy of the Very Integrated Program (VIP) on treatment and health outcomes for patients diagnosed with alcohol and drug addiction.Methods: Parallel randomized clinical trial with intervention as add‐on to addiction care as usual. A total of 322 patients aged 18 years or older were identified, and the study requirements were fulfilled by 219 patients, 7 of whom participated in a pilot. The intervention was a 6‐week intensive, tailored, educational program that included motivational interviewing, a smoking cessation program, dietary and physical activity counseling, and patient education. The main outcome measures were substance‐free days, time to relapse, and treatment adherence assessed after 6 weeks and 12 months. Secondary outcomes were lifestyle factors, symptoms of comorbidity, and quality of life. Missing data were imputed conservatively by using data closest to the follow‐up date and baseline values in patients with no follow‐up.Results: The 212 patients (intervention, n = 113; control, n = 99) were randomized, and 202 had complete data for primary outcomes. After 6 weeks, there were no significant differences between the groups regarding primary or secondary outcomes. At the 12‐month follow‐up, the patients in the control group had significantly more total substance‐free days (139 days; ranging 0 to 365 vs. 265; 0 to 366, p = 0.021)—specifically among the patients with drug addiction—and higher physical and mental quality of life (45 vs. 58, p = 0.049 and 54 vs. 66, p = 0.037), but not in the per‐protocol analysis (60 vs. 46, p = 0.52 and 70 vs. 66, p = 0.74). The sensitivity analyses did not support significant differences between the groups.Conclusion: Overall, adding VIP intervention did not improve outcome of the alcohol or drug addiction care or the lifestyle compared to the addiction care alone. This patient group is still in need of effective programs, and new intervention research is required to develop that.

Meeting adherence is an important element of compliance in treatment programmes. It is influenced by several factors one being self-efficacy. We aimed to investigate the association between self-efficacy and meeting adherence and other factors of importance for adherence among patients with alcohol and drug addiction who were undergoing an intensive lifestyle intervention. The intervention consisted of a 6-week Very Integrated Programme. High meeting adherence was defined as >75% participation. The association between self-efficacy and meeting adherence were analysed. The qualitative analyses identified themes important for the patients and were performed as text condensation. High self-efficacy was associated with high meeting adherence (ρ = 0.24, p = 0.03). In the multivariate analyses two variables were significant: avoid complications (OR: 0.51, 95% CI: 0.29–0.90) and self-efficacy (OR: 1.28, 95% CI: 1.00–1.63). Reflections on lifestyle change resulted in the themes of Health and Wellbeing, Personal Economy, Acceptance of Change, and Emotions Related to Lifestyle Change. A higher level of self-efficacy was positively associated with meeting adherence. Patients score high on avoiding complications but then adherence to the intervention drops. There was no difference in the reflections on lifestyle change between the group with high adherence and the group with low adherence.

Summary: Although bedside screening tests are routinely used to identify people at high risk of having a difficult airway, their clinical utility is unclear. We estimated the diagnostic accuracy of commonly used bedside examination tests for assessing the airway in adult patients without apparent anatomical abnormalities scheduled to undergo general anaesthesia. We searched for studies that reported our pre‐specified bedside index screening tests against a reference standard, published in any language, from date of inception to 16 December 2016, in seven bibliographic databases. We included 133 studies (127 cohort type and 6 case–control) involving 844,206 participants. Overall, their methodological quality (according to QUADAS ‐2, a standard tool for assessing quality of diagnostic accuracy studies) was moderate to high. Our pre‐specified tests were: the Mallampati test (6 studies); modified Mallampati test (105 studies); Wilson risk score (6 studies); thyromental distance (52 studies); sternomental distance (18 studies); mouth opening test (34 studies); and the upper lip bite test (30 studies). Difficult facemask ventilation, difficult laryngoscopy, difficult intubation and failed intubation were the reference standards in seven, 92, 50 and two studies, respectively. Across all reference standards, we found all index tests had relatively low sensitivities, with high variability, but specificities were consistently and markedly higher than sensitivities. For difficult laryngoscopy, the sensitivity and specificity (95% CI ) of the upper lip bite test were 0.67 (0.45–0.83) and 0.92 (0.86–0.95), respectively; upper lip bite test sensitivity (95% CI ) was significantly higher than that for the mouth opening test (0.22, 0.13–0.33; p < 0.001). For difficult tracheal intubation, the modified Mallampati test had a significantly higher sensitivity (95% CI ) at 0.51 (0.40–0.61) compared with mouth opening (0.27, 0.16–0.41; p < 0.001) and thyromental distance (0.24, 0.12–0.43; p < 0.001). Although the upper lip bite test showed the most favourable diagnostic test accuracy properties, none of the common bedside screening tests is well suited for detecting unanticipated difficult airways, as many of them are missed.

Background Most patients with alcohol and drug addiction have other risky lifestyles and non-communicable diseases (NCDs), adding to their morbidity and pre-mortality. Those are, however, potentially preventable. The aim was to identify and compare the patients in treatment for alcohol and drug addiction and identify important factors for high risk. Methods Data was collected prospectively by interviews, questionnaires, examinations and laboratory tests regarding demographics, smoking, overweight, malnutrition, sedentary lifestyle, heart, lung and liver diseases, diabetes and quality of life. High-risk was identified by >2 NCDs and risky lifestyles. Results 322 (192 and 130) patients participated, aged 52 years in median (ranging 24-80) and 67% men. Only 7% had no other risky lifestyles and NCDs. 62% were smokers, 11% in risk of malnutrition, 36% physical inactive and BMI was 27 (17-50). Furthermore, 41% had cardiovascular illness, 27% liver and 25% respiratory diseases, and 7% diabetes. After adjustment for confounders, drug addiction was significantly associated to younger age (46 vs. 56 years; OR 0.92 [CI 0.89-0.94]), unemployment (85% vs 66%; 0.35 [0.17-0.72]) and liver disease (49% vs. 12%; 0.21 [0.11-0.40]). The high-risk group was significantly older and more often unemployed. Health-related quality of life was not different between the groups. Conclusion The large majority of patients in treatment for alcohol and drug addiction have common risky lifestyles and NCD comorbidity. They also have similar conditions, including quality of life. This may be important when planning a future very intergrated program (VIP) of health promotion.

Background The unanticipated difficult airway is a potentially life‐threatening event during anaesthesia or acute conditions. An unsuccessfully managed upper airway is associated with serious morbidity and mortality. Several bedside screening tests are used in clinical practice to identify those at high risk of difficult airway. Their accuracy and benefit however, remains unclear. Objectives The objective of this review was to characterize and compare the diagnostic accuracy of the Mallampati classification and other commonly used airway examination tests for assessing the physical status of the airway in adult patients with no apparent anatomical airway abnormalities. We performed this individually for each of the four descriptors of the difficult airway: difficult face mask ventilation, difficult laryngoscopy, difficult tracheal intubation, and failed intubation. Search methods We searched major electronic databases including CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, ISI Web of Science, CINAHL, as well as regional, subject specific, and dissertation and theses databases from inception to 16 December 2016, without language restrictions. In addition, we searched the Science Citation Index and checked the references of all the relevant studies. We also handsearched selected journals, conference proceedings, and relevant guidelines. We updated this search in March 2018, but we have not yet incorporated these results. Selection criteria We considered full‐text diagnostic test accuracy studies of any individual index test, or a combination of tests, against a reference standard. Participants were adults without obvious airway abnormalities, who were having laryngoscopy performed with a standard laryngoscope and the trachea intubated with a standard tracheal tube. Index tests included the Mallampati test, modified Mallampati test, Wilson risk score, thyromental distance, sternomental distance, mouth opening test, upper lip bite test, or any combination of these. The target condition was difficult airway, with one of the following reference standards: difficult face mask ventilation, difficult laryngoscopy, difficult tracheal intubation, and failed intubation. Data collection and analysis We performed screening and selection of the studies, data extraction and assessment of methodological quality (using QUADAS‐2) independently and in duplicate. We designed a Microsoft Access database for data collection and used Review Manager 5 and R for data analysis. For each index test and each reference standard, we assessed sensitivity and specificity. We produced forest plots and summary receiver operating characteristic (ROC) plots to summarize the data. Where possible, we performed meta‐analyses to calculate pooled estimates and compare test accuracy indirectly using bivariate models. We investigated heterogeneity and performed sensitivity analyses. Main results We included 133 (127 cohort type and 6 case‐control) studies involving 844,206 participants. We evaluated a total of seven different prespecified index tests in the 133 studies, as well as 69 non‐prespecified, and 32 combinations. For the prespecified index tests, we found six studies for the Mallampati test, 105 for the modified Mallampati test, six for the Wilson risk score, 52 for thyromental distance, 18 for sternomental distance, 34 for the mouth opening test, and 30 for the upper lip bite test. Difficult face mask ventilation was the reference standard in seven studies, difficult laryngoscopy in 92 studies, difficult tracheal intubation in 50 studies, and failed intubation in two studies. Across all studies, we judged the risk of bias to be variable for the different domains; we mostly observed low risk of bias for patient selection, flow and timing, and unclear risk of bias for reference standard and index test. Applicability concerns were generally low for all domains. For difficult laryngoscopy, the summary sensitivity ranged from 0.22 (95% confidence interval (CI) 0.13 to 0.33; mouth opening test) to 0.67 (95% CI 0.45 to 0.83; upper lip bite test) and the summary specificity ranged from 0.80 (95% CI 0.74 to 0.85; modified Mallampati test) to 0.95 (95% CI 0.88 to 0.98; Wilson risk score). The upper lip bite test for diagnosing difficult laryngoscopy provided the highest sensitivity compared to the other tests (P < 0.001). For difficult tracheal intubation, summary sensitivity ranged from 0.24 (95% CI 0.12 to 0.43; thyromental distance) to 0.51 (95% CI 0.40 to 0.61; modified Mallampati test) and the summary specificity ranged from 0.87 (95% CI 0.82 to 0.91; modified Mallampati test) to 0.93 (0.87 to 0.96; mouth opening test). The modified Mallampati test had the highest sensitivity for diagnosing difficult tracheal intubation compared to the other tests (P < 0.001). For difficult face mask ventilation, we could only estimate summary sensitivity (0.17, 95% CI 0.06 to 0.39) and specificity (0.90, 95% CI 0.81 to 0.95) for the modified Mallampati test. Authors' conclusions Bedside airway examination tests, for assessing the physical status of the airway in adults with no apparent anatomical airway abnormalities, are designed as screening tests. Screening tests are expected to have high sensitivities. We found that all investigated index tests had relatively low sensitivities with high variability. In contrast, specificities were consistently and markedly higher than sensitivities across all tests. The standard bedside airway examination tests should be interpreted with caution, as they do not appear to be good screening tests. Among the tests we examined, the upper lip bite test showed the most favourable diagnostic test accuracy properties. Given the paucity of available data, future research is needed to develop tests with high sensitivities to make them useful, and to consider their use for screening difficult face mask ventilation and failed intubation. The 27 studies in 'Studies awaiting classification'...

Surgical quality registries: large room for improvement if they should be used for analyses of life style risk factors and the effect of preoperative initiatives on postoperative complications Tobacco, alcohol, malnutrition, overweight and physical inactivity increase postoperative morbidity. Preoperative intervention has been shown to improve the outcome significantly. The aim was to investigate if these lifestyle risk factors were reported in the Swedish national surgical quality registries together with preoperative interventions and postoperative complications. Altogether, 44 registers reporting on surgical procedures were identified. Preoperative documentation existed in about half of the registries, but relevant health promoting intervention was not documented. Postoperative complications were reported with varying degrees. No registry had complete reporting of preoperative lifestyle risk factors, related intervention and postoperative complications. For most registries, there is a large room for improvement if they should be used for analyses of risk factors and the effect of implementation of preoperative initiatives on postoperative complications.

This is an update of a review last published in Issue 9, 2009, of The Cochrane Library. Pulse oximetry is used extensively in the perioperative period and might improve patient outcomes by enabling early diagnosis and, consequently, correction of perioperative events that might cause postoperative complications or even death. Only a few randomized clinical trials of pulse oximetry during anaesthesia and in the recovery room have been performed that describe perioperative hypoxaemic events, postoperative cardiopulmonary complications and cognitive dysfunction. To study the use of perioperative monitoring with pulse oximetry to clearly identify adverse outcomes that might be prevented or improved by its use.The following hypotheses were tested.1. Use of pulse oximetry is associated with improvement in the detection and treatment of hypoxaemia.2. Early detection and treatment of hypoxaemia reduce morbidity and mortality in the perioperative period.3. Use of pulse oximetry per se reduces morbidity and mortality in the perioperative period.4. Use of pulse oximetry reduces unplanned respiratory admissions to the intensive care unit (ICU), decreases the length of ICU readmission or both. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (2013, Issue 5), MEDLINE (1966 to June 2013), EMBASE (1980 to June 2013), CINAHL (1982 to June 2013), ISI Web of Science (1956 to June 2013), LILACS (1982 to June 2013) and databases of ongoing trials; we also checked the reference lists of trials and review articles. The original search was performed in January 2005, and a previous update was performed in May 2009. We included all controlled trials that randomly assigned participants to pulse oximetry or no pulse oximetry during the perioperative period. Two review authors independently assessed data in relation to events detectable by pulse oximetry, any serious complications that occurred during anaesthesia or in the postoperative period and intraoperative or postoperative mortality. The last update of the review identified five eligible studies. The updated search found one study that is awaiting assessment but no additional eligible studies. We considered studies with data from a total of 22,992 participants that were eligible for analysis. These studies gave insufficient detail on the methods used for randomization and allocation concealment. It was impossible for study personnel to be blinded to participant allocation in the study, as they needed to be able to respond to oximetry readings. Appropriate steps were taken to minimize detection bias for hypoxaemia and complication outcomes. Results indicated that hypoxaemia was reduced in the pulse oximetry group, both in the operating theatre and in the recovery room. During observation in the recovery room, the incidence of hypoxaemia in the pulse oximetry group was 1.5 to three times less. Postoperative cognitive function was independent of perioperative monitoring with pulse oximetry. A single study in general surgery showed that postoperative complications occurred in 10% of participants in the oximetry group and in 9.4% of those in the control group. No statistically significant differences in cardiovascular, respiratory, neurological or infectious complications were detected in the two groups. The duration of hospital stay was a median of five days in both groups, and equal numbers of in-hospital deaths were reported in the two groups. Continuous pulse oximetry has the potential to increase vigilance and decrease pulmonary complications after cardiothoracic surgery; however, routine continuous monitoring did not reduce transfer to an ICU and did not decrease overall mortality. These studies confirmed that pulse oximetry can detect hypoxaemia and related events. However, we found no evidence that pulse oximetry affects the outcome of anaesthesia for patients. The conflicting subjective and objective study results, despite an intense methodical collection of data from a relatively large general surgery population, indicate that the value of perioperative monitoring with pulse oximetry is questionable in relation to improved reliable outcomes, effectiveness and efficiency. Routine continuous pulse oximetry monitoring did not reduce transfer to the ICU and did not decrease mortality, and it is unclear whether any real benefit was derived from the application of this technology for patients recovering from cardiothoracic surgery in a general care area.

Various methods have been used to try to protect kidney function in patients undergoing surgery. These most often include pharmacological interventions such as dopamine and its analogues, diuretics, calcium channel blockers, angiotensin-converting enzyme (ACE) inhibitors, N-acetyl cysteine (NAC), atrial natriuretic peptide (ANP), sodium bicarbonate, antioxidants and erythropoietin (EPO). This review is aimed at determining the effectiveness of various measures advocated to protect patients' kidneys during the perioperative period.We considered the following questions: (1) Are any specific measures known to protect kidney function during the perioperative period? (2) Of measures used to protect the kidneys during the perioperative period, does any one method appear to be more effective than the others? (3) Of measures used to protect the kidneys during the perioperative period,does any one method appear to be safer than the others? In this updated review, we searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library, Issue 2, 2012), MEDLINE (Ovid SP) (1966 to August 2012) and EMBASE (Ovid SP) (1988 to August 2012). We originally handsearched six journals (Anesthesia and Analgesia, Anesthesiology, Annals of Surgery, British Journal of Anaesthesia, Journal of Thoracic and Cardiovascular Surgery, and Journal of Vascular Surgery) (1985 to 2004). However, because these journals are properly indexed in MEDLINE, we decided to rely on electronic searches only without handsearching the journals from 2004 onwards. We selected all randomized controlled trials in adults undergoing surgery for which a treatment measure was used for the purpose of providing renal protection during the perioperative period. We selected 72 studies for inclusion in this review. Two review authors extracted data from all selected studies and entered them into RevMan 5.1; then the data were appropriately analysed. We performed subgroup analyses for type of intervention, type of surgical procedure and pre-existing renal dysfunction. We undertook sensitivity analyses for studies with high and moderately good methodological quality. The updated review included data from 72 studies, comprising a total of 4378 participants. Of these, 2291 received some form of treatment and 2087 acted as controls. The interventions consisted most often of different pharmaceutical agents, such as dopamine and its analogues, diuretics, calcium channel blockers, ACE inhibitors, NAC, ANP, sodium bicarbonate, antioxidants and EPO or selected hydration fluids. Some clinical heterogeneity and varying risk of bias were noted amongst the studies, although we were able to meaningfully interpret the data. Results showed significant heterogeneity and indicated that most interventions provided no benefit.Data on perioperative mortality were reported in 41 studies and data on acute renal injury in 44 studies (all interventions combined). Because of considerable clinical heterogeneity (different clinical scenarios, as well as considerable methodological variability amongst the studies), we did not perform a meta-analysis on the combined data.Subgroup analysis of major interventions and surgical procedures showed no significant influence of interventions on reported mortality and acute renal injury. For the subgroup of participants who had pre-existing renal damage, the risk of mortality from 10 trials (959 participants) was estimated as odds ratio (OR) 0.76, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.38 to 1.52; the risk of acute renal injury (as reported in the trials) was estimated from 11 trials (979 participants) as OR 0.43, 95% CI 0.23 to 0.80. Subgroup analysis of studies that were rated as having low risk of bias revealed that 19 studies reported mortality numbers (1604 participants); OR was 1.01, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.90. Fifteen studies reported data on acute renal injury (criteria chosen by the individual studies; 1600 participants); OR was 1.03, 95% CI 0.54 to 1.97. No reliable evidence from the available literature suggests that interventions during surgery can protect the kidneys from damage. However, the criteria used to diagnose acute renal damage varied in many of the older studies selected for inclusion in this review, many of which suffered from poor methodological quality such as insufficient participant numbers and poor definitions of end points such as acute renal failure and acute renal injury. Recent methods of detecting renal damage such as the use of specific biomarkers and better defined criteria for identifying renal damage (RIFLE (risk, injury, failure, loss of kidney function and end-stage renal failure) or AKI (acute kidney injury)) may have to be explored further to determine any possible benefit derived from interventions used to protect the kidneys during the perioperative period.

Pulse oximetry is extensively used in the perioperative period and might improve patient outcomes by enabling an early diagnosis and, consequently, correction of perioperative events that might cause postoperative complications or even death. Only a few randomized clinical trials of pulse oximetry during anaesthesia and in the recovery room have been performed that describe perioperative hypoxaemic events, postoperative cardiopulmonary complications, and cognitive dysfunction. The objective of this review was to assess the effects of perioperative monitoring with pulse oximetry and to clearly identify the adverse outcomes that might be prevented or improved by the use of pulse oximetry. We searched the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL) (The Cochrane Library 2009, Issue 2), MEDLINE (1966 to May 2009), EMBASE (1980 to May 2009), CINAHL (1982 to May 2009), ISI Web of Science (1956 to May 2009), LILACS (1982 to May 2009), and databases of ongoing trials; and checked the reference lists of trials and review articles. We included all controlled trials that randomized patients to either pulse oximetry or no pulse oximetry during the perioperative period. Two authors independently assessed data in relation to events detectable by pulse oximetry, any serious complications that occurred during anaesthesia or in the postoperative period, and intra- or postoperative mortality. Searching identified five reports. We considered the studies with data from a total of 22,992 patients that were eligible for analysis. Results indicated that hypoxaemia was reduced in the pulse oximetry group, both in the operating theatre and in the recovery room. During observation in the recovery room, the incidence of hypoxaemia in the pulse oximetry group was 1.5 to three times less. Postoperative cognitive function was independent of perioperative monitoring with pulse oximetry. The one study in general surgery showed that postoperative complications occurred in 10% of the patients in the oximetry group and in 9.4% in the control group. No statistically significant differences were detected in cardiovascular, respiratory, neurologic, or infectious complications in the two groups. The duration of hospital stay was a median of five days in both groups, and an equal number of in-hospital deaths was registered in the two groups. Continuous pulse oximetry has the potential to increase vigilance and decrease pulmonary complications after cardiothoracic surgery, however routine continuous monitoring did not reduce transfer to an intensive care unit (ICU) or overall mortality. The studies confirmed that pulse oximetry can detect hypoxaemia and related events. However, we have found no evidence that pulse oximetry affects the outcome of anaesthesia for patients. The conflicting subjective and objective results of the studies, despite an intense methodical collection of data from a relatively large general surgery population, indicate that the value of perioperative monitoring with pulse oximetry is questionable in relation to improved reliable outcomes, effectiveness, and efficiency. Routine continuous pulse oximetry monitoring did not reduce either transfer to ICU or mortality, and it is unclear if there is any real benefit from the application of this technology in patients who are recovering from cardiothoracic surgery in a general care area.