Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthésie
-
Increasingly, clinicians and researchers recognize that studies of interventions need to evaluate not only their therapeutic efficacy (i.e., the effect on an outcome in ideal, controlled settings) but also their real-world effectiveness in broad, unselected patient groups. Effectiveness trials inform clinical practice by comparing variations in therapeutic approaches that fall within the standard of care. In this article, we discuss the need for studies of comparative effectiveness in anesthesia and the limitations of individual patient randomized-controlled trials in determining comparative effectiveness. We introduce the concept of randomized cluster crossover trials as a means of answering questions of comparative effectiveness in anesthesia, using the design of the Benzodiazepine-Free Cardiac Anesthesia for Reduction in Postoperative Delirium (B-Free) trial (Clinicaltrials.gov identifier NCT03053869).
-
Comparative Study Observational Study
The effects of systemic oxygenation on cerebral oxygen saturation and its relationship to mixed venous oxygen saturation: A prospective observational study comparison of the INVOS and ForeSight Elite cerebral oximeters.
The present study aimed to test the hypothesis that cerebral oxygen saturation (ScO2) measurements with the INVOS-5100-C and the ForeSight-Elite cerebral oximeters vary in their correlation with mixed venous oxygen saturation (SvO2) upon changes in systemic oxygenation in extubated cardiac surgical patients. Additionally, we aimed to elucidate whether the ScO2 measurements of both devices can be used interchangeably to detect reduced SvO2. ⋯ These findings suggest that the cerebral oximeters tested react differently to variations in systemic oxygenation and in their relationship with SvO2 and thus give different information on cardiopulmonary function. These findings raise doubt about whether these devices should be used interchangeably.
-
The influence of obesity on anesthetic risk remains controversial, and obesity has only recently been specifically identified as a criterion by which a patient can be given a higher American Society of Anesthesiologists-physical status (ASA-PS) score. Nevertheless, we hypothesized that clinicians had assigned obese patients a greater ASA-PS score before obesity became an "official" criterion in 2015. ⋯ These findings suggest a consistent and temporally stable practice of up-coding obese patients despite this lack of explicit guidance. The ASA House of Delegates' recent decision to specifically mention obesity reinforces long-existing practices regarding ASA-PS coding and will likely not degrade the validity of data sets collected before the change.