Extubation Parameters and Postoperative Sore Throat ,

Society for Perioperative Assessment and Quality Improvement (SPAQI) Consensus Statement on Perioperative Smoking Cessation Smokers are at increased risk for surgical complications. Despite the known benefits of smoking cessation, many perioperative health care providers do not routinely provide smoking cessation interventions. The variation in delivery of perioperative smoking cessation interventions may be due to limited high-level evidence for whether smoking cessation interventions used in the general population are effective and feasible in the surgical population, as well as the challenges and barriers to implementation of interventions. Yet smoking is a potentially modifiable risk factor for improving short- and long-term patient outcomes. The purpose of the Society for Perioperative Assessment and Quality Improvement (SPAQI) Consensus Statement on Perioperative Smoking Cessation is to present recommendations based on current scientific evidence in surgical patients. These statements address questions regarding the timing and intensity of interventions, roles of perioperative health care providers, and behavioral and pharmacological interventions. Barriers and strategies to overcome challenges surrounding implementation of interventions and future areas of research are identified. These statements are based on the current state of knowledge and its interpretation by a multidisciplinary group of experts at the time of publication. Accepted for publication September 18, 2019. Funding: None. Conflicts of Interest: See Disclosures at the end of the article. Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s website (www.anesthesia-analgesia.org). Reprints will not be available from the authors. Address correspondence to Jean Wong, MD, Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, Toronto Western Hospital, University Health Network, 2-405 McLaughlin Wing, 399 Bathurst St, Toronto, ON M5T 2S8, Canada. Address e-mail to jean.wong@uhn.ca. © 2019 International Anesthesia Research Society

Comparison of Hemoglobin Measurements by 3 Point-of-Care Devices With Standard Laboratory Values and Reliability Regarding Decisions for Blood Transfusion BACKGROUND: We compared the accuracy of 3 point-of-care testing (POCT) devices with central laboratory measurements and the extent to which between-method disagreements could influence decisions to transfuse blood. METHODS: Hemoglobin concentrations [Hb] were measured in 58 adult patients undergoing cardiothoracic surgery using 2 Ilex GEM Premier 3500 blood gas analyzers (BG_A and BG_B) and a HemoCue Hb-201+ device (HemoCue). Measurements were compared with our central laboratory’s Siemens Advia 2120 flow cytometry system (laboratory [Hb] [Lab[Hb]]), regarded as the gold standard. We considered that between-method [Hb] differences exceeding 10% in the [Hb] range 6–10 g/dL would likely erroneously influence erythrocyte transfusion decisions. RESULTS: The 70 Lab[Hb] measurements ranged from 5.8 to 16.7 g/dL, of which 25 (36%) were <10.0 g/dL. Measurements by all 4 devices numbered 57. Mean POCT measurements did not differ significantly (P > .99). Results of the Bland–Altman analyses revealed statistically significant bias, with predominant underestimations by all 3 POCTs predominating. HemoCue upper and lower limits of agreement (LOA) were narrower, and the 95% confidence intervals (95% CIs) of the LOAs did not overlap with those of BG_A and BG_B. Similarly, a narrow mountain plot demonstrated greater precision for the HemoCue. Comparing BG_A with BG_B revealed no bias and narrow LOA. Error grid analysis within the [Hb] range 6–10 g/dL revealed that 5.3% of HemoCue measurements were beyond the permissible 10.0% error zone in contrast to 19.0% and 16.0% of the blood gas measurements. Possible inappropriate transfusion decisions based on POCT values generally erred toward unnecessary transfusions. Calculations of Cohen κ statistic indicated better chance-corrected agreement between HemoCue and Lab[Hb] regarding erythrocyte transfusions than the blood gas analyzers. CONCLUSIONS: All 3 POCT devices underestimated the Lab[Hb] and cannot be used interchangeably with standard laboratory measurements. BG_A and BG_B can be considered to be acceptably interchangeable with each other. Whereas the HemoCue had little bias and good precision, the blood gas analyzers revealed large bias and poor precision. We conclude that the tested HemoCue provides more reliable measurements, especially within the critical 6–10 g/dL range, with reduced potential for transfusion errors. Decisions regarding erythrocyte transfusions should also be considered in the light of clinical findings. Accepted for publication October 7, 2019. Funding: None. The authors declare no conflicts of interest. Reprints will not be available from the authors. Address correspondence to Marianne Johnson, FCA (SA), Department of Anesthesiology and Critical Care, Faculty of Medicine and Health Sciences, Stellenbosch University, PO Box 241, Cape Town 8000, South Africa. Address e-mail to mariannejohnson@sun.ac.za. © 2019 International Anesthesia Research Society

Definition of Clinical Outcomes in Pediatric Anesthesia Research: It Is Like the Tower of Babel! No abstract available

In Response No abstract available

Getting to Zero Patient Harm: From Improving Our Existing Tools to Embracing a New Paradigm No abstract available

The Dilemma of Treating Postdural Puncture Headache No abstract available

American Society for Enhanced Recovery and Perioperative Quality Initiative Joint Consensus Statement on the Role of Neuromonitoring in Perioperative Outcomes: Electroencephalography Electroencephalographic (EEG) monitoring to indicate brain state during anesthesia has become widely available. It remains unclear whether EEG-guided anesthesia influences perioperative outcomes. The sixth Perioperative Quality Initiative (POQI-6) brought together an international team of multidisciplinary experts from anesthesiology, biomedical engineering, neurology, and surgery to review the current literature and to develop consensus recommendations on the utility of EEG monitoring during anesthesia. We retrieved a total of 1023 articles addressing the use of EEG monitoring during anesthesia and conducted meta-analyses from 15 trials to determine the effect of EEG-guided anesthesia on the rate of unintentional awareness, postoperative delirium, neurocognitive disorder, and long-term mortality after surgery. After considering current evidence, the working group recommends that EEG monitoring should be considered as part of the vital organ monitors to guide anesthetic management. In addition, we encourage anesthesiologists to be knowledgeable in basic EEG interpretation, such as raw waveform, spectrogram, and processed indices, when using these devices. Current evidence suggests that EEG-guided anesthesia reduces the rate of awareness during total intravenous anesthesia and has similar efficacy in preventing awareness as compared with end-tidal anesthetic gas monitoring. There is, however, insufficient evidence to recommend the use of EEG monitoring for preventing postoperative delirium, neurocognitive disorder, or postoperative mortality. Accepted for publication September 18, 2019. Funding: The Perioperative Quality Initiative-6 consensus conference was supported by unrestricted educational grants from the American Society for Enhanced Recovery and the Perioperative Quality Initiative, which have received grants from Baxter, Bev MD, Cadence, Cheetah Medical, Edwards, Heron Pharmaceutical, Mallinckrodt, Masimo, Medtronic, Merck, Trevena, and Pacira. Conflicts of Interest: See Disclosures at the end of the article. Supplemental digital content is available for this article. Direct URL citations appear in the printed text and are provided in the HTML and PDF versions of this article on the journal’s website (www.anesthesia-analgesia.org). A full list of contributors can be found at the end of the article. Reprints will not be available from the authors. Address correspondence to Tong J. Gan, MD, MBA, MHS, FRCA, Department of Anesthesiology, Stony Brook University, Stony Brook, NY 11794-8480. Address e-mail to Tong.Gan@stonybrookmedicine.edu. © 2019 International Anesthesia Research Society

Sepsis Management in Resource-Limited Settings No abstract available