Background: General pathophysiological mechanisms regarding associations between fluid administration and intra-abdominal hypertension (IAH) are evident, but specific effects of type, amount, and timing of fluids are less clear. Objectives: This review aims to summarize current knowledge on associations between fluid administration and intra-abdominal pressure (IAP) and fluid management in patients at risk of intra-abdominal hypertension and abdominal compartment syndrome (ACS). Methods: We performed a structured literature search from 1950 until May 2021 to identify evidence of associations between fluid management and intra-abdominal pressure not limited to any specific study or patient population. Findings were summarized based on the following information: general concepts of fluid management, physiology of fluid movement in patients with intra-abdominal hypertension, and data on associations between fluid administration and IAH. Results: We identified three randomized controlled trials (RCTs), 38 prospective observational studies, 29 retrospective studies, 18 case reports in adults, two observational studies and 10 case reports in children, and three animal studies that addressed associations between fluid administration and IAH. Associations between fluid resuscitation and IAH were confirmed in most studies. Fluid resuscitation contributes to the development of IAH. However, patients with IAH receive more fluids to manage the effect of IAH on other organ systems, thereby causing a vicious cycle. Timing and approach to de-resuscitation are of utmost importance, but clear indicators to guide this decision-making process are lacking. In selected cases, only surgical decompression of the abdomen can stop deterioration and prevent further morbidity and mortality. Conclusions: Current evidence confirms an association between fluid resuscitation and secondary IAH, but optimal fluid management strategies for patients with IAH remain controversial.

BACKGROUND Better understanding of risk factors for adverse events during monitored anaesthesia care (MAC) for paediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy may improve outcome in children. OBJECTIVES To identify the prevalence and predictors of adverse events during MAC for paediatric endoscopy. DESIGN An observational study. SETTING Tertiary university hospital, single-centre cohort, from January 2010 to August 2016. PATIENTS The prospectively collected electronic anaesthetic records of 3435 children aged up to 16 years who underwent diagnostic gastrointestinal endoscopy under MAC were analysed retrospectively. Children with an American Society of Anesthesiologists’ physical status at least 4, and those requiring mechanical ventilation and therapeutic or urgent endoscopy were excluded. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES The prevalence and predictors of adverse events during MAC for paediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy, with particular reference to the use of different anaesthetic or sedative agents. RESULTS Mean ± SD age of the children was 8.5 ± 4.4 years. The incidences of adverse events and adverse respiratory events were 3.4 and 3.3%, respectively. Multivariate analysis identified 12 independent predictors: age [odds ratio (OR) 0.92, P = 0.002], children's size for example underweight (OR 1.78, P = 0.039), overweight (OR 2.20, P = 0.039), (morbid) obesity (OR 4.25, P = 0.006), presence of respiratory comorbidities (OR 8.18, P < 0.001), recent respiratory infection (OR 23.55, P < 0.001) or both (OR 17.46, P < 0.001), neurological comorbidities (OR 2.18, P = 0.007), upper gastrointestinal endoscopy (OR 5.66, P < 0.001), propofol co-administration with ketamine (OR 10.34, P < 0. 001) or after sevoflurane induction (OR 44.95, P < 0.001), and propofol induction dose (OR 18.97, P < 0.001). Posthoc secondary analyses revealed a significantly higher risk of adverse events (OR 3.9, P < 0.0001) and also significantly more respiratory comorbidities and respiratory infections (P < 0.0001) in children aged less than 2 years when compared with children aged at least 2 years. No cardiovascular events were observed and outcome was uneventful. CONCLUSION The present cohort demonstrated the feasibility and safety of MAC for paediatric gastrointestinal endoscopy by an experienced team. Although adverse events occurred rarely, their predictive factors were clinically identifiable. Applying this information in risk assessment and modifying anaesthetic management accordingly could improve outcome. TRIAL REGISTRATION ISRCTN70362666.

Introduction: COVID-19 infection has resulted in thousands of critically ill patients admitted to ICUs and treated with mechanical ventilation. Percutaneous tracheostomy is a well-known technique utilised as a strategy to wean critically ill patients from mechanical ventilation. Worldwide differences exist in terms of methods, operators, and settings, and questions remain regarding timing and indications. If tracheostomy is to be performed in COVID-19 patients, a safe environment is needed for optimal care.Material and methods: We present a guidewire dilating forceps tracheostomy procedure in COVID-19 patients that was optimised including apnoea-moments, protective clothing, checklists, and clear protocols. We performed a retrospective analysis of the outcome after tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients between March 2020 and May 2020.Results: The follow-up of the first 16 patients, median age 62 years, revealed a median intubation time until tracheostomy of 18 days and median cannulation time of 20 days. The overall perioperative complication rate and complication rate while cannulated was 19%, mainly superficial bleeding. None of the healthcare providers involved in performing the procedure developed any symptoms of the disease.Conclusions: This COVID-19-centred strategy based on flexibility, preparation, and cooperation between healthcare providers with different backgrounds facilitated percutaneous tracheostomy in COVID-19 patients without an increase in the overall complication rate or evidence of risk to healthcare providers. Our findings provide initial evidence that tracheostomy can be performed safely as a standard of care for COVID-19 patients requiring prolonged mechanical ventilation as was standard practice in ICU patients prior to the COVID-19 pandemic to promote ventilator weaning and patient recovery.

Inappropriate fluid administration can impact patient outcome. Intraoperative advanced haemodynamic monitoring coupled with a treatment protocol based on stroke volume optimisation can help determine the appropriate timing for fluid boluses. Although recommended by several anaesthesia societies, this strategy is rarely implemented because protocols are complex and compliance is often poor. The Acumen Assisted Fluid Management (AFM) software is a decision support system that uses machine learning to predict fluid responsiveness and individualise fluid therapy. AFM reportedly predicts fluid responsiveness better than clinicians, decreases preload-dependent states, and improves both macro- and microcirculatory variables. The goal of this international multicentre stepped-wedge cluster randomised trial is to test whether implementing AFM during high-risk surgery improves patient outcome. The trial is ongoing in 16 academic hospitals in France, Belgium, Canada, and the USA. All centres (clusters) deliver routine care (control arm) at the start of the study and crossed over (one way) to AFM-guided fluid therapy (intervention arm). The time when different centres switch to AFM is randomised by an independent statistician. At the end of the trial, all centres will cross over to the intervention group. The primary outcome is a composite of major complications and death 30 days after surgery that will be analysed as intention-to-treat. A total of 2000 patients are required to detect a relative 20% differences in the primary outcome between groups. This trial is powered to provide evidence on whether implementing AFM is effective in reducing postoperative complications in high-risk patients after high-risk abdominal surgery. NCT06011187.

Representatives of neuromodulation device manufacturers are expected to facilitate the relationship between patients and healthcare providers. Nevertheless, the goals, expectations, and definition of success for neuromodulation for pain have not yet been explored. Representatives present at the 2nd Joint Congress of the INS European Chapters in September 2021 completed a survey to ascertain their opinions about the goals to achieve with neuromodulation, the factors that they expect to change, and their definition of success for neuromodulation. In total, 39 representatives completed the survey. To provide excellent service for patients (22.4%), to become a trusted partner for physicians (21.5%), and to provide excellent service for physicians (20.7%) were the highest ranked goals. The most frequently reported factors that were expected to change were pain intensity (23.1%), patient satisfaction (19.7%), mobility/functioning (14.5%), and capacity to return to work (13.7%). Within the definitions of success, increased quality of life of the patient was stated in 21% of the definitions, closely followed by pain control (19.3%) and happiness/patient satisfaction (15.8%). The goals of representatives of neuromodulation device manufacturers seem to focus on ensuring a good relationship with physicians on the one hand and providing good service towards patients on the other hand, whereby pain control, quality of life, and patient satisfaction seem to be important for company representatives.