Extracorporeal cardiopulmonary resuscitation (CPR) restores perfusion and oxygenation in a patient who does not have spontaneous circulation. The evidence with regard to the effect of extracorporeal CPR on survival with a favorable neurologic outcome in refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest is inconclusive. In this multicenter, randomized, controlled trial conducted in the Netherlands, we assigned patients with an out-of-hospital cardiac arrest to receive extracorporeal CPR or conventional CPR (standard advanced cardiac life support). Eligible patients were between 18 and 70 years of age, had received bystander CPR, had an initial ventricular arrhythmia, and did not have a return of spontaneous circulation within 15 minutes after CPR had been initiated. The primary outcome was survival with a favorable neurologic outcome, defined as a Cerebral Performance Category score of 1 or 2 (range, 1 to 5, with higher scores indicating more severe disability) at 30 days. Analyses were performed on an intention-to-treat basis. Of the 160 patients who underwent randomization, 70 were assigned to receive extracorporeal CPR and 64 to receive conventional CPR; 26 patients who did not meet the inclusion criteria at hospital admission were excluded. At 30 days, 14 patients (20%) in the extracorporeal-CPR group were alive with a favorable neurologic outcome, as compared with 10 patients (16%) in the conventional-CPR group (odds ratio, 1.4; 95% confidence interval, 0.5 to 3.5; P = 0.52). The number of serious adverse events per patient was similar in the two groups. In patients with refractory out-of-hospital cardiac arrest, extracorporeal CPR and conventional CPR had similar effects on survival with a favorable neurologic outcome. (Funded by the Netherlands Organization for Health Research and Development and Maquet Cardiopulmonary [Getinge]; INCEPTION ClinicalTrials.gov number, NCT03101787.).

BACKGROUND: Endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatography (ERCP) is one of the most complex gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures. Currently, it is still unclear which sedation regimen best facilitates an ERCP. TheN-methyl-d-aspartate receptor antagonist esketamine has anaesthetic, analgesic and sympathomimetic properties and is known to cause less cardiorespiratory depression than other sedatives. It could therefore be an ideal adjunct to propofol for deep sedation.OBJECTIVE: To assess the effectiveness of esketamine versus alfentanil as an adjunct to propofol target-controlled infusion (TCI) for deep sedation during ambulant ERCP.DESIGN: A randomised controlled multicentre study.SETTING: Endoscopic intervention suite at an academic and general hospital in the Netherlands.PARTICIPANTS: Adult, American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status I to III patients scheduled to undergo ERCP.INTERVENTION: Consecutive patients were randomly assigned to receive sedation for an ERCP with propofol TCI and alfentanil (group A) or with propofol TCI and esketamine (group E).MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary outcome was effectiveness of the sedation regimen expressed as the total dose of propofol – as a surrogate parameter – necessary to perform ERCP in a satisfactory manner for endoscopist and patients. Secondary outcomes were recovery time, patients’ and endoscopists’ satisfaction with sedation, side effects (e.g. psychotomimetic effects, nausea and vomiting) and the number of respiratory and cardiovascular adverse events.RESULTS: Data from 162 patients were analysed. The total dose of propofol required was significantly lower in group E (n=83) (8.3 mg kg⁻¹ h⁻¹) than in group A (n=79) (10.5 mg kg⁻¹ h⁻¹) (P < 0.001). There were no significant differences in recovery time, patients’ and endoscopists’ satisfaction, side effects, psychotomimetic effects and the number of sedation-related adverse events.CONCLUSION: Low-dose esketamine reduces the total amount of propofol necessary for sedation during ERCP in American Society of Anesthesiologists I and II patients without affecting recovery time, satisfaction of patients and endoscopists, side effects and respiratory or cardiovascular adverse events, when compared with alfentanil.TRIAL REGISTRATION: The Netherlands Trial Register (NTR5486).

Large mediastinal masses are rare, and encompass a wide variety of diseases. Regardless of the diagnosis, all large mediastinal masses may cause compression or invasion of vital structures, resulting in respiratory insufficiency or hemodynamic decompensation. Detailed preoperative preparation is a prerequisite for favorable surgical outcomes and should include preoperative multimodality imaging, with emphasis on vascular anatomy and invasive characteristics of the tumor. A multidisciplinary team should decide whether neoadjuvant therapy can be beneficial. Furthermore, the anesthesiologist has to evaluate the risk of intraoperative mediastinal mass syndrome (MMS). With adequate preoperative team planning, a safe anesthesiological and surgical strategy can be accomplished.