It is unclear if anaesthesia maintenance with propofol is advantageous or beneficial over inhalational agents. This study is intended to compare the effects of propofol vs. inhalational agents in maintaining general anaesthesia on patient-relevant outcomes and patient satisfaction. Studies were identified by electronic database searches in PubMed™, EMBASE™ and the Cochrane™ library between 01/01/1985 and 01/08/2016. Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of peer-reviewed journals were studied. Of 6688 studies identified, 229 RCTs were included with a total of 20,991 patients. Quality control, assessment of risk of bias, meta-bias, meta-regression and certainty in evidence were performed according to Cochrane. Common estimates were derived from fixed or random-effects models depending on the presence of heterogeneity. Post-operative nausea and vomiting (PONV) was the primary outcome. Post-operative pain, emergence agitation, time to recovery, hospital length of stay, post-anaesthetic shivering and haemodynamic instability were considered key secondary outcomes. The risk for PONV was lower with propofol than with inhalational agents (relative risk (RR) 0.61 [0.53, 0.69], p < 0.00001). Additionally, pain score after extubation and time in the post-operative anaesthesia care unit (PACU) were reduced with propofol (mean difference (MD) − 0.51 [− 0.81, − 0.20], p = 0.001; MD − 2.91 min [− 5.47, − 0.35], p = 0.03). In turn, time to respiratory recovery and tracheal extubation were longer with propofol than with inhalational agents (MD 0.82 min [0.20, 1.45], p = 0.01; MD 0.70 min [0.03, 1.38], p = 0.04, respectively). Notably, patient satisfaction, as reported by the number of satisfied patients and scores, was higher with propofol (RR 1.06 [1.01, 1.10], p = 0.02; MD 0.13 [0.00, 0.26], p = 0.05). Secondary analyses supported the primary results. Based on the present meta-analysis there are several advantages of anaesthesia maintenance with propofol over inhalational agents. While these benefits result in an increased patient satisfaction, the clinical and economic relevance of these findings still need to be addressed in adequately powered prospective clinical trials.

Advances in spine surgery enable technically safe interventions in older patients with disabling spine disease, yet postoperative delirium (POD) poses a serious risk for postoperative recovery. This study investigates biomarkers of pro-neuroinflammatory states that may help objectively define the pre-operative risk for POD. This study enrolled patients aged ≥60 scheduled for elective spine surgery under general anesthesia. Biomarkers for a pro-neuroinflammatory state included S100 calcium-binding protein β (S100β), brain-derived neurotrophic factor (BDNF), Gasdermin D, and the soluble ectodomain of the triggering receptor expressed on myeloid cells 2 (sTREM2). Postoperative changes of Interleukin-6 (IL-6), Interleukin-1β (IL-1β), and C-reactive protein (CRP) were assessed as markers of systemic inflammation preoperatively, intraoperatively, and early postoperatively (up to 48 h). Patients with POD (n = 19, 75.7 ± 5.8 years) had higher pre-operative levels of sTREM2 (128.2 ± 69.4 pg/mL vs. 97.2 ± 52.0 pg/mL, p = 0.049) and Gasdermin D (2.9 ± 1.6 pg/mL vs. 2.1 ± 1.4 pg/mL, p = 0.29) than those without POD (n = 25, 75.6 ± 5.1 years). STREM2 was additionally a predictor for POD (OR = 1.01/(pg/mL) [1.00–1.03], p = 0.05), moderated by IL-6 (Wald-χ² = 4.06, p = 0.04). Patients with POD additionally showed a significant increase in IL-6, IL-1β, and S100β levels on the first postoperative day. This study identified higher levels of sTREM2 and Gasdermin D as potential markers of a pro-neuroinflammatory state that predisposes to the development of POD. Future studies should confirm these results in a larger cohort and determine their potential as an objective biomarker to inform delirium prevention strategies.

In recent years, we have witnessed both artificial intelligence obtaining remarkable results in clinical decision support systems (CDSSs) and explainable artificial intelligence (XAI) improving the interpretability of these models. In turn, this fosters the adoption by medical personnel and improves trustworthiness of CDSSs. Among others, counterfactual explanations prove to be one such XAI technique particularly suitable for the healthcare domain due to its ease of interpretation, even for less technically proficient staff. However, the generation of high-quality counterfactuals relies on generative models for guidance. Unfortunately, training such models requires a huge amount of data that is beyond the means of ordinary hospitals. In this paper, we therefore propose to use federated learning to allow multiple hospitals to jointly train such generative models while maintaining full data privacy. We demonstrate the superiority of our approach compared to locally generated counterfactuals. Moreover, we prove that generative models for counterfactual generation that are trained using federated learning in a suitable environment perform only marginally worse compared to centrally trained ones while offering the benefit of data privacy preservation. Finally, we integrate our method into a prototypical CDSS for treatment recommendation for sepsis patients, thus providing a proof of concept for real-world application as well as insights and sanity checks from clinical application.

Study Design.: Prospective quasi-experimental observational study. Objective.: The objective of this study was to evaluate whether duration of surgery is a modifiable risk factor for postoperative delirium (POD) after spine surgery and explore further modifiable risk factors. In addition, we sought to investigate the association between POD and postoperative cognitive dysfunction and persistent neurocognitive disorders. Summary of Background Data.: Advances in spine surgery enable technically safe interventions in elderly patients with disabling spine disease. The occurrence of POD and delayed neurocognitive complications (e.g. postoperative cognitive dysfunction/persistent neurocognitive disorder) remain a concern since these contribute to inferior functional outcomes and long-term care dependency after spine surgery. Materials and Methods.: This prospective single-center study recruited patients aged 60 years or above and scheduled for elective spine surgery between February 2018 and March 2020. Functional (Barthel Index, BI) and cognitive outcomes [Consortium to Establish a Registry for Alzheimer’s Disease (CERAD) test battery; telephone Montréal Cognitive Assessment] were assessed at baseline, three (V3), and 12 months postoperatively. The primary hypothesis was that the duration of surgery predicts POD. Multivariable predictive models of POD included surgical and anesthesiological parameters. Results.: Twenty-two percent of patients developed POD (n=22/99). In a multivariable model, duration of surgery [OR_adj=1.61/h (95% CI, 1.20–2.30)], age [OR_adj=1.22/yr (95% CI, 1.10–1.36)], and baseline deviations of intraoperative systolic blood pressure [25th percentile: OR_adj=0.94/mm Hg (95% CI, 0.89–0.99); 90th percentile: OR_adj=1.07/mm Hg (95% CI, 1.01–1.14)] were significantly associated with POD. Postoperative cognitive scores generally improved (V3, ΔCERAD total z-score: 0.22±0.63). However, this positive group effect was counteracted by POD [beta: −0.87 (95% CI, −1.31 to 0.42)], older age [beta: −0.03/yr (95% CI, −0.05 to 0.01)], and lack of functional improvement [ΔBI; beta: −0.04/point (95% CI, −0.06 to 0.02)]. Cognitive scores at twelve months remained inferior in the POD group, adjusted for baseline cognition/age. Conclusions.: This study identified distinct neurocognitive effects after spine surgery, which are influenced by perioperative risk factors. Potential cognitive benefits are counteracted by POD, rendering its prevention critical in an aging population.

Background: Although airway management for paramedics has moved away from endotracheal intubation towards extraglottic airway devices in recent years, in the context of COVID-19, endotracheal intubation has seen a revival. Endotracheal intubation has been recommended again under the assumption that it provides better protection against aerosol liberation and infection risk for care providers than extraglottic airway devices accepting an increase in no-flow time and possibly worsen patient outcomes. Methods: In this manikin study paramedics performed advanced cardiac life support with non-shockable (Non-VF) and shockable rhythms (VF) in four settings: ERC guidelines 2021 (control), COVID-19-guidelines using videolaryngoscopic intubation (COVID-19-intubation), laryngeal mask (COVID-19-Laryngeal-Mask) or a modified laryngeal mask modified with a shower cap (COVID-19-showercap) to reduce aerosol liberation simulated by a fog machine. Primary endpoint was no-flow-time, secondary endpoints included data on airway management as well as the participants‘ subjective assessment of aerosol release using a Likert-scale (0 = no release–10 = maximum release) were collected and statistically compared. Continuous Data was presented as mean ± standard deviation. Interval-scaled Data were presented as median and Q1 and Q3. Results: A total of 120 resuscitation scenarios were completed. Compared to control (Non-VF:11 ± 3 s, VF:12 ± 3 s) application of COVID-19-adapted guidelines lead to prolonged no-flow times in all groups (COVID-19-Intubation: Non-VF:17 ± 11 s, VF:19 ± 5 s;p ≤ 0.001; COVID-19-laryngeal-mask: VF:15 ± 5 s,p ≤ 0.01; COVID-19-showercap: VF:15 ± 3 s,p ≤ 0.01). Compared to COVID-19-Intubation, the use of the laryngeal mask and its modification with a showercap both led to a reduction of no-flow-time(COVID-19-laryngeal-mask: Non-VF:p = 0.002;VF:p ≤ 0.001; COVID-19-Showercap: Non-VF:p ≤ 0.001;VF:p = 0.002) due to a reduced duration of intubation (COVID-19-Intubation: Non-VF:40 ± 19 s;VF:33 ± 17 s; both p ≤ 0.01 vs. control, COVID-19-Laryngeal-Mask (Non-VF:15 ± 7 s;VF:13 ± 5 s;p > 0.05) and COVID-19-Shower-cap (Non-VF:15 ± 5 s;VF:17 ± 5 s;p > 0.05). The participants rated aerosol liberation lowest in COVID-19-intubation (median:0;Q1:0,Q3:2;p < 0.001vs.COVID-19-laryngeal-mask and COVID-19-showercap) compared to COVID-19-shower-cap (median:3;Q1:1,Q3:3 p < 0.001vs.COVID-19-laryngeal-mask) or COVID-19-laryngeal-mask (median:9;Q1:6,Q3:8). Conclusions: COVID-19-adapted guidelines using videolaryngoscopic intubation lead to a prolongation of no-flow time. The use of a modified laryngeal mask with a shower cap seems to be a suitable compromise combining minimal impact on no-flowtime and reduced aerosol exposure for the involved providers.