Machine learning to predict myocardial injury and death after non-cardiac surgery

Myocardial injury due to ischaemia within 30 days of non-cardiac surgery is prognostically relevant. We aimed to determine the discrimination, calibration, accuracy, sensitivity and specificity of single-layer and multiple-layer neural networks for myocardial injury and death within 30 postoperative days. We analysed data from 24,589 participants in the Vascular Events in Non-cardiac Surgery Patients Cohort Evaluation study. Validation was performed on a randomly selected subset of the study population. Discrimination for myocardial injury by single-layer vs. multiple-layer models generated areas (95%CI) under the receiver operating characteristic curve of: 0.70 (0.69–0.72) vs. 0.71 (0.70–0.73) with variables available before surgical referral, p < 0.001; 0.73 (0.72–0.75) vs. 0.75 (0.74–0.76) with additional variables available on admission, but before surgery, p < 0.001; and 0.76 (0.75–0.77) vs. 0.77 (0.76–0.78) with the addition of subsequent variables, p < 0.001. Discrimination for death by single-layer vs. multiple-layer models generated areas (95%CI) under the receiver operating characteristic curve of: 0.71 (0.66–0.76) vs. 0.74 (0.71–0.77) with variables available before surgical referral, p = 0.04; 0.78 (0.73–0.82) vs. 0.83 (0.79–0.86) with additional variables available on admission but before surgery, p = 0.01; and 0.87 (0.83–0.89) vs. 0.87 (0.85–0.90) with the addition of subsequent variables, p = 0.52. The accuracy of the multiple-layer model for myocardial injury and death with all variables was 70% and 89%, respectively.     

Fokus Neurochirurgische Intensivmedizin 2021/2022

Die Anaesthesiologie -     

公立医院养老保险改革现状、困境及对策研究△

目的：通过调研江苏省公立医院编内及非在编人员参加养老保险的现状，分析其存在的困境，提出相应的对策建议。方法：对江苏省内公立医院发放调研问卷，收集数据整理后运用统计分析和比较分析法描述其运营概况、编内及非在编人员参加养老保险的情况，运用公平理论分析公立医院养老保险存在的问题。结果：江苏省公立医院编内人员参加机关事业单位养老保险，非在编人员参加城镇职工养老保险；省属公立医院非在编人员占比最高；编内人员缴费基数及养老待遇均显著高于非在编人员；编内人员参加职业年金，非在编人员尚未建立年金计划。结论：树立底线公平理念，完善养老保险制度体系；改革完善非在编人员年金计划政策；建立健全参保成本财政分担机制。     

Timing of elective surgery and risk assessment after SARS-CoV-2 infection: an update

The impact of vaccination and new SARS-CoV-2 variants on peri-operative outcomes is unclear. We aimed to update previously published consensus recommendations on timing of elective surgery after SARS-CoV-2 infection to assist policymakers, administrative staff, clinicians and patients. The guidance remains that patients should avoid elective surgery within 7 weeks of infection, unless the benefits of doing so exceed the risk of waiting. We recommend individualised multidisciplinary risk assessment for patients requiring elective surgery within 7 weeks of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This should include baseline mortality risk calculation and assessment of risk modifiers (patient factors; SARS-CoV-2 infection; surgical factors). Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection with previous variants increased peri-operative mortality risk three-fold throughout the 6 weeks after infection, and assumptions that asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection does not add risk are currently unfounded. Patients with persistent symptoms and those with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 may require a longer delay than 7 weeks. Elective surgery should not take place within 10 days of diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, predominantly because the patient may be infectious, which is a risk to surgical pathways, staff and other patients. We now emphasise that timing of surgery should include the assessment of baseline and increased risk, optimising vaccination and functional status, and shared decision-making. While these recommendations focus on the omicron variant and current evidence, the principles may also be of relevance to future variants. As further data emerge, these recommendations may be revised.     

Major complications of airway management: a prospective multicentre observational study

We conducted an observational study of serious airway complications, using similar methods to the fourth UK National Audit Project (NAP4) over a period of 1 year across four hospitals in one region in the UK. We also conducted an activity survey over a week, using NAP4 methods to yield an estimate for relevant denominators to help interpret the primary data. There were 17 serious airway complications, defined as: failed airway management leading to cancellation of surgery (eight); airway management in recovery (five); unplanned intensive care admission (three); and unplanned emergency front of neck access (one). There were no reports of death or brain damage. This was an estimate of 0.028% (1 in 3600) complications using the denominator of 61,000 general anaesthetics per year in the region. Complications in patients with ‘predicted easy’ airways were rare (approximately 1 in 14,200), but 45 times more common in those with ‘predicted difficult’ airways (approximately 1 in 315). Airway management in both groups was similar (induction of anaesthesia followed by supraglottic airway or tracheal tube). Use of awake/sedation intubation, videolaryngoscopy and high-flow nasal oxygenation were uncommon even in the predicted difficult airway patients (in 2.7%, 32.4% and 9.5% of patients, respectively). We conclude that the incidence of serious airway complications is at least as high as it was during NAP4. Despite airway prediction being used, this is not informing subsequent management.