Explore the vast range of titles available.

In patients intubated for hypoxemic acute respiratory failure (ARF) related to novel coronavirus disease (COVID-19), we retrospectively compared two weaning strategies, early extubation with immediate non-invasive ventilation (NIV) versus standard weaning encompassing spontaneous breathing trial (SBT), with respect to IMV duration (primary endpoint), extubation failures and reintubations, rate of tracheostomy, intensive care unit (ICU) length of stay and mortality (additional endpoints). All COVID-19 adult patients, intubated for hypoxemic ARF and subsequently extubated, were enrolled. Patients were included in two groups, early extubation followed by immediate NIV application, and conventionally weaning after passing SBT. 121 patients were enrolled and analyzed, 66 early extubated and 55 conventionally weaned after passing an SBT. IMV duration was 9 [6–11] days in early extubated patients versus 11 [6–15] days in standard weaning group ( p  = 0.034). Extubation failures [12 (18.2%) vs. 25 (45.5%), p  = 0.002] and reintubations [12 (18.2%) vs. 22 (40.0%) p  = 0.009] were fewer in early extubation compared to the standard weaning groups, respectively. Rate of tracheostomy, ICU mortality, and ICU length of stay were no different between groups. Compared to standard weaning, early extubation followed by immediate NIV shortened IMV duration and reduced the rate of extubation failure and reintubation.

BackgroundEnhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols are known to potentially improve the management and outcomes of patients undergoing colorectal surgery, with limited evidence of their implementation in hospital networks and in a large population. We aimed to assess the impact of the implementation of an ERAS protocol in colorectal cancer surgery in the entire region of Piemonte, Italy, supported by an audit and feedback (A&F) intervention.MethodsA large, stepped wedge, cluster randomised trial enrolled patients scheduled for elective surgery at 29 general surgery units (clusters). At baseline (first 3 months), standard care was continued in all units. Thereafter, four groups of clusters began to adopt the ERAS protocol successively. By the end of the study, each cluster had a period in which standard care was maintained (control) and a period in which the protocol was applied (experimental). ERAS implementation was supported by initial training and A&F initiatives. The primary endpoint was length of stay (LOS) without outliers (>94th percentile), and the secondary endpoints were outliers for LOS, postoperative medical and surgical complications, quality of recovery and compliance with ERAS items.ResultsOf 2626 randomised patients, 2397 were included in the LOS analysis (1060 in the control period and 1337 in the experimental period). The mean LOS without outliers was 8.5 days during the control period (SD 3.9) and 7.5 (SD 3.5) during the experimental one. The adjusted difference between the two periods was a reduction of −0.58 days (95% CI −1.07, −0.09; p=0.021). The compliance with ERAS items increased from 52.4% to 67.3% (estimated absolute difference +13%; 95% CI 11.4%, 14.7%). No difference in the occurrence of complications was evidenced (OR 1.22; 95% CI 0.89, 1.68).ConclusionImplementation of the ERAS protocol for colorectal cancer, supported by A&F approach, led to a substantial improvement in compliance and a reduction in LOS, without meaningful effects on complications. Trial registration number NCT04037787.

IntroductionThe ERAS protocol (Enhanced Recovery After Surgery) is a multimodal pathway aimed to reduce surgical stress and to allow a rapid postoperative recovery. Application of the ERAS protocol to colorectal cancer surgery has been limited to a minority of hospitals in Italy. To promote the systematic adoption of ERAS in the entire regional hospital network in Piemonte an Audit and Feedback approach (A&F) has been adopted together with a cluster randomised trial to estimate the true impact of the protocol on a large, unselected population.MethodsA multicentre stepped wedge cluster randomised trial is designed for comparison between standard perioperative management and the management according to the ERAS protocol. The primary outcome is the length of hospital stay (LOS). Secondary outcomes are: incidence of postoperative complications, time to patients’ recovery, control of pain and patients’ satisfaction. With an A&F approach the adherence to the ERAS items is monitored through a dedicated area in the study web site. The study includes 28 surgical centres, stratified by activity volume and randomly divided into four groups. Each group is randomly assigned to a different activation period of the ERAS protocol. There are four activation periods, one every 3 months. However, the planned calendar and the total duration of the study have been extended by 6 months due to the COVID-19 pandemic.The expected sample size of about 2200 patients has a high statistical power (98%) to detect a reduction of LOS of 1 day and to estimate clinically meaningful changes in the other endpoints.Ethics and disseminationThe study protocol has been approved by the Ethical Committee of the coordinating centre and by all participating centres. Study results will be timely circulated within the hospital network and published in peer-reviewed journals.Trial registration number NCT04037787.