Abstract
With increasing prevalence of chronic diseases, multimorbid patients have become commonplace in the neurosurgical intensive care unit (neuro-ICU), offering unique management challenges. By reducing physiological reserve and interacting with one another, chronic comorbidities pose a greatly enhanced risk of major postoperative medical complications, especially cardiopulmonary complications, which ultimately exert a negative impact on neurosurgical outcomes. These premises underscore the importance of perioperative optimization, in turn requiring a thorough preoperative risk stratification, a basic understanding of a multimorbid patient’s deranged physiology and a proper appreciation of the potential of surgery, anesthesia and neurocritical care interventions to exacerbate comorbid pathophysiologies. This knowledge enables neurosurgeons, neuroanesthesiologists and neurointensivists to function with a heightened level of vigilance in the care of these high-risk patients and can inform the perioperative neuro-ICU management with individualized strategies able to minimize the risk of untoward outcomes. This review highlights potential pitfalls in the intra- and postoperative neuro-ICU period, describes common preoperative risk stratification tools and discusses tailored perioperative ICU management strategies in multimorbid neurosurgical patients, with a special focus on approaches geared toward the minimization of postoperative cardiopulmonary complications and unplanned reintubation.
Similar content being viewed by others
Introduction
Multimorbid patients are commonplace in the neurosurgical intensive care unit (ICU), as a consequence of prolonged life expectancy with rise in the prevalence of chronic diseases [1, 2]. Comorbidities decrease physiological reserve, thereby increasing the risk of progressive organ failure in instances of physiologic stress, such as hypoxemia, extreme changes in blood pressure, hypovolemia, acute blood losses and conditions of heightened sympathetic activity. Therefore, they may adversely affect postoperative ICU care and outcomes through major medical complications. This appreciation has spurred early efforts in developing scoring systems for the assessment of a patient’s frailty and reduced tolerance to surgical interventions, such as the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status (ASAPS), the Revised Cardiac Risk Index (RCRI), the Acute Physiology And Chronic Health Evaluation (APACHE) scores and even a grading system for patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage (SAH) that incorporates medical comorbidities to improve prognostic prediction [3,4,5,6].
It is important to appreciate how the interaction among multiple comorbidities has a compounding effect with respect to the risk of postoperative in-hospital mortality and major complications—especially cardiopulmonary complications—which parallels an increase in the number of comorbidities, as shown by several, mostly retrospective studies in the neurosurgical literature [7,8,9,10,11,12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19]. Recently, a preoperative frailty score has been retrospectively developed by Thomson et al. to predict this enhanced vulnerability in multimorbid patients undergoing cranial neurosurgery [19].
Given such premises, the successful management of this difficult patient population hinges on perioperative optimization and thorough understanding of the effects of surgery, anesthesia and neurocritical care interventions on comorbidity pathophysiology. Our review addresses these principles and aspects of ICU care geared toward minimizing postoperative cardiopulmonary complications.
Anticipating Potential Perioperative Pitfalls
Certain comorbidities, regularly encountered in the neurosurgical ICU, require specific considerations in order to formulate an individually tailored perioperative plan premised upon the anticipation, and geared toward the minimization, of potential medical complications stemming from a patient’s poor physiological reserve. This appraisal may guide preoperative medical optimization and the appropriate use of perioperative resources such as neurocritical care. Criteria for intensive neuro-ICU observation remain poorly defined for elective neurosurgical patients [20]; a clinical care pathway entailing perioperative ICU stay for high-risk but stable patients has not currently met uniform adoption, perhaps due to concerns over its cost-effectiveness, the significant institutional commitment that would be required to implement it and the lack of sufficient data to support the necessary cultural change. However, when the combination of multimorbidity with complex neurosurgery is identified, the challenging needs of these patients are arguably better met by a thorough evaluation, medical optimization and careful monitoring that begins preoperatively in the neuro-ICU. Indeed, according to some retrospective studies analyzing various surgical settings, respiratory and hemodynamic instability due to suboptimal preoperative preparation are not infrequently observed upon patient presentation in the operating room and may lead to canceling the elective operation or performing it with a high probability of an untoward outcome [21,22,23]. Certainly, important pieces of the management puzzle are good mutual understanding and ongoing communication between neurosurgeons, anesthesiologists and neurointensivists regarding a multimorbid patient’s needs.
Cardiac Risk Stratification
The above premises bring up the importance of cardiac risk stratification in multimorbid neurosurgical patients, aimed at the individualization of perioperative strategies for reducing major adverse cardiac events (MACE) [24, 25].
For elective cases, this risk assessment is generally performed by an anesthesiologist [26, 27]. It also benefits from the input of the patient’s internist, who can endeavor to contribute to the optimization of medical issues and should be engaged in an interdisciplinary communication with all teams involved [28]. For high-risk patients, the participation of the neurointensivist in this evaluation is ideal, as it provides an early opportunity for heightened scrutiny.
An aging population and growing rates of obesity, type II diabetes and chronic kidney disease imply that a greater number of neurosurgical patients will have ischemic heart disease and heart failure and thus an increased MACE risk. Surgery may result in a significant degree of physiological stress that can lead to myocardial dysfunction via volume shifts, acute blood loss, enhanced oxygen demand and increases in blood pressure, heart rate and postoperative platelet reactivity. Cardiovascular perturbations (blood pressure fluctuations, arrhythmias, myocardial ischemia and neurogenic cardiac stunning) may also occur in patients with intracranial lesions as a result of central neurogenic effects on the myocardium [29]. These effects are poorly tolerated in those with a compromised cardiac reserve.
The American College of Cardiology and American Heart Association (ACC/AHA) guidelines stratify noncardiac surgery into high (> 1%) and low (< 1%) risk categories for MACE [30, 31]. Relevant factors that affect surgery-specific estimates of risk, by influencing hemodynamic stress, include surgery duration and urgency, anticipated blood losses and fluid shifts, and vascular intervention. By these criteria, major neurosurgery (especially complex spine surgery) and carotid endarterectomy are perceived to have an inherently high (> 1%) cardiac risk. However, such high risk has not always been confirmed in large retrospective neurosurgical studies, or has been concluded by interpolating surgery and patient characteristics [32,33,34,35,36,37,38,39]; thus, it cannot be correctly assigned to an individual patient independently of factors such as age and comorbidities.
Known ischemic heart disease, congestive heart failure, insulin-dependent diabetes, chronic kidney disease and cerebrovascular disease are all independently documented to be associated with an increase in postoperative untoward cardiac events and death. This heightened vulnerability can be captured by the ASAPS classification system [40], where increasing ASA class is associated with a higher risk of complications (Table 1). However, it is more precisely assessed by the RCRI (Table 2), a widely validated tool according to which the presence of two or more risk factors, among six independent predictors of cardiac morbidity, is associated with an elevated risk of MACE [3, 41]. Additionally, a well-validated online surgical risk calculator has been developed using the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) database and affords a more accurate estimation of cardiac risk, as well as prediction of other perioperative morbidities and mortality [42]. In a recent large retrospective study by Quinn et al., using said database to explore cardiac arrest (CA) rates in non-traumatic emergent and elective craniotomy and spine surgery, an increased risk of CA was documented in patients with ASA class > 3, chronic kidney disease or congestive heart failure [38]. Moreover, patients who suffered CA were more likely to incur additional adverse postoperative outcomes, such as acute kidney injury, dialysis, failure to wean from mechanical ventilation, myocardial infarction, venous thromboembolism and sepsis. The authors therefore suggested that the clinical insight into patient and surgery-specific characteristics afforded by these NSQIP data may prompt therapeutic initiatives aimed at minimizing morbidity and mortality in the neurosurgical patient population, as discussed below.
Intensive Perioperative Management to Reduce Cardiac Risk
The knowledge that factors such as sustained tachycardia, anemia and extreme BP changes increase the risk of myocardial ischemia dictates that the perioperative ICU care includes aggressive pain management, tight BP control and hemodynamic optimization as a standard approach. More controversial issues are the perioperative use of beta-blockers and angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors/angiotensin II receptor blockers (ACEIs/ARBs) and the optimal blood transfusion threshold in these high-risk patients.
Perioperative Beta-Blockade and ACEIs/ARBs
Meta-analyses of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) have found a potential for increased mortality and ischemic stroke when beta-blockade is initiated de novo within 24 h of non-cardiac surgery, likely due to beta-blockers’ side effects of hypotension as well as their possible interference with cerebral vasodilation [25, 41,42,43,44,45,46].
In particular, the POISE study (a multicenter placebo-controlled trial of fixed metoprolol dosing for patients undergoing intermediate- and high-risk surgery with at least a RCRI of 1) concluded that a significant reduction in supraventricular arrhythmias and acute myocardial infarction comes at the cost of perioperative hypotension and is offset by a significant increase in 30-day stroke and all-cause mortality [47].
These findings indicate that careful patient selection for perioperative β-blockade is paramount, especially when major surgical blood loss is anticipated. Undoubtedly, discontinuation of chronic β-blocker therapy preoperatively may lead to poorer outcome and is therefore ill-advised [48]. However, equally harmful is the indiscriminate β-blockade of noncardiac surgical patients without strong indications. Most of the patients enrolled in POISE had an RCRI of 1 or 2, but observational studies and a retrospective analysis suggest that perioperative beta-blockers might be beneficial only in patients with an RCRI ≥ 3 and increase the chance of death in patients with RCRI 0 [49,50,51].
In agreement with this evidence and the recommendations in the ACC/AHA guidelines, one can conclude the following: (1) beta-blockers should be continued in patients who are already receiving them, and (2) it may be reasonable to begin perioperative beta-blockade only in patients in whom a preoperative risk assessment identifies ≥ 3 RCRI risk factors. However, in the latter instance, de novo initiation of beta-blockade immediately preoperatively remains controversial and should generally be avoided given the above-outlined risk of harm. Conversely, it may be considered postoperatively, with careful titration, as soon as the patient is hemodynamically stable. In such scenario, consultation with a cardiologist is advised to obtain input on the optimization goal.
Controversy surrounds the perioperative management of ACEIs/ARBs, the most commonly prescribed antihypertensive medications in higher-risk surgical patients. Current ACC/AHA guidelines provide a class IIa recommendation for continuing ACEIs/ARBs in the setting of noncardiac surgery. However, a large international prospective cohort study suggested that withholding ACEIs/ARBs in the 24 h before major noncardiac surgery is associated with lower risks of death, intraoperative hypotension, postoperative stroke or myocardial injury [52]. Nevertheless, while confirming the risk of intraoperative hypotension, a 2018 meta-analysis failed to demonstrate an association between perioperative administration of ACEIs/ARBs and mortality or MACE [53]. A large randomized trial is needed to shed more light on this issue. In the interim, withholding ACEIs/ARBs 24 h before surgery is reasonable for most patients (especially when large fluid shifts are anticipated), but their timely postoperative resumption (ideally within 48 h) is arguably important to minimize postoperative MACE risk and mortality [54].
Transfusion Triggers for Neurosurgical Patients with Cardiovascular Diseases
Maintenance of an adequate balance between oxygen supply and demand entails appropriate treatment of anemia. Most studies examining general ICU cohorts favor a restrictive transfusion threshold of hemoglobin 7 g/dl, but conclusive evidence to guide practices in neurosurgical patients remains lacking [55,56,57,58].
Anemia has been associated with increased postoperative mortality after noncardiac surgery, as well as poorer outcomes after acute brain injury [59, 60], but so is the use of blood transfusion, which appears to parallel an increased risk of intra-hospital mortality, infections, cerebral vasospasm, worsened cerebral autoregulation and other adverse events in neurosurgical patients [61,62,63,64,65,66,67,68,69,70,71]. The proposed mechanisms for these adverse outcomes are related to a number of changes in red blood cells (RBC) that occur with the aging of refrigerated blood (stored up to 42 days), collectively referred to as the “RBC storage lesion.” These include: (1) depletion of intraerythrocytic energy sources and development of membrane structural alterations, which lead to impaired RBC deformability and increased fragility; the latter results in release of breakdown products able to induce pro-oxidant effects, cytotoxicity and increased nitric oxide (NO) consumption; (2) decrease in levels of 2,3-diphosphoglycerate (DPG), which reduces tissue oxygen delivery by shifting the oxyhemoglobin dissociation curve to the left; and (3) deficiency of blood NO synthase activity, which may contribute to microvascular perturbations by reducing NO bioavailability [72]. Findings of adverse outcomes from transfusions have been, however, inconsistent in the literature; moreover, methodological weaknesses of pertinent studies make it difficult to separate the detrimental effects of anemia and transfusions from those related to the severity of the underlying disease [73].
The ideal transfusion strategy in neurosurgical patients remains thus a clinical conundrum, and an individualized risk–benefit analysis is encouraged. In this respect, a systematic review of RCTs revealed an increased risk of acute coronary syndrome in patients with cardiovascular diseases randomized to a restrictive threshold, thereby suggesting the benefit of a more liberal transfusion strategy (> 9) in this group [74]. Additionally, in a retrospective study of noncardiac surgical patients, acute surgical anemia, with a hemoglobin drop exceeding 35% of the preoperative value, increased the risk of MACE, especially in beta-blocked patients, suggesting that transfusion triggers should be higher for this group of patients [75].
Advanced Hemodynamic Monitoring
Precise hemodynamic monitoring and management, with the goal of preventing both hypovolemia and hypervolemia, is important for maintenance of adequate cerebral blood flow (CBF) and minimization of systemic complications in patients with vasospasm after SAH. Either inadequate or overly aggressive intravascular fluid administration may result in excess morbidity and mortality from delayed cerebral ischemia (DCI) or cardiopulmonary complications, respectively. These considerations are especially relevant to multimorbid neurosurgical patients with poor cardiac reserve or renal compromise, who are at risk of development or aggravation of pulmonary edema after even a modest preload augmentation. The ability to monitor CO may also better guide efforts aimed at avoidance of cerebral hypoperfusion. Indeed, the potential existence of a direct CO-CBF connection, emerging in specific situations of physiologic stress, has been highlighted in a recent editorial by Drummond, arguing that therapeutic ameliorations of low CO might stimulate mechanisms responsible for cerebral vasodilation (e.g., decreased output from the cervical sympathetic chain, which provides vasoconstrictor innervation of cerebral extracranial and proximal intracranial vessels; endothelial NO release in response to increased arterial pulsatility). Albeit limited and not widely acknowledged, the physiological evidence available on these mechanisms is clear enough, the author argues to support the suggestion that augmenting MAP by means of vasopressors in the face of decreased CO may further compromise CBF via additional reduction of CO, which would promote the aforementioned sympathetic-mediated vasoconstriction of cerebral vessels. In such context, CO restoration with an inotrope would represent a more physiologically sound approach to CBF preservation [76].
Several available systems for minimally invasive advanced hemodynamic monitoring (e.g., PiCCO™, LiDCO™, FloTrac™/Vigileo™ and VolumeView™/EV1000™) can provide continuous estimates of CO and volume responsiveness, obviating the inadequacies and risks of these determinations using a pulmonary artery catheter (PAC) [77,78,79]. These devices require the insertion of an arterial catheter for beat-to-beat analysis of the contour of the arterial pulse pressure waveform, which is then related to stroke volume (SV: proportional to the area under the curve of the systolic portion of the arterial waveform). Some of these methodologies (PiCCO™, VolumeView™/EV1000™) allow for calibration of the pulse contour analysis via intermittent transpulmonary thermodilution (TTD) measurements of CO. This non-automated process requires a central venous catheter (CVC), for injection of a small cold saline bolus, and the insertion of a thermistor-tipped central arterial catheter, which records aortic pressure waveforms and senses the decrease in blood temperature following the cold bolus. The analysis of the aortic TTD curve is then used to intermittently calculate CO (inversely proportional to the area under this curve) based on the Stewart-Hamilton equation [80]. Evidence suggests that TTD measurements compare well with PAC measurements of absolute CO values (PATDCO) [81,82,83], with the basic difference being that PATDCO changes in blood temperature are recorded by a thermistor located in the PA, with an earlier and higher peak compared with the TTD curve [77]. TTD also allows determination of certain intrathoracic volumetric variables of pathophysiological interest, as later discussed. Calibration of the pulse contour analysis via a transpulmonary lithium dilution technique (i.e., LiDCO™ system, which calculates CO from an injected minimal dose of lithium and the area under the concentration–time curve prior to recirculation) is an alternative strategy that does not require a CVC or specialized central arterial catheter, but does not calculate the aforementioned intrathoracic volumetric variables [77, 84].
Other useful provided parameters are stroke volume variation (SVV), pulse pressure variation (PPV), global end-diastolic volume index (GEDVI, normal range 680–800 ml/m2) and extravascular lung water index (EVLWI, normal range 3–7 ml/kg).
SVV and PPV (the percentage of variation in SV and PP, respectively, in response to preload changes during a single mechanical respiratory cycle) have been proved to be far better predictors of fluid responsiveness than static indices of ventricular preload, such as central venous pressure (CVP) and pulmonary artery occlusion pressure [85,86,87,88]. Under controlled mechanical ventilation, SVV and PPV are dynamic reflections of a patient’s position on the Frank–Starling curve and can reliably predict preload responsiveness, provided that patients are ventilated with tidal volumes of at least 8 ml/kg, not spontaneously breathing, with normal right ventricle function and without arrhythmias [89]. A low SVV or PPV correlates with a patient operating on the flat part of the curve, denoting SV insensitiveness to cyclic changes in preload induced by mechanical inspiration, and thus a lack of fluid responsiveness. Conversely, a greater SVV or PPV indicates that the patient is operating on the steep portion of the curve and hence fluid responsive [90,91,92,93,94,95].
GEDVI and EVLWI are volumetric variables measured by TTD. GEDVI is a static index of cardiac preload, representing the combined end-diastolic volumes of the four cardiac chambers. However, it does not distinguish between left and right cardiac preloads: In the setting of right ventricular dilation, GEDV may be increased in the face of normal left ventricular preload. EVLWI informs the amount of water present in the lungs, making it a useful parameter to monitor the onset and evolution of pulmonary edema [96,97,98,99,100,101,102].
Published treatment thresholds for these variables are heterogeneous, but in general a SVV > 10%, PPV > 13% or GEDVI < 680 ml/m2 are predictors of fluid responsiveness; SVV < 10% and PPV < 13% indicate lack of fluid responsiveness; GEDV > 921 ml/m2 and EVLW > 10 ml/kg represent warning parameters for pulmonary edema [93, 103,104,105].
These tools have been applied for pre- and intraoperative fluid optimization in intracranial surgeries, as neurosurgical patients often experience significant intravascular volume changes owing to volatile anesthetics and vasodilators during anesthesia [93, 106]. Additionally, they have been studied in postoperative SAH patients. In a prospective randomized trial of 100 consecutive SAH cases, patients undergoing early goal-directed hemodynamic management guided by the PiCCOplus system experienced reduced incidences of TCD vasospasm, DCI, pulmonary edema and arrhythmias, compared with those managed with traditional therapy guided by CVC or PAC-derived preload measures [103]. In a multicenter prospective observational study of 180 SAH patients monitored with the PiCCO system, a GEDVI < 822 ml/m2 during the first week after SAH best correlated with DCI, suggesting that maintaining GEDVI slightly above normal levels could minimize this complication. In contrast, values greater than 921 ml/m2 independently and best correlated with severe pulmonary edema [104]. In addition, a single-center prospective observational study of ten consecutive patients with poor-grade SAH demonstrated a strong relationship between brain tissue oxygen pressure amelioration and CI augmentation in response to fluid challenges, which was predicted by an SVV ≥ 9% [105].
This evidence suggests that goal-directed hemodynamic management via these tools can offer a therapeutic advantage for improving the functional outcome of SAH patients with vasospasm [106], as well as reducing cardiopulmonary complications from volume overload in neurosurgical patients with poor cardiac or renal function.
All pulse contour analysis monitors, however, suffer from sources of potential error and clinical limitations (Table 3), described in detail elsewhere [77, 96, 107,108,109,110,111,112,113,114,115,116,117]. It is also important to keep in mind that SSV and PPV are not indicators of volume status, but dynamic markers of the position on the Frank–Starling curve, reflecting LV responsiveness to preload changes. The slope of such curve, however, depends upon inotropy and afterload, which determine the LV performance. For a given LV preload, decreasing inotropy or increasing afterload (vasopressors) decreases the slope of the Frank–Starling curve (i.e., decreased LV performance), resulting in a lower SV, and hence a decreased SVV and PPV. Conversely, increasing inotropy (inotropes) or decreasing afterload (e.g., sepsis, vasodilators) increases the slope (improved LV performance), resulting in greater SV, SVV and PPV. Vasopressors may also decrease the magnitude of SVV and PPV (thereby masking true intravascular volume deficit) by increasing venomotor tone, which enhances venous return (and thus SV) by shifting blood from unstressed to stressed volume [118,119,120]. By contrast, vasodilators can decrease SVV and PPV by increasing unstressed circulating blood volume, thus creating a relative hypovolemic state [121]. The implication is that significant variations in inotropy or vasomotor tone can influence both PPV and SVV independently of true volume status, potentially leading to misinterpretation of these indicators for fluid management [122,123,124,125,126,127,128,129,130,131]. For instance, fluid therapy guided by ideal cutoff values for SVV and PPV may lead to volume overload in patients with increased contractility or decreased afterload, and occult hypovolemia in those with either decreased contractility or vasopressor-induced increases in afterload and venomotor tone. While the decision to administer fluids should not be based on these dynamic indices in the early phase of septic shock or in the setting of overt fluid/blood losses (where fluid administration is obviously beneficial), the assessment of the need for further volume expansion after initial resuscitation can be appropriately guided by SVV and PPV only when influenced by the knowledge that the aforementioned confounding interactions may hinder the ability of these variables to indicate an intravascular volume shift. Moreover, even if preload responsiveness is detected, the decision of fluid administration should not be automatic, but based on a risk–benefit analysis that takes into consideration the absence of a high risk of fluid overload and the presence of tissue hypoperfusion/hypoxia [132,133,134]. It is thus important to implement a thoughtful approach integrating CO and dynamic indices of volume responsiveness with “downstream” markers of organ perfusion (e.g., venous oxygen saturation, lactate, capillary refill and troponin), which better reflect the need and adequacy of resuscitation [135].
Postoperative Pulmonary Complications in Multimorbid Patients
Multimorbid neurosurgical patients are at increased risk of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs: atelectasis, pneumonia, pulmonary embolism, postoperative respiratory depression and prolonged mechanical ventilation), which are a significant source of morbidity and mortality [136].
COPD, in particular, emerges as the most consistent predictor for PPCs across studies: COPD patients are more sensitive to the respiratory depressant effects of sedatives, opioids and residual anesthetic agents, which increase their risk of unplanned intubation. Additionally, exacerbation of bronchial inflammation at the time of preoperative intubation, chronic bacterial airway colonization and surgery-induced immunosuppression may all promote pulmonary infections and acute respiratory failure in this population. COPD patients also tend to have coexisting coronary artery disease and congestive heart failure, with inherent increased risk of pulmonary edema. Finally, they display an increased propensity for fatal pulmonary embolism [137,138,139,140,141].
Similarly, morbidly obese neurosurgical patients are at a substantially increased risk of postoperative respiratory dysfunction, extubation failure and ventilator weaning difficulty. The neurointensivist must keep in mind the altered respiratory mechanics of these patients, with reduced chest wall compliance in relation to the massive adiposity of the chest wall, diaphragm and abdomen, which restricts chest wall mobility and diaphragmatic excursion into the abdominal cavity. Such alterations can be exacerbated by: supine or prone positioning, which allows the elevated pressure of the massive abdominal compartment to displace the diaphragm upward reducing the capacity of the chest; postoperative pain, leading to restrictions on ventilation; general anesthesia and residual anesthetic effects, causing a loss of diaphragmatic tone with unopposed intra-abdominal pressure; and administration of sedatives or opioids [142,143,144,145,146,147,148,149]. This deranged physiology leads to a reduction in lung volumes, specifically functional residual capacity (FRC) and expiratory reserve volume (ERV), which in turn predisposes obese patients to: 1) atelectasis in the basal lung regions (alveolar and small airway collapse due to the FRC falling within the range of the closing capacity), with ensuing ventilation-perfusion (V/Q) mismatch (a frequent cause of hypoxemia in obese patients); (2) increased airway resistance with expiratory flow limitation (EFL) due to early airway closure, resulting in air trapping and thus higher intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure (“auto-PEEP”); and (3) increased work of breathing, as inspiratory muscles are loaded by the task of overcoming both reduced chest wall compliance and auto-PEEP [150,151,152,153]. In this respect, it must be emphasized that, in order to facilitate diaphragmatic excursion and prevent expiratory flow limitation, spontaneously breathing morbidly obese patients should never be allowed to lie completely flat. Conversely, the reverse Trendelenburg position can unload the weight of the intra-abdominal contents from the diaphragm, thereby increasing chest compliance, FRC and oxygenation [154,155,156,157,158,159].
Obese patients also exhibit a high rate of obstructive sleep apnea (OSA), an additional risk factor for unplanned reintubation after even trivial insults. Even minimal concentrations of residual anesthetics, or low doses of sedatives and opioid analgesics may worsen OSA by decreasing pharyngeal muscle tone (via decreased neural input through the hypoglossal nerve) and blunting the ventilatory and arousal responses to hypercapnea, hypoxia and upper airway obstruction [160,161,162,163,164].
Minimizing the Risks of Postoperative Reintubation in Neurosurgical Patients with Obesity or COPD
Several strategies have the potential to minimize the high risk of unplanned reintubation in patients with morbid obesity and/or COPD, in turn associated with higher mortality, longer ICU course, increased incidence of nosocomial pneumonia and increased risk of transfer to long-term care facilities [165,166,167,168]. Incentive spirometry and aggressive chest physiotherapy should be instituted in the immediate postoperative stage [169]. Additionally, avoidance of benzodiazepine and minimization of long-acting opioids are important factors to decrease the risk of respiratory depression. Although the judicious use of opioids remains the mainstay of postoperative pain management after neurosurgery, multimodal analgesia sedation that relies of non-opioids agents, such as acetaminophen, dexmedetomidine, ketamine and gabapentinoids, should be strongly considered to minimize the requirement for opioids in these high-risk patients and is best implemented with the collaboration of a pain specialist.
In particular, dexmedetomidine (α2-adrenoceptor agonist) is an attractive agent increasingly used after neurosurgery because of its properties of inducing sedation and analgesia without causing significant respiratory depression or obstructive breathing, as well as its sympatholytic effects that help maintain a stable blood pressure and heart rate [170].
Due to its opioid-sparing effects, ketamine (non-competitive NMDA antagonist) may also have a place in ICU analgo-sedation regimens for neurosurgical patients at high risk of respiratory depression, being especially well suited for patients with chronic pain and opioid dependence undergoing major spine surgeries [171,172,173,174,175].
Gabapentinoids are additional options that appear beneficial in patients undergoing major spine surgery, since they block calcium channels, which are upregulated in dorsal root ganglia and contribute to neuropathic pain. They may also have anxiolytic properties, decreasing postoperative anxiety scores [175,176,177]. It is worth noting, however, that, according to several case reports and two randomized trials, a higher risk of respiratory depression seems to exist when gabapentinoids are either combined with CNS depressants (e.g., opioids, benzodiazepines, antidepressants, antipsychotics and antihistamines) or administered in COPD and elderly patients [178,179,180,181,182,183,184,185,186,187].
Other opioid-sparing strategies that may be considered for these high-risk patients include: (1) regional scalp block using local anesthetics (e.g., lidocaine, bupivacaine or ropivacaine) before incision in craniotomy surgery [188] and (2) combined epidural/general anesthesia with postoperative epidural analgesia in patients undergoing major spine surgery. According to a prospective, randomized study, this latter approach may lead to better pain control, less bleeding and a lower surgical stress response than conventional general anesthesia with postoperative opioid analgesia [189]. However, this strategy is not widely adopted. Moreover, patients undergoing epidural analgesia require careful postoperative monitoring and management in consultation with a pain specialist, given the potential significant side effects of sympathetic blockade.
Several authors have also documented the benefits of the immediate, prophylactic post-extubation application of either continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) or noninvasive ventilation (NIV), in order to minimize the risk of reintubation in high-risk patients [190,191,192,193,194]. Evidence for the postoperative implementation of noninvasive ventilatory support, as a preventative measure in recently extubated patients, is lacking in the neurosurgical literature; however, this strategy is supported by randomized trials and meta-analyses which have examined its use in various other surgical settings, documenting improved arterial blood gases, decreased reintubation rate and lower mortality if it is applied soon after extubation and before the onset of respiratory failure [194,195,196,197,198]. In contrast, NIV appears ineffective in reducing the need for reintubation, and potentially harmful, if it is delayed until after the onset of post-extubation respiratory failure [199].
Post-extubation high-flow nasal cannula (HFNC), which delivers heated and humidified oxygen at a rate of up to 60 l/min, is a reliable alternative to NIV to reduce reintubation rates in patients at high risk of hypoxemic respiratory failure, according to RCTs and meta-analyses [200,201,202,203]. In properly selected patients, HFNC may be considered to avoid potential issues with the use of NIV, such as skin damage, eye irritation, interface intolerance, diet and expectoration interruption. The mechanisms underlying the efficacy HFNC in decreasing reintubation rate include: (1) the generation of a low PEEP level in the pharynx (2.7–7.4 cm H2O, based on flow rate, nasal prongs size and mouth position), which reduces airway collapse, maintains alveolar recruitment and improves the ventilation–perfusion mismatch; (2) the ability to deliver constant inspired oxygen concentrations of up to 100% while also providing heated humidification of the airway, which in turn improves comfort and facilitates secretion clearance; (3) the decrease in work of breathing related to a CO2 washout of pharyngeal dead space, as HFNC creates an oxygen reservoir within the pharynx by virtue of a high oxygen flow; this results in reduced CO2 rebreathing and thus improves the efficiency of ventilation [204,205,206,207,208,209,210,211,212,213]. However, as a form of continuous positive airway pressure, HFNO shares certain potential contraindications with NIV, including skull base fractures or surgeries and recent transsphenoidal surgery, where the delivery of such pressure may result in breakdown of the operative repair or pneumocephalus [214].
Mechanical Ventilation of Morbidly Obese Patients: Optimization of Body Position, Application of Higher PEEP and Careful Interpretation of Plateau Pressures
The deranged respiratory mechanics related to extreme obesity have important implications for the extended mechanical ventilation, when required, of this group of neurosurgical patients. Their predisposition to EFL, auto-PEEP and basal lung atelectasis, and often coexisting obesity hypoventilation syndrome, all pose particular challenges to the maintenance of adequate oxygenation and the process of liberation from mechanical ventilation.
Since the reverse Trendelenburg position, as opposed to the supine one, has been shown to ameliorate respiratory system compliance, it can be inferred that ventilating hemodynamically stable, morbidly obese patients in such position may be part of a successful strategy aimed at decreasing their work of breathing and facilitating weaning from mechanical ventilation [215]. A modification of this position that can equally improve respiratory mechanics is a “cardiac chair position” obtained by raising the upper half of the bed by 70° while the patient’s back is kept straight and the buttocks lean on the back of the bed. Such posture in obese patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation was associated with a partial or complete reversal of EFL resulting in a reduction of auto-PEEP compared to the supine position [216].
The application of a higher PEEP of 10 cm H2O, to prevent basal atelectasis from small airway and alveolar collapse, has been found to lead to significant improvements in respiratory compliance, inspiratory resistance and oxygenation in morbidly obese patients compared to non-obese subjects [217, 218].
Finally, in the modern era of lung-protective ventilation, using low tidal volumes and targeting a plateau pressure < 30 cm H2O is recommended to minimize ventilation-induced lung injury (VILI), which recognizes in regional lung overdistension its key promoter [219]. Because of the reduced chest compliance in morbid obesity, plateau pressures should be interpreted, however, with caution: A high value does not necessarily imply alveolar overdistension, since these patients have elevated pleural pressures resulting in a lower transpulmonary pressure. Thus, when using lung-protective ventilation in morbidly obese patients, a plateau pressure of 35–40 cm H2O may be acceptable in some instances [220]. One option to monitor lung inflation pressures is via indirect measurements of transpulmonary pressures using the esophageal balloon technique (esophageal pressure monitoring), which can assist the intensivist in the optimization of the ventilator strategy to limit VILI in the physiologically complex obese patients [221, 222].
Conclusions
The critical care management of multimorbid neurosurgical patients is often challenging, but a thorough understanding of their comorbidities and physiopathology enables the neurocritical care team to minimize and appropriately manage major perioperative hemodynamic and pulmonary complications.
De novo postoperative initiation of beta-blockade, with careful titration, should be considered in selected neurosurgical patients with three or more RCRI factors, in order to minimize the risk of perioperative myocardial ischemia and cardiac death.
Blood transfusion triggers remain elusive; however, a more liberal hemoglobin threshold may benefit neurosurgical patients with a history of cardiovascular disease.
Several minimally invasive systems for advanced hemodynamic monitoring may be useful for guiding precise volume management in neurosurgical patients with cardiopulmonary and renal comorbidities, which render them prone to acute pulmonary edema from overzealous fluid administration, especially during cerebral vasospasm treatment.
A number of strategies can reduce the risk of unplanned reintubation in high-risk populations, such as (1) avoidance of the supine position and use of the reverse Trendelenburg position in morbidly obese patients, (2) immediate post-extubation application of either NIV or HFNC (in selected patients with no contraindications to positive pressure) and (3) implementation of opioid-sparing multimodal analgesia in either obese or COPD patients.
Further, a higher PEEP of 10 cm H2O is beneficial to minimize basal atelectasis in mechanically ventilated morbidly obese patients.
Last but not least, frequent communication between the neurosurgical and neurocritical care teams is crucial for delivering optimal care to multimorbid neurosurgical patients.
References
From the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. Public health and aging: trends in aging—United States and worldwide. JAMA. 2003;289:1371–3.
González-Bonet LG, Tarazona-Santabalbina FJ, Lizán Tudela L. Neurosurgery in the elderly patient: geriatric neurosurgery. Neurocirugia (Astur). 2016;27:155–66.
Lee TH, Marcantonio ER, Mangione CM, Thomas EJ, Polanczyk CA, Cook EF, Sugarbaker DJ, Donaldson MC, Poss R, Ho KK, Ludwig LE, Pedan A, Goldman L. Derivation and prospective validation of a simple index for prediction of cardiac risk of major noncardiac surgery. Circulation. 1999;100:1043–9.
Sankar A, Johnson SR, Beattie WS, Tait G, Wijeysundera DN. Reliability of the American Society of Anesthesiologists physical status scale in clinical practice. Br J Anaesth. 2011;113:424–32.
Christensen S, Johansen MB, Christiansen CF, Jensen R, Lemeshow S. Comparison of Charlson comorbidity index with SAPS and APACHE scores for prediction of mortality following intensive care. Clin Epidemiol. 2011;3:203–11.
Naval NS, Kowalski RG, Chang TR, Caserta F, Carhuapoma JR, Tamargo RJ. The SAH score: a comprehensive communication tool. J Stroke Cerebrovasc Dis. 2014;23:902–9.
Shen Y, Silverstein JC, Roth S. In-hospital complications and mortality after elective spinal fusion surgery in the united states: a study of the nationwide inpatient sample from 2001 to 2005. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2009;21:21–30.
Patel N, Bagan B, Vadera S, Maltenfort MG, Deutsch H, Vaccaro AR, Harrop J, Sharan A, Ratliff JK. Obesity and spine surgery: relation to perioperative complications. J Neurosurg Spine. 2007;6:291–7.
Li G, Patil CG, Lad SP, Ho C, Tian W, Boakye M. Effects of age and comorbidities on complication rates and adverse outcomes after lumbar laminectomy in elderly patients. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2008;33:1250–5.
Sogame LC, Vidotto MC, Jardim JR, Faresin SM. Incidence and risk factors for postoperative pulmonary complications in elective intracranial surgery. J Neurosurg. 2008;109:222–7.
Kalanithi PS, Patil CG, Boakye M. National complication rates and disposition after posterior lumbar fusion for acquired spondylolisthesis. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2009;34:1963–9.
Deyo RA, Mirza SK, Martin BI, Kreuter W, Goodman DC, Jarvik JG. Trends, major medical complications, and charges associated with surgery for lumbar spinal stenosis in older adults. JAMA. 2010;303:1259–65.
Imposti F, Cizik A, Bransford R, Bellabarba C, Lee MJ. Risk factors for pulmonary complications after spine surgery. Evid Based Spine Care J. 2010;1:26–33.
Memtsoudis SG, Vougioukas VI, Ma Y, Gaber-Baylis LK, Girardi FP. Perioperative morbidity and mortality after anterior, posterior, and anterior/posterior spine fusion surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2011;36:1867–77.
Campbell PG, Yadla S, Nasser R, Malone J, Maltenfort MG, Ratliff JK. Patient comorbidity score predicting the incidence of perioperative complications: assessing the impact of comorbidities on complications in spine surgery. J Neurosurg Spine. 2012;16:37–43.
Chu H, Dang BW. Risk factors of postoperative pulmonary complications following elective craniotomy for patients with tumors of the brainstem or adjacent to the brainstem. Oncol Lett. 2014;8:1477–81.
Wen T, He S, Attenello F, Cen SY, Kim-Tenser M, Adamczyk P, Amar AP, Sanossian N, Mack WJ. The impact of patient age and comorbidities on the occurrence of “never events” in cerebrovascular surgery: an analysis of the Nationwide Inpatient Sample. J Neurosurg. 2014;121:580–6.
Jackson KL 2nd, Devine JG. The effects of obesity on spine surgery: a systematic review of the literature. Glob Spine J. 2016;6:394–400.
Tomlinson SB, Piper K, Kimmell KT, Vates GE. Preoperative frailty score for 30-day morbidity and mortality after cranial neurosurgery. World Neurosurg. 2017;107:959–65.
Bui JQ, Mendis RL, van Gelder JM, et al. Is postoperative intensive care unit admission a prerequisite for elective craniotomy? J Neurosurg. 2011;115:1236–41.
Lau HK, Chen TH, Liou CM, et al. 2010: retrospective analysis of surgery postponed or cancelled in the operating room. J Clin Anesth. 2010;22:237–40.
Kumar R, Gandhi R. Reasons for cancellation of operation on the day of intended surgery in a multidisciplinary 500 bedded hospital. J Anaesthesiol Clin Pharmacol. 2012;28:66–9.
Sivanaser V, Manninen P. Preoperative assessment of adult patients for intracranial surgery. Anesthesiol Res Pract. 2010;2010:241–307.
Bapat S, Luoma AMV. Current UK practice of pre-operative risk assessment prior to neurosurgery. Br J Neurosurg. 2016;30:195–9.
Patel AY, Eagle KA, Vaishnava P. Cardiac risk of noncardiac surgery. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2015;66:2140–8.
Hepner DL, Bader AM, Hurwitz S, Gustafson M, Tsen LC. Patient satisfaction with preoperative assessment in a preoperative assessment testing clinic. Anesth Analg. 2004;98:1099–105.
Halaszynski TM, Juda R, Silverman DG. Optimizing postoperative outcomes with efficient preoperative assessment and management. Crit Care Med. 2004;32:S76–86.
Pausjenssen L, Ward HA, Card SE. An internist’s role in perioperative medicine: a survey of surgeons’ opinions. BMC Fam Pract. 2008;9:4.
Samuels MA. The brain–heart connection. Circulation. 2007;116:77–84.
Fleisher LA, Fleischmann KE, Auerbach AD, Barnason SA, Beckman JA, Bozkurt B, Davila-Roman VG, Gerhard-Herman MD, Holly TA, Kane GC, Marine JE, Nelson MT, Spencer CC, Thompson A, Ting HH, Uretsky BF, Wijeysundera DN. 2014 ACC/AHA guideline on perioperative cardiovascular evaluation and management of patients undergoing noncardiac surgery: a report of the American College of Cardiology/American Heart Association Task Force on practice guidelines. J Am Coll Cardiol. 2014;64:e77.
Liu JB, Liu Y, Cohen ME, et al. Defining the intrinsic cardiac risks of operations to improve preoperative cardiac risk assessments. Anesthesiology. 2018;128:283.
Boulanger M, Camelière L, Felgueiras R, Berger L, Rerkasem K, Rothwell PM, Touzé E. Periprocedural myocardial infarction after carotid endarterectomy and stenting: systematic review and meta-analysis. Stroke. 2015;46:2843–8.
Carabini LM, Zeeni C, Moreland NC, et al. Development and validation of a generalizable model for predicting major transfusion during spine fusion surgery. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2014;26:205–15.
Mirza SK, Deyo RA, Heagerty PJ, Turner JA, Lee LA, Goodkin R. Towards standardized measurement of adverse events in spine surgery: conceptual model and pilot evaluation. BMC Musculoskelet Disord. 2006;7:53.
Guyot JP, Cizik A, Bransford R, Bellabarba C, Lee MJ. Risk factors for cardiac complications after spine surgery. Evid Based Spine Care J. 2010;1:18–25.
Lee MJ, Konodi MA, Cizik AM, Bransford RJ, Bellabarba C, Chapman JR. Risk factors for medical complication after spine surgery: a multivariate analysis of 1,591 patients. Spine J. 2012;12:197–206.
Bekelis K, Desai A, Bakhoum SF, Missios S. A predictive model of complications after spine surgery: the National Surgical Quality Improvement Program (NSQIP) 2005–2010. Spine J. 2014;14:1247–55.
Quinn TD, Brovman EY, Aglio LS, Urman RD. Factors associated with an increased risk of perioperative cardiac arrest in emergent and elective craniotomy and spine surgery. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2017;161:6–13.
Passias PG, Poorman GW, Delsole E, Zhou PL, Horn SR, Jalai CM, Vira S, Diebo B, Lafage V. Adverse outcomes and prediction of cardiopulmonary complications in elective spine surgery. Glob Spine J. 2018;8:218–23.
Reponen E, Tuominen H, Korja M. Evidence for the use of preoperative risk assessment scores in elective cranial neurosurgery: a systematic review of the literature. Anesth Analg. 2014;119:420–32.
Devereaux PJ, Goldman L, Cook DJ, Gilbert K, Leslie K, Guyatt GH. Perioperative cardiac events in patients undergoing noncardiac surgery: a review of the magnitude of the problem, the pathophysiology of the events and methods to estimate and communicate risk. CMAJ. 2005;173:627–34.
Bilimoria KY, Liu Y, Paruch JL, et al. Development and evaluation of the universal ACS NSQIP surgical risk calculator: a decision aid and informed consent tool for patients and surgeons. J Am Coll Surg. 2013;217(833–42):e423.
Devereaux PJ, Beattie WS, Choi PT, Badner NH, Guyatt GH, Villar JC, Cinà CS, Leslie K, Jacka MJ, Montori VM, Bhandari M, Avezum A, Cavalcanti AB, Giles JW, Schricker T, Yang H, Jakobsen CJ, Yusuf S. How strong is the evidence for the use of perioperative beta blockers in non-cardiac surgery? Systematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials. BMJ. 2005;331:313–21.
Bangalore S, Wetterslev J, Pranesh S, Sawhney S, Gluud C, Messerli FH. Perioperative beta blockers in patients having non-cardiac surgery: a meta-analysis. Lancet. 2008;372(9654):1962–76 (published correction appears in Lancet. 2009 May 23;373(9677):1764).
Bouri S, Shun-Shin MJ, Cole GD, Mayet J, Francis DP. Meta-analysis of secure randomised controlled trials of β-blockade to prevent perioperative death in non-cardiac surgery. Heart. 2014;100:456–64.
Blessberger H, Kammler J, Domanovits H, Schlager O, Wildner B, Azar D, Schillinger M, Wiesbauer F, Steinwender C. Perioperative beta-blockers for preventing surgery-related mortality and morbidity. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018;3:CD004476.
POISE Study Group, Devereaux PJ, Yang H, Yusuf S, Guyatt G, Leslie K, Villar JC, Xavier D, Chrolavicius S, Greenspan L, Pogue J, Pais P, Liu L, Xu S, Málaga G, Avezum A, Chan M, Montori VM, Jacka M, Choi P. Effects of extended-release metoprolol succinate in patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery (POISE trial): a randomised controlled trial. Lancet. 2008;371:1839–47.
Kertai MD, Cooter M, Pollard RJ, Buhrman W, Aronson S, Mathew JP, Stafford-Smith M. Is compliance with surgical care improvement project cardiac (SCIP-Card-2) measures for perioperative β-blockers associated with reduced incidence of mortality and cardiovascular-related critical quality indicators after noncardiac surgery? Anesth Analg. 2018;126:1829–38.
Lindenauer PK, Pekow P, Wang K, Mamidi DK, Gutierrez B, Benjamin EM. Perioperative beta-blocker therapy and mortality after major noncardiac surgery. N Engl J Med. 2005;353:349–61.
London MJ, Hur K, Schwartz GG, Henderson WG. Association of perioperative β-blockade with mortality and cardiovascular morbidity following major noncardiac surgery. JAMA. 2013;309:1704–13.
Friedell ML, Van Way CW 3rd, Freyberg RW, Almenoff PL. β-blockade and operative mortality in noncardiac surgery: harmful or helpful? JAMA Surg. 2015;150:658–63.
Roshanov PS, Rochwerg B, Patel A, et al. Withholding versus continuing angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors or angiotensin II receptor blockers before noncardiac surgery: an analysis of the vascular events in noncardiac surgery patIents cOhort evaluatioN prospective cohort. Anesthesiology. 2017;126:16–27.
Hollmann C, Fernandes NL, Biccard BM. A systematic review of outcomes associated with withholding or continuing angiotensin-converting enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin receptor blockers before noncardiac surgery. Anesth Analg. 2018;127:678–87.
Lee SM, Takemoto S, Wallace AW. Association between withholding angiotensin receptor blockers in the early postoperative period and 30-day mortality: a cohort study of the veterans affairs healthcare system. Anesthesiology. 2015;123:288–306.
Hebert PC, Wells G, Blajchman MA, Marshall J, Martin C, Pagliarello G, Tweedale M, Schweitzer I, Yetisin E. A multicenter, randomized, controlled clinical trial of transfusion requirements in critical care. Transfusion requirements in critical care investigators, Canadian Critical Care Trials Group. N Engl J Med. 1999;340:409–17.
Nichol AD. Restrictive red blood cell transfusion strategies in critical care: does one size really fit all? Crit Care Resusc. 2008;10:323–7.
Desjardins P, Turgeon AF, Tremblay MH, et al. Hemoglobin levels and transfusions in neurocritically ill patients: a systematic review of comparative studies. Crit Care. 2012;16:R54.
East JM, Viau-Lapointe J, McCredie VA. Transfusion practices in traumatic brain injury. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2018;31:219–26.
Wu WC, Schifftner TL, Henderson WG, Eaton CB, Poses RM, Uttley G, Sharma SC, Vezeridis M, Khuri SF, Friedman PD. Preoperative hematocrit levels and postoperative outcomes in older patients undergoing noncardiac surgery. JAMA. 2007;297:2481–8.
Oddo M, Milby A, Chen I, Frangos S, MacMurtrie E, Maloney-Wilensky E, Stiefel M, Kofke WA, Levine JM, Le Roux PD. Hemoglobin concentration and cerebral metabolism in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Stroke. 2009;40:1275–81.
Bagwe S, Chung LK, Lagman C, Voth BL, Barnette NE, Elhajjmoussa L, Yang I. Blood transfusion indications in neurosurgical patients: a systematic review. Clin Neurol Neurosurg. 2017;155:83–9.
Seicean A, Alan N, Seicean S, Neuhauser D, Selman WR, Bambadikis NC. Risks associated with preoperative anemia and perioperative blood transfusion in open surgery for intracranial aneurysms. J Neurosurg. 2015;123:91–100.
Kumar MA, Boland TA, Baiou M, Moussouttas M, Herman JH, Bell RD, Rosenwasser RH, Kasner SE, Dechant VE. Red blood cell transfusion increases the risk of thrombotic events in patients with subarachnoid hemorrhage. Neurocrit Care. 2014;20:84–90.
Levine J. Red blood cell transfusion is associated with infection and extracerebral complications after subarachnoid hemorrhage. Neurosurgery. 2010;66:312–8.
Kramer AH, Gurka MJ, Nathan B, Dumont AS, Kassell NF, Bleck TP. Complications associated with anemia and blood transfusion in patients with aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage. Crit Care Med. 2008;36:2070–5.
Smith M. Blood transfusion and increased risk for vasospasm and poor outcome after subarachnoid hemorrhage. J Neurosurg. 2004;101:1–7.
Vedantam A, Yamal JM, Rubin ML, Robertson CS, Gopinath SP. Progressive hemorrhagic injury after severe traumatic brain injury: effect of hemoglobin transfusion thresholds. J Neurosurg. 2016;125:1229–34.
Almeida KJ, Rodrigues AB, Lemos LEAS, de Oliveira MCS, Gandara BF, Lopes RD, Modesto DRES, Rego IKP. Hemotransfusion and mechanical ventilation time are associated with intra-hospital mortality in patients with traumatic brain injury admitted to intensive care unit. Arq Neuro-Psiquiatr. 2016;74:644–9.
Lelubre C, Taccone FS. Transfusion strategies in patients with traumatic brain injury: which is the optimal hemoglobin target? Minerva Anestesiol. 2016;82:112–6.
Sekhon MS, Griesdale DE, Czosnyka M, Donnelly J, Liu X, Aries MJ, Robba C, Lavinio A, Menon DK, Smielewski P, Gupta AK. The effect of red blood cell transfusion on cerebral autoregulation in patients with severe traumatic brain injury. Neurocrit Care. 2015;23:210–6.
Robertson CS, Hannay HJ, Yamal JM, Gopinath S, Goodman JC, Tilley BC, Epo Severe TBI Trial Investigators. Effect of erythropoietin and transfusion threshold on neurological recovery after traumatic brain injury a randomized clinical trial. JAMA, J Am Med Assoc. 2014;312:36–47.
Kim-Shapiro DB, Lee J, Gladwin MT. Storage lesion: role of red blood cell breakdown. Transfusion. 2011;51:844–51.
Lelubre C, Bouzat P, Crippa IA, Taccone FS. Anemia management after acute brain injury. Crit Care. 2016;20:152.
Docherty AB, Walsh TS. Anemia and blood transfusion in the critically ill patient with cardiovascular disease. Crit Care. 2017;21:61.
Beattie WS, Wijeysundera DN, Karkouti K, McCluskey S, Tait G, Mitsakakis N, Hare GM. Acute surgical anemia influences the cardioprotective effects of beta-blockade: a single-center, propensity-matched cohort study. Anesthesiology. 2010;112:25–33.
Drummond JC. Cardiac output: the neglected stepchild of the cerebral blood flow physiology family. J Neurosurg Anesthesiol. 2020;32:93–9.
Kate E, Drummond KE, Murphy E. Minimally invasive cardiac output monitors. Contin Educ Anaesth Crit Care Pain. 2012;12:5–10.
Kiefer N, Hofer CK, Marx G, Geisen M, Giraud R, Siegenthaler N, Hoeft A, Bendjelid K, Rex S. Clinical validation of a new thermodilution system for the assessment of cardiac output and volumetric parameters. Crit Care. 2012;16:R98.
Kapoor PM, Bhardwaj V, Sharma A, Kiran U. Global end-diastolic volume an emerging preload marker vis-a-vis other markers—have we reached our goal? Ann Card Anaesth. 2016;19:699–704.
Argueta EE, Paniagua D. Thermodilution cardiac output: a concept over 250 years in the making. Cardiol Rev. 2019;27:138–44.
Ostergaard M, Nielsen J, Rasmussen JP, Berthelsen PG. Cardiac output—pulse contour analysis vs. pulmonary artery thermodilution. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2006;50:1044–9.
Halvorsen PS, Espinoza A, Lundblad R, Cvancarova M, Hol PK, Fosse E, Tønnessen TI. Agreement between PiCCO pulse-contour analysis, pulmonal artery thermodilution and transthoracic thermodilution during off-pump coronary artery by-pass surgery. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 2006;50:1050–7.
Costa MG, Della Rocca G, Chiarandini P, Mattelig S, Pompei L, Barriga MS, Reynolds T, Cecconi M, Pietropaoli P. Continuous and intermittent cardiac output measurement in hyperdynamic conditions: pulmonary artery catheter vs. lithium dilution technique. Intensive Care Med. 2008;34:257–63.
Cecconi M, Dawson D, Grounds RM, Rhodes A. Lithium dilution cardiac output measurement in the critically ill patient: determination of precision of the technique. Intensive Care Med. 2009;35:498–504.
Marik PE, Cavallazzi R. Does the central venous pressure predict fluid responsiveness? An updated meta-analysis and a plea for some common sense. Crit Care Med. 2013;41:1774–81.
Mutoh T, Kazumata K, Terasaka S, Taki Y, Suzuki A, Ishikawa T. Early intensive versus minimally invasive approach to postoperative hemodynamic management after subarachnoid hemorrhage. Stroke. 2014;45:1280–4.
Michard F, Teboul JL. Predicting fluid responsiveness in ICU patients: acritical analysis of the evidence. Chest. 2002;121:2000–8.
Osman D, Ridel C, Ray P, Monnet X, Anguel N, Richard C, Teboul JL. Cardiac filling pressures are not appropriate to predict hemodynamic response to volume challenge. Crit Care Med. 2007;35:64–8.
Cherpanath TG, Lagrand WK, Schultz MJ, et al. Cardiopulmonary interactions during mechanical ventilation in critically ill patient. Neth Heart J. 2013;21:166–72.
Hofer CK, Müller SM, Furrer L, Klaghofer R, Genoni M, Zollinger A. Stroke volume and pulse pressure variation for prediction of fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing off-pump coronary artery bypass grafting. Chest. 2005;128:848–54.
Cannesson M, Tran NP, Cho M, Hatib F, Michard F. Predicting fluid responsiveness with stroke volume variation despite multiple extrasystoles. Crit Care Med. 2012;40:193–8.
Kawazoe Y, Nakashima T, Iseri T, et al. The impact of inspiratory pressure on stroke volume variation and the evaluation of indexing stroke volume variation to inspiratory pressure under various preload conditions in experimental animals. J Anesth. 2015;29:515–21.
Berkenstadt H, Margalit N, Hadani M, Friedman Z, Segal E, Villa Y, Perel A. Stroke volume variation as a predictor of fluid responsiveness in patients undergoing brain surgery. Anesth Analg. 2001;92:984–9.
Biais M, Nouette-Gaulain K, Cottenceau V, Revel P, Sztark F. Uncalibrated pulse contour-derived stroke volume variation predicts fluid responsiveness in mechanically ventilated patients undergoing liver transplantation. Br J Anaesth. 2008;101:761–8.
Biais M, Nouette-Gaulain K, Roullet S, Quinart A, Revel P, Sztark F. A comparison of stroke volume variation measured by Vigileo/FloTrac system and aortic Doppler echocardiography. Anesth Analg. 2009;109:466–9.
Monnet X, Teboul J. Transpulmonary thermodilution: advantages and limits. Crit Care. 2017;21:147.
Michard F, Alaya S, Zarka V, et al. Global end-diastolic volume as an indicator of cardiac preload in patients with septic shock. Chest. 2003;124:1900–8.
Combes A, Berneau JB, Luyt CE, Trouillet JL. Estimation of left ventricular systolic function by single transpulmonary thermodilution. Intensive Care Med. 2004;30:1377–83.
Bindels AJ, van der Hoeven JG, Meinders AE. Pulmonary artery wedge pressure and extravascular lung water in patients with acute cardiogenic pulmonary edema requiring mechanical ventilation. Am J Cardiol. 1999;84:1158–63.
Berkowitz DM, Danai PA, Eaton S, Moss M, Martin GS. Accurate characterization of extravascular lung water in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Crit Care Med. 2008;36:1803–9.
Wolf S, Riess A, Landscheidt JF, et al. How to perform indexing of extravascular lung water: a validation study. Crit Care Med. 2013;41:990–8.
Tagami T, Kushimoto S, Yamamoto Y, et al. Validation of extravascular lung water measurement by single transpulmonary thermodilution: human autopsy study. Crit Care. 2010;14:R162.
Mutoh T, Kazumata K, Ishikawa T, Terasaka S. Performance of bedside transpulmonary thermodilution monitoring for goal-directed hemodynamic management after subarachnoid hemorrhage. Stroke. 2009;40:2368–74.
Tagami T, Kuwamoto K, Watanabe A, Unemoto K, Yokobori S, Matsumoto G, Yokota H, SAH PiCCO Study Group. Optimal range of global end-diastolic volume for fluid management after aneurysmal subarachnoid hemorrhage: a multicenter prospective cohort study. Crit Care Med. 2014;42:1348–56.
Kurtz P, Helbok R, Ko SB, Claassen J, Schmidt JM, Fernandez L, Stuart RM, Connolly ES, Badjatia N, Mayer SA, Lee K. Fluid responsiveness and brain tissue oxygen augmentation after subarachnoid hemorrhage. Neurocrit Care. 2014;20:247–54.
Shaik Z, Mulam SS. Efficacy of stroke volume variation, cardiac output and cardiac index as predictors of fluid responsiveness using minimally invasive vigileo device in intracranial surgeries. Anesth Essays Res. 2019;13:248–53.
Huygh J, Peeters Y, Bernards J, et al. Hemodynamic monitoring in the critically ill: an overview of current cardiac output monitoring methods. F1000Research. 2016. https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8991.1.
Cecconi M, Malbrain ML. Cardiac output obtained by pulse pressure analysis: to calibrate or not to calibrate may not be the only question when used properly. Intensive Care Med. 2013;39:787–9.
Biais M, Nouette-Gaulain K, Cottenceau V, Vallet A, Cochard JF, Revel P, Sztark F. Cardiac output measurement in patients undergoing liver transplantation: pulmonary artery catheter versus uncalibrated arterial pressure waveform analysis. Anesth Analg. 2008;106:1480–6.
Monnet X, Anguel N, Naudin B, et al. Arterial pressure-based cardiac output in septic patients: different accuracy of pulse contour and uncalibrated pressure waveform devices. Crit Care. 2010;14:R109.
Monnet X, Anguel N, Jozwiak M, Richard C, Teboul JL. Third-generation FloTrac/Vigileo does not reliably track changes in cardiac output induced by norepinephrine in critically ill patients. Br J Anaesth. 2012;108:615–22.
Lorsomradee S, Cromheecke S, De Hert SG. Uncalibrated arterial pulse contour analysis versus continuous thermodilution technique: effects of alterations in arterial waveform. J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth. 2007;21:636–64.
Hofer CK, Ganter MT, Zollinger A. What technique should I use to measure cardiac output? Curr Opin Crit Care. 2007;13:308–17.
Cecconi M, Rhodes A. Pulse pressure analysis: to make a long story short. Crit Care. 2010;14:175.
von Ballmoos MW, Takala J, Roeck M, Porta F, Tueller D, Ganter CC, Schröder R, Bracht H, Baenziger B, Jakob SM. Pulse-pressure variation and hemodynamic response in patients with elevated pulmonary artery pressure: a clinical study. Crit Care. 2010;14:R111.
Mahjoub Y, Pila C, Friggeri A, Zogheib E, Lobjoie E, Tinturier F, Galy C, Slama M, Dupont H. Assessing fluid responsiveness in critically ill patients: false-positive pulse pressure variation is detected by Doppler echocardiographic evaluation of the right ventricle. Crit Care Med. 2009;37:2570–5.
Daihua Y, Wei C, Xude S, Linong Y, Changjun G, Hui Z. The effect of body position changes on stroke volume variation in 66 mechanically ventilated patients with sepsis. J Crit Care. 2012;27:416.
Nouira S, Elatrous S, Dimassi S, et al. Effects of norepinephrine on static and dynamic preload indicators in experimental hemorrhagic shock. Crit Care Med. 2005;33:2339–43.
Pinsky MR. The dynamic interface between hemodynamic variables and autonomic tone. Crit Care Med. 2005;33:2437–8.
Renner J, Meybohm P, Hanss R, Gruenewald M, Scholz J, Bein B. Effects of norepinephrine on dynamic variables of fluid responsiveness during hemorrhage and after resuscitation in a pediatric porcine model. Paediatr Anaesth. 2009;19:688–94.
Hadian M, Severyn DA, Pinsky MR. The effects of vasoactive drugs on pulse pressure and stroke volume variation in postoperative ventilated patients. J Crit Care. 2011;26(328):e1-328.
Michard F, Boussat S, Chemla D, Anguel N, Mercat A, Lecarpentier Y, Richard C, Pinsky MR, Teboul JL. Relation between respiratory changes in arterial pulse pressure and fluid responsiveness in septic patients with acute circulatory failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2000;162:134–8.
Reuter DA, Felbinger TW, Schmidt C, Kilger E, Goedje O, Lamm P, Goetz AE. Stroke volume variation for assessment of cardiac responsiveness to volume loading in mechanically ventilated patients after cardiac surgery. Intensive Care Med. 2002;28:392–8.
Michard F, Lopes MR, Auler JC. Pulse pressure variation: beyond the fluid management of patients with shock. Crit Care. 2007;11:131.
Mesquida J, Kim HK, Pinsky MR. Effect of tidal volume, intrathoracic pressure, and cardiac contractility on variations in pulse pressure, stroke volume, and intrathoracic blood volume. Intensive Care Med. 2011;37:1672–9.
Cherpanath TG, Geerts BF, Lagrand WK, Schultz MJ, Groeneveld AB. Basic concepts of fluid responsiveness. Neth heart J Mon J Neth Soc Cardiol Neth Heart Found. 2013;21:530–6.
Kong R, Liu Y, Mi W, Fu Q. Influences of different vasopressors on stroke volume variation and pulse pressure variation. J Clin Monit Comput. 2016;30:81–6.
Reuter DA, Kirchner A, Felbinger TW, Weis FC, Kilger E, Lamm P, Goetz E. Usefulness of left ventricular stroke volume variation to assess fluid responsiveness in patients with reduced cardiac function. Crit Care Med. 2003;31:1399–404.
Montenij LJ, De Waal EE, Buhre WF. Arterial waveform analysis in anesthesia and critical care. Curr Opin Anaesthesiol. 2011;24:651–6.
Montenij LJ, Sonneveld JP, Nierich AP, Buhre WF, de Waal EE. Diagnostic accuracy of stroke volume variation measured with uncalibrated arterial waveform analysis for the prediction of fluid responsiveness in patients with impaired left ventricular function: a prospective, observational study. J Clin Monit Comput. 2016;30:481–6.
Monnet X, Marik PE, Teboul JL. Prediction of fluid responsiveness: an update. Ann Intensive Care. 2016;6:111.
Biais M, Ouattara A, Janvier G, Sztark F. Case scenario: respiratory variations in arterial pressure for guiding fluid management in mechanically ventilated patients. Anesthesiology. 2012;116:1354–61.
Biais M. Stroke volume variation: just a fancy tool or a therapeutic goal? Crit Care Med. 2012;40:335–6.
Marik PE, Baram M. Noninvasive hemodynamic monitoring in the intensive care unit. Crit Care Clin. 2007;23:383–400.
Qaseem A, Snow V, Fitterman N, Hornbake ER, Lawrence VA, Smetana GW, Weiss K, Owens DK, Aronson M, Barry P, Casey DE Jr, Cross JT Jr, Fitterman N, Sherif KD, Weiss KB. Clinical efficacy assessment subcommittee of the American College of Physicians. Risk assessment for and strategies to reduce perioperative pulmonary complications for patients undergoing noncardiothoracic surgery: a guideline from the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2006;144:575–80.
Sekine Y, Kesler KA, Behnia M, Brooks-Brunn J, Sekine E, Brown JW. COPD may increase the incidence of refractory supraventricular arrhythmias following pulmonary resection for non-small cell lung cancer. Chest. 2001;120:1783–90.
Licker M, Schweizer A, Ellenberger C, Tschopp JM, Diaper J, Clergue F. Perioperative medical management of patients with COPD. Int J Chronic Obstr Pulm Dis. 2007;2:493–515.
Fernández C, Jiménez D, De Miguel J, Martí D, Díaz G, Sueiro A. Chronic obstructive pulmonary disease in patients with acute symptomatic pulmonary embolism. Arch Bronconeumol. 2009;45:286–90.
Falk JA, Kadiev S, Criner GJ, Scharf SM, Minai OA, Diaz P. Cardiac disease in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2008;5:543–8.
Hunninghake DB. Cardiovascular disease in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2005;2:44–9.
Yap JC, Watson RA, Gilbey S, Pride NB. Effects of posture on respiratory mechanics in obesity. J Appl Physiol. 1985;1995(79):1199–205.
Damia G, Mascheroni D, Croci M, Tarenzi L. Perioperative changes in functional residual capacity in morbidly obese patients. Br J Anaesth. 1988;60:574–8.
Biring MS, Lewis MI, Liu JT, Mohsenifar Z. Pulmonary physiologic changes of morbid obesity. Am J Med Sci. 1999;318:293–7.
Pelosi P, Croci M, Ravagnan I, et al. Respiratory system mechanics in sedated, paralyzed, morbidly obese patients. J Appl Physiol. 1997;82:811–8.
Pelosi P, Croci M, Ravagnan I, et al. The effects of body mass index on lung volumes, respiratory mechanics, and gas exchange during general anesthesia. Anesth Analg. 1998;87:654–60.
Eichenberger A, Proietti S, Wicky S, et al. Morbid obesity and postoperative pulmonary atelectasis: an underestimated problem. Anesth Analg. 2002;95:1788–92.
Pankow W, Podszus T, Gutheil T, et al. Expiratory flow limitation and intrinsic positive end-expiratory pressure in obesity. J Appl Physiol. 1998;85:1236–43.
Ferretti A, Giampiccolo P, Cavalli A, et al. Expiratory flow limitation and orthopnea in massively obese subjects. Chest. 2001;119:1401–8.
Parameswaran K, Todd DC, Soth M. Altered respiratory physiology in obesity. Can Respir J. 2006;13:203–10.
Littleton SW. Impact of obesity on respiratory function. Respirology. 2012;17:43–9.
Zerah F, Harf A, Perlemuter L, et al. Effects of obesity on respiratory resistance. Chest. 1993;103:1470–6.
Rubinstein I, Zamel N, DuBarry L, et al. Airflow limitation in morbidly obese, nonsmoking men. Ann Intern Med. 1990;112:828–32.
Lemyze Malcolm, Guerry Mary Jane, Mallat Jihad, Thevenin Didier. Obesity supine death syndrome revisited. Eur Respir J. 2012;40:1568–9.
Dumont L, Mattis M, Mardirosoff C, et al. Changes in pulmonary mechanics during laparoscopic gastroplasty in morbidly obese patients. Acta Anaesthesiol Scand. 1997;41:408–13.
Perilli V, Sollazzi L, Bozza P, Modesti C, Chierichini A, Tacchino RM, Ranieri R. The effects of the reverse trendelenburg position on respiratory mechanics and blood gases in morbidly obese patients during bariatric surgery. Anesth Analg. 2000;91:1520–5.
Perilli V, Sollazzi L, Modesti C, Annetta MG, Sacco T, Bocci MG, Tacchino RM, Proietti R. Comparison of positive end-expiratory pressure with reverse Trendelenburg position in morbidly obese patients undergoing bariatric surgery: effects on hemodynamics and pulmonary gas exchange. Obes Surg. 2003;13:605–9.
Coussa M, Proietti S, Schnyder P, et al. Prevention of atelectasis formation during the induction of general anesthesia in morbidly obese patients. Anesth Analg. 2004;98:1491–5.
Valenza F, Vagginelli F, Tiby A, Francesconi S, Ronzoni G, Guglielmi M, Zappa M, Lattuada E, Gattinoni L. Effects of the beach chair position, positive end-expiratory pressure, and pneumoperitoneum on respiratory function in morbidly obese patients during anesthesia and paralysis. Anesthesiology. 2007;107:725–32.
Schwartz AR, Patil SP, Laffan AM, Polotsky V, Schneider H, Smith PL. Obesity and obstructive sleep apnea: pathogenic mechanisms and therapeutic approaches. Proc Am Thorac Soc. 2008;5:185–92.
Hillman DR, Loadsman JA, Platt PR, Eastwood PR. Obstructive sleep apnoea and anaesthesia. Sleep Med Rev. 2004;8:459–71.
Nishino T, Shirahata M, Yonezawa T, Honda Y. Comparison of changes in the hypoglossal and the phrenic nerve activity in response to increasing depth of anesthesia in cats. Anesthesiology. 1984;60:19–24.
Pham LV, Schwartz AR. The pathogenesis of obstructive sleep apnea. J Thorac Dis. 2015;7:1358–72.
Doufas AG, Tian L, Padrez KA, Suwanprathes P, Cardell JA, Maecker HT, Panousis P. Experimental pain and opioid analgesia in volunteers at high risk for obstructive sleep apnea. PLoS ONE. 2013;8:e54807.
Torres A, Gatell JM, Aznar E, El-Ebiary M, Puig de la Bellacasa J, González J, Ferrer M, Rodriguez-Roisin R. Re-intubation increases the risk of nosocomial pneumonia in patients needing mechanical ventilation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1995;152:137–41.
Epstein SK, Ciubotaru RL, Wong JB. Effect of failed extubation on the outcome of mechanical ventilation. Chest. 1997;112:186–92.
Epstein SK, Ciubotaru RL. Independent effects of etiology of failure and time to reintubation on outcome for patients failing extubation. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 1998;158:489–93.
Rothaar RC, Epstein SK. Extubation failure: magnitude of the problem, impact on outcomes, and prevention. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2003;9:59–66.
Karamanos E, Schmoekel N, Blyden D, Falvo A, Rubinfeld I. Association of unplanned reintubation with higher mortality in old, frail patients: a national surgical quality-improvement program analysis. Perm J. 2016;20:16–20.
Torrington KG, Sorenson DE, Sherwood LM. Postoperative chest percussion with postural drainage in obese patients following gastric stapling. Chest. 1984;86:891–5.
Hoy SM, Keating GM. Dexmedetomidine: a review of its use for sedation in mechanically ventilated patients in an intensive care setting and for procedural sedation. Drugs. 2011;71:1481–501.
Laskowski K, Stirling A, McKay WP, Lim HJ. A systematic review of intravenous ketamine for postoperative analgesia. Can J Anaesth. 2011;58:911–23.
Taylor DM, Bell A, Holdgate A, MacBean C, Huynh T, Thom O, et al. Risk factors for sedation-related events during procedural sedation in the emergency department. Emerg Med Australas. 2011;23:466–73.
Grathwohl KW. Does ketamine improve postoperative analgesia? More questions than answers. Pain Med. 2011;12:1135–6.
Loflin R, Koyfman A. When used for sedation, does ketamine increase intracranial pressure more than fentanyl or sufentanil? Ann Emerg Med. 2015;65:55–6.
Weinbroum AA. Non-opioid IV, adjuvants in the perioperative period: pharmacological and clinical aspects of ketamine and gabapentinoids. Pharmacol Res. 2012;65:411–29.
Khurana G, Jindal P, Sharma JP, Bansal KK. Postoperative pain and long-term functional outcome after administration of gabapentin and pregabalin in patients undergoing spinal surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2014;39:E363–8.
Klein-Schwartz W, Shepherd JG, Gorman S, Dahl B. Characterization of gabapentin overdose using a poison center case series. J Toxicol Clin Toxicol. 2003;41:11–5.
Wills B, Reynolds P, Chu E, Murphy C, Cumpston K, Stromberg P, et al. Clinical outcomes in newer anticonvulsant overdose: a poison center observational study. J Med Toxicol. 2014;10:254–60.
Verma A, St Clair EW, Radtke RA. A case of sustained massive gabapentin overdose without serious side effects. Ther Drug Monit. 1999;21:615–7.
Schauer SG, Varney SM. Gabapentin overdose in a military beneficiary. Mil Med. 2013;178:e133–5.
Damilini J, Radosevich JJ. Gabapentin toxicity and associated blood levels in emergency room patients with renal insufficiency case reports. Pharmacotherapy. 2016;36:e294.
Middleton O. Suicide by gabapentin overdose. J Forensic Sci. 2011;56:1373–5.
Piovezan RD, Kase C, Moizinho R, Tufik S, Poyares D. Gabapentin acutely increases the apnea-hypopnea index in older men: data from a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. J Sleep Res. 2017;26:166–70.
Myhre M, Diep LM, Stubhaug A. Pregabalin has analgesic, ventilatory, and cognitive effects in combination with remifentanil. Anesthesiology. 2016;124:141–9.
Weingarten TN, Jacob AK, Njathi CW, Wilson GA, Sprung J. Multimodal analgesic protocol and postanesthesia respiratory depression during phase I recovery after total joint arthroplasty. Reg Anesth Pain Med. 2015;40:330–6.
Cavalcante AN, Sprung J, Schroeder DR, Weingarten TN. Multimodal analgesic therapy with gabapentin and its association with postoperative respiratory depression. Anesth Analg. 2017;125:141–6.
Deljou A, Hedrick SJ, Portner ER, Schroeder DR, Hooten WM, Sprung J, et al. Pattern of perioperative gabapentinoid use and risk for postoperative naloxone administration. Br J Anaesth. 2018;120:798–806.
Guilfoyle MR, Helmy A, Duane D, Hutchinson PJ. Regional scalp block for postcraniotomy analgesia: a systematic review and metaanalysis. Anesth Analg. 2013;116:1093–102.
Ezhevskaya AA, Mlyavykh SG, Anderson DG. Effects of continuous epidural anesthesia and postoperative epidural analgesia on pain management and stress response in patients undergoing major spinal surgery. Spine (Phila Pa 1976). 2013;38:1324–30.
Neligan PJ, Malhotra G, Fraser M, Williams N, Greenblatt EP, Cereda M, Ochroch EA. Continuous positive airway pressure via the Boussignac system immediately after extubation improves lung function in morbidly obese patients with obstructive sleep apnea undergoing laparoscopic bariatric surgery. Anesthesiology. 2009;110:878–84.
Ferreyra G, Long Y, Ranieri VM. Respiratory complications after major surgery. Curr Opin Crit Care. 2009;15:342–8.
Jaber S, Chanques G, Jung B. Postoperative noninvasive ventilation. Anesthesiology. 2010;112:453–61.
Auriant I, Jallot A, Hervé P, Cerrina J, Le Roy Ladurie F, Fournier JL, Lescot B, Parquin F. Noninvasive ventilation reduces mortality in acute respiratory failure following lung resection. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2001;164:1231–5.
Nava S, Gregoretti C, Fanfulla F, Squadrone E, Grassi M, Carlucci A, Beltrame F, Navalesi P. Noninvasive ventilation to prevent respiratory failure after extubation in high-risk patients. Crit Care Med. 2005;33:2465–70.
Chiumello D, Chevallard G, Gregoretti C. Non-invasive ventilation in postoperative patients: a systematic review. Intensive Care Med. 2011;37:918–29.
Burns KE, Meade MO, Premji A, Adhikari NK. Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation as a weaning strategy for intubated adults with respiratory failure. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013;9(12):CD004127.
Girault C, Bubenheim M, Abroug F, Diehl JL, Elatrous S, Beuret P, Richecoeur J, LHer E, Hilbert G, Capellier G, Rabbat A, Besbes M, Guérin C, Guiot P, Bénichou J, Bonmarchand G, VENISE Trial Group. Noninvasive ventilation and weaning in patients with chronic hypercapnic respiratory failure: a randomized multicenter trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2011;184:672–9.
Ferrer M, Valencia M, Nicolas JM, Bernadich O, Badia JR, Torres A. Early noninvasive ventilation averts extubation failure in patients at risk: a randomized trial. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2006;173:164–70.
Esteban A, Frutos-Vivar F, Ferguson ND, Arabi Y, Apezteguía C, González M, Epstein SK, Hill NS, Nava S, Soares MA, D’Empaire G, Alía I, Anzueto A. Noninvasive positive-pressure ventilation for respiratory failure after extubation. N Engl J Med. 2004;350:2452–60.
Stephan F, Barrucand B, Petit P, et al. High-flow nasal oxygen vs noninvasive positive airway pressure in hypoxemia patients after cardiothoracic surgery. A randomised clinical trial. J Am Med Assoc. 2015;313:2331–9.
Ni YN, Luo J, Yu H, Liu D, Liang BM, Yao R, Liang ZA. Can high-flow nasal cannula reduce the rate of reintubation in adult patients after extubation? A meta-analysis. BMC Pulm Med. 2017;17:142.
Zochios V, Collier T, Blaudszun G, Butchart A, Earwaker M, Jones N, et al. The effect of high-flow nasal oxygen on hospital length of stay in cardiac surgical patients at high risk for respiratory complications: a randomised controlled trial. Anaesthesia. 2018;73:1478–88.
Lu Z, Chang W, Meng S, Xue M, Xie J, Xu J, et al. The effect of high-flow nasal oxygen therapy on postoperative pulmonary complications and hospital length of stay in postoperative patients: a systematic review and meta-analysis. J Intensive Care Med. 2018. https://doi.org/10.1177/0885066618817718.
Corley A, Caruana LR, Barnett AG, et al. Oxygen delivery through high-flow nasal cannulae increase end-expiratory lung volume and reduce respiratory rate in post-cardiac surgical patients. Br J Anaesth. 2011;107:998–1004.
Parke RL, Eccleston ML, McGuinness SP. The effects of flow on airway pressure during nasal high-flow oxygen therapy. Respir Care. 2011;56:1151–5.
Parke R, McGuinness S, Eccleston M. Nasal high-flow therapy delivers low level positive airway pressure. Br J Anaesth. 2009;103:886–90.
Ritchie JE, Williams AB, Gerard C, et al. Evaluation of a humidified nasal high-flow oxygen system, using oxygraphy, capnography and measurement of upper airway pressures. Anaesth Intensive Care. 2011;39:1103–10.
Schwabbauer N, Berg B, Blumenstock G, Haap M, Hetzel J, Reissen R. Nasal high-flow oxygen therapy in patients with hypoxic respiratory failure: effect on functional and subjective respiratory parameters compared to conventional oxygen therapy and non-invasive ventilation (NIV). BMC Anaesthesiol. 2014;14:66.
Delorme M, Bouchard PA, Simon M, Simard S, Lellouche F. Effects of high-flow nasal cannula on the work of breathing in patients recovering from acute respiratory failure. Crit Care Med. 2017;45:1981–8.
Groves N, Tobin A. High flow nasal oxygen generates positive airway pressure in adult volunteers. Aust Crit Care. 2007;20:126–31.
Ward JJ. High-flow oxygen administration by nasal cannula for adult and perinatal patients. Respir Care. 2013;58:98–122.
Kernick J, Magarey J. What is the evidence for the use of high flow nasal cannula oxygen in adult patients admitted to critical care units? A systematic review. Aust Crit Care. 2010;23:53–70.
Onodera Y, Akimoto R, Suzuki H, Okada M, Nakane M, Kawamae K. A high-flow nasal cannula system with relatively low flow effectively washes out CO2 from the anatomical dead space in a sophisticated respiratory model made by a 3D printer. Intensive Care Med Exp. 2018;6:7.
Siegel JL, Hampton K, Rabinstein AA, et al. Oxygen therapy with high-flow nasal cannula as an effective treatment for perioperative pneumocephalus: case illustrations and pathophysiological review. Neurocrit Care. 2018;29:366–73.
Fischer AJ, Kaese S, Lebiedz P. Management of obese patients with respiratory failure—a practical approach to a health care issue of increasing significance. Respir Med. 2016;117:174–8.
Lemyze M, Mallat J, Duhamel A, Pepy F, Gasan G, Barrailler S, Vangrunderbeeck N, Tronchon L, Thevenin D. Effects of sitting position and applied positive end-expiratory pressure on respiratory mechanics of critically ill obese patients receiving mechanical ventilation. Crit Care Med. 2013;41:2592–9.
Reinius H, Jonsson L, Gustafsson S, et al. Prevention of atelectasis in morbidly obese patients during general anesthesia and paralysis: a computerized tomography study. Anesthesiology. 2009;111:979–87.
Pelosi P, Ravagnan I, Giurati G, Panigada M, Bottino N, Tredici S, Eccher G, Gattinoni L. Positive end-expiratory pressure improves respiratory function in obese but not in normal subjects during anesthesia and paralysis. Anesthesiology. 1999;91:1221–31.
Slutsky AS, Ranieri VM. Ventilator-induced lung injury. N Engl J Med. 2013;28(369):2126–36.
Marik P, Varon J. The obese patient in the ICU. Chest. 1998;113:492–8.
Akoumianaki E, Maggiore SM, Valenza F, et al. The application of esophageal pressure measurement in patients with respiratory failure. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2014;189:520–31.
Chiumello D, Colombo A, Algieri I, Mietto C, Carlesso E, Crimella F, Cressoni M, Quintel M, Gattinoni L. Effect of body mass index in acute respiratory distress syndrome. Br J Anaesth. 2016;116:113–21.
Funding
None.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Contributions
RA was involved in the literature search and writing of the manuscript. AM was involved in the conception of the manuscript, literature search, writing and editing of the manuscript.
Corresponding author
Ethics declarations
Conflict of interest
The authors declare that they have no conflicts of interest.
Ethical approval/Informed consent
This article does not contain any studies with human participants performed by any of the authors.
Additional information
Publisher's Note
Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Algahtani, R., Merenda, A. Multimorbidity and Critical Care Neurosurgery: Minimizing Major Perioperative Cardiopulmonary Complications. Neurocrit Care 34, 1047–1061 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-020-01072-5
Received:
Accepted:
Published:
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s12028-020-01072-5