Anesthesiology and the Acute Respiratory Distress Syndrome An Ounce of Prevention Is Worth a Pound of Cure

*Department of Anesthesiology-Division of Critical Care Medicine, Mayo Clinic, Rochester, Minnesota. †Department of Anesthesia, Critical Care and Pain Medicine, Beth Israel Deaconess Medical Center and Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts. .
Anesthesiology (Impact Factor: 5.88). 11/2012; 118(1). DOI: 10.1097/ALN.0b013e3182794853
Source: PubMed
1 Follower
10 Reads
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Ambulatory surgery is considered low risk; however, both surgery-related and patient-related factors combine to determine the overall risk of a procedure. The preanesthesia evaluation is useful to gather information and determine whether additional testing or medical optimization is necessary prior to surgery with the goal to prevent adverse events and improve outcomes. Recent literature focused on the preanesthesia evaluation provides guidelines for patient-centered testing. Routine, protocolized preoperative testing is expensive and has not shown to improve outcomes. The preanesthesia visit is useful for patient evaluation, not specifically testing, but for the synthesis of information, medical optimization, additional targeted testing if indicated, assessment of risk, and plan for perioperative management. Current literature supports a preanesthesia visit that focuses on individual patient evaluations and patient-directed effective interventions. This is in contrast to the previous routine, protocolized preoperative preparations. The challenge for anesthesiologists lies in understanding both surgery-specific and patient-specific risk factors, and targeting interventions to optimize the outcomes.
    No preview · Article · Oct 2013 · Current opinion in anaesthesiology
  • Source

    Preview · Article · May 2015 · Intensive Care Medicine
  • [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: Post-operative pulmonary complications (PPCs) can have severe consequences and their incidence is high. In recent years, PPCs have been the subject of numerous studies and articles, which have provided a great deal of information that is beneficial but that can cause confusion on a practical level. This review focusses on three main points: (1) the definitions of PPCs, which are heterogeneous and often vary from one report to another, despite emerging consensus; (2) the risk as reflected in the pool of PPC predictors, with each study identifying some but leaving us with a myriad of combinations; and (3) the many PPC prediction scores proposed, each with its strengths and limitations. We attempt to clarify the practical and research implications of the current situation.
    No preview · Article · Oct 2015