Abstract Introduction Several studies have demonstrated that perioperative hemodynamic optimization has the ability to improve postoperative outcome in high-risk surgical patients. All of these studies aimed at optimizing cardiac output and/or oxygen delivery in the perioperative period. We conducted a survey with the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) and the European Society of Anaesthesiology (ESA) to assess current hemodynamic management practices in patients undergoing high-risk surgery in Europe and in the United States. Methods A survey including 33 specific questions was emailed to 2,500 randomly selected active members of the ASA and to active ESA members. Results Overall, 368 questionnaires were completed, 57.1% from ASA and 42.9% from ESA members. Cardiac output is monitored by only 34% of ASA and ESA respondents (P = 0.49) while central venous pressure is monitored by 73% of ASA respondents and 84% of ESA respondents (P < 0.01). Specifically, the pulmonary artery catheter is being used much more frequently in the US than in Europe in the setup of high-risk surgery (85.1% vs. 55.3% respectively, P < 0.001). Clinical experience, blood pressure, central venous pressure, and urine output are the most widely indicators of volume expansion. Finally, 86.5% of ASA respondents and 98.1% of ESA respondents believe that their current hemodynamic management could be improved. Conclusions In conclusion, these results point to a considerable gap between the accumulating evidence about the benefits of perioperative hemodynamic optimization and the available technologies that may facilitate its clinical implementation, and clinical practices in both Europe and the United States.

While significant literature exists on hospital-based "code calls," there is a lack of research on calls for help in the operating room (OR). The purpose of this study was to quantify the rate and nature of calls for help in the OR of a tertiary care hospital. For a 1-year period, all calls were recorded in the main OR at The University of California, Irvine Medical Center. The average rate of calls per 1000 anesthesia hours was 1.4 (95% CI, 1.1-1.8), corresponding to a rate of 5.0 (3.8-6.5) calls per 1000 cases. Airway (44%), cardiac (32%), and hemorrhagic (11%) emergencies were the most common etiologies. Thirty-day mortality approached 11% for patients who required a call for help in the OR.

While significant literature exists on hospital-based "code calls," there is a lack of research on calls for help in the operating room (OR). The purpose of this study was to quantify the rate and nature of calls for help in the OR of a tertiary care hospital. For a 1-year period, all calls were recorded in the main OR at The University of California, Irvine Medical Center. The average rate of calls per 1000 anesthesia hours was 1.4 (95% CI, 1.1-1.8), corresponding to a rate of 5.0 (3.8-6.5) calls per 1000 cases. Airway (44%), cardiac (32%), and hemorrhagic (11%) emergencies were the most common etiologies. Thirty-day mortality approached 11% for patients who required a call for help in the OR.

Introduction: Point-of-care ultrasound (POCUS) is a rapidly expanding discipline that has proven to be a valuable modality in the hospital setting. Recent evidence has demonstrated the utility of commercially available video conferencing technologies, namely, FaceTime (Apple Inc, Cupertino, CA, USA) and Google Glass (Google Inc, Mountain View, CA, USA), to allow an expert POCUS examiner to remotely guide a novice medical professional. However, few studies have evaluated the ability to use these teleultrasound technologies to guide a nonmedical novice to perform an acute care POCUS examination for cardiac, pulmonary, and abdominal assessments. Additionally, few studies have shown the ability of a POCUS-trained cardiac anesthesiologist to perform the role of an expert instructor. This study sought to evaluate the ability of a POCUS-trained anesthesiologist to remotely guide a nonmedically trained participant to perform an acute care POCUS examination. Methods: A total of 21 nonmedically trained undergraduate students who had no prior ultrasound experience were recruited to perform a three-part ultrasound examination on a standardized patient with the guidance of a remote expert who was a POCUS-trained cardiac anesthesiologist. The examination included the following acute care POCUS topics: (1) cardiac function via parasternal long/short axis views, (2) pneumothorax assessment via pleural sliding exam via anterior lung views, and (3) abdominal free fluid exam via right upper quadrant abdominal view. Each examiner was given a handout with static images of probe placement and actual ultrasound images for the three views. After a brief 8 min tutorial on the teleultrasound technologies, a connection was established with the expert, and they were guided through the acute care POCUS exam. Each view was deemed to be complete when the expert sonographer was satisfied with the obtained image or if the expert sonographer determined that the image could not be obtained after 5 min. Image quality was scored on a previously validated 0 to 4 grading scale. The entire session was recorded, and the image quality was scored during the exam by the remote expert instructor as well as by a separate POCUS-trained, blinded expert anesthesiologist. Results: A total of 21 subjects completed the study. The average total time for the exam was 8.5 min (standard deviation = 4.6). A comparison between the live expert examiner and the blinded postexam reviewer showed a 100% agreement between image interpretations. A review of the exams rated as three or higher demonstrated that 87% of abdominal, 90% of cardiac, and 95% of pulmonary exams achieved this level of image quality. A satisfaction survey of the novice users demonstrated higher ease of following commands for the cardiac and pulmonary exams compared to the abdominal exam. Conclusions: The results from this pilot study demonstrate that nonmedically trained individuals can be guided to complete a relevant ultrasound examination within a short period. Further evaluation of using telemedicine technologies to promote POCUS should be evaluated.

To assess the relationship between the addition of advanced monitoring variables and changes in clinical decision-making. A 15-questions survey was anonymously emailed to international experts and physician members of five anesthesia societies which focused on assessing treatment decisions of clinicians during three realistic clinical scenarios measured at two distinct time points. The first is when typical case information and basic monitoring (T1) were provided, and then once again after the addition of advanced monitoring variables (T2). We hypothesized that the addition of advanced variables would increase the incidence of an optimal therapeutic decision (a priori defined as the answer with the highest percentage of expert agreement) and decrease the variability among the physician's suggested treatments. The survey was completed by 18 experts and 839 physicians. Overall, adding advanced monitoring did not significantly increase physician response accuracy, with the least substantial changes noted on questions related to volume expansion or vasopressor administration. Moreover, advanced monitoring data did not significantly decrease the high level of initial practice variability in physician suggested treatments (P = 0.13), in contrast to the low variability observed within the expert group (P = 0.039). Additionally, 5-10 years of practice (P < 0.0001) and a cardiovascular subspecialty (P = 0.048) were both physician characteristics associated with a higher rate of optimal therapeutic decisions. The addition of advanced variables was of limited benefit for most physicians, further indicating the need for more in depth education on the clinical value and technical understanding of such variables.