Patients exposed to a surgical safety checklist experience better postoperative outcomes, but this could simply reflect wider quality of care in hospitals where checklist use is routine.

No abstract

Intracranial hypertension (IH) is a clinical condition commonly encountered in the intensive care unit, which requires immediate treatment. The maintenance of normal intracranial pressure (ICP) and cerebral perfusion pressure in order to prevent secondary brain injury (SBI) is the central focus of management. SBI can be detected through clinical examination and invasive and non-invasive ICP monitoring. Progress in monitoring and understanding the pathophysiological mechanisms of IH allows the implementation of targeted interventions in order to improve the outcome of these patients. Initially, general prophylactic measures such as patient's head elevation, fever control, adequate analgesia and sedation depth should be applied immediately to all patients with suspected IH. Based on specific indications and conditions, surgical resection of mass lesions and cerebrospinal fluid drainage should be considered as an initial treatment for lowering ICP. Hyperosmolar therapy (mannitol or hypertonic saline) represents the cornerstone of medical treatment of acute IH while hyperventilation should be limited to emergency management of life-threatening raised ICP. Therapeutic hypothermia could have a possible benefit on outcome. To control elevated ICP refractory to maximum standard medical and surgical treatment, at first, high-dose barbiturate administration and then decompressive craniectomy as a last step are recommended with unclear and probable benefit on outcomes, respectively. The therapeutic strategy should be based on a staircase approach and be individualized for each patient. Since most therapeutic interventions have an uncertain effect on neurological outcome and mortality, future research should focus on both studying the long-term benefits of current strategies and developing new ones.

Background The Clavien–Dindo classification is perhaps the most widely used approach for reporting postoperative complications in clinical trials. This system classifies complication severity by the treatment provided. However, it is unclear whether the Clavien–Dindo system can be used internationally in studies across differing healthcare systems in high‐ (HICs) and low‐ and middle‐income countries (LMICs). Methods This was a secondary analysis of the International Surgical Outcomes Study (ISOS), a prospective observational cohort study of elective surgery in adults. Data collection occurred over a 7‐day period. Severity of complications was graded using Clavien–Dindo and the simpler ISOS grading (mild, moderate or severe, based on guided investigator judgement). Severity grading was compared using the intraclass correlation coefficient (ICC). Data are presented as frequencies and ICC values (with 95 per cent c.i.). The analysis was stratified by income status of the country, comparing HICs with LMICs. Results A total of 44 814 patients were recruited from 474 hospitals in 27 countries (19 HICs and 8 LMICs). Some 7508 patients (16·8 per cent) experienced at least one postoperative complication, equivalent to 11 664 complications in total. Using the ISOS classification, 5504 of 11 664 complications (47·2 per cent) were graded as mild, 4244 (36·4 per cent) as moderate and 1916 (16·4 per cent) as severe. Using Clavien–Dindo, 6781 of 11 664 complications (58·1 per cent) were graded as I or II, 1740 (14·9 per cent) as III, 2408 (20·6 per cent) as IV and 735 (6·3 per cent) as V. Agreement between classification systems was poor overall (ICC 0·41, 95 per cent c.i. 0·20 to 0·55), and in LMICs (ICC 0·23, 0·05 to 0·38) and HICs (ICC 0·46, 0·25 to 0·59). Conclusion Caution is recommended when using a treatment approach to grade complications in global surgery studies, as this may introduce bias unintentionally.

No abstract