Physical restraint (PR) is prescribed in patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation in the intensive care unit (ICU) to avoid unplanned removal of medical devices. However, it is associated with an increased risk of delirium. We hypothesise that a restrictive use of PR, as compared with a systematic use, could reduce the duration of delirium in ICU patients receiving invasive mechanical ventilation.

The Restrictive use of Restraints and Delirium Duration in ICU (R2D2-ICU) study is a national multicentric, parallel-group, randomised (1:1) open-label, controlled, superiority trial, which will be conducted in 10 ICUs. A total of 422 adult patients requiring invasive mechanical ventilation for an expected duration of at least 48 hours and eligible for prescription of PR will be randomly allocated within 6 hours from intubation to either the restrictive PR use group or the systematic PR use group, until day 14, ICU discharge or death, whichever comes first. In both groups, PR will consist of the use of wrist straps. The primary endpoint will be delirium or coma-free days, defined as the number of days spent alive in the ICU without coma or delirium within the first 14 days after randomisation. Delirium will be assessed using the Confusion Assessment Method-ICU twice daily. Key secondary endpoints will encompass agitation episodes, opioid, propofol, benzodiazepine and antipsychotic drug exposure during the 14-day intervention period, along with a core outcome set of measures evaluated 90 days postrandomisation.

The R2D2-ICU study has been approved by the Comité de Protection des Personnes (CPP) ILE DE FRANCE III—PARIS (CPP19.09.06.37521) on June 10th, 2019). Participant recruitment started on 25 January 2021. Results will be published in international peer-reviewed medical journals and presented at conferences.

NCT04273360.

Opioid-free anaesthesia (OFA) has emerged as a promising approach for mitigating the adverse effects associated with opioids. The objective of this study was to evaluate the impact of OFA on postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) following video-assisted thoracic surgery.

Single-centre randomised controlled trial.

Tertiary hospital in Shanghai, China.

Patients undergoing video-assisted thoracic surgery were recruited from September 2021 to June 2022.

Patients were randomly allocated to OFA or traditional general anaesthesia with a 1:1 allocation ratio.

The primary outcome measure was the incidence of PONV within 48 hours post-surgery, and the secondary outcomes included PONV severity, postoperative pain, haemodynamic changes during anaesthesia, and length of stay (LOS) in the recovery ward and hospital.

A total of 86 and 88 patients were included in the OFA and control groups, respectively. Two patients were excluded because of severe adverse events including extreme bradycardia and epilepsy-like convulsion. The incidence and severity of PONV did not significantly differ between the two groups (29 patients (33.0%) in the control group and 22 patients (25.6%) in the OFA group; relative risk 0.78, 95% CI 0.49 to 1.23; p=0.285). Notably, the OFA approach used was associated with an increase in heart rate (89±17 vs 77±15 beats/min, t-test: p

Our study findings suggest that the implementation of OFA does not effectively reduce the incidence of PONV following thoracic surgery when compared with traditional total intravenous anaesthesia. The opioid-free strategy used in our study may be associated with severe adverse cardiovascular events.

ChiCTR2100050738.

Today, the involvement of patients in their care is essential. As the population ages increases, the number of patients with chronic diseases is increasing. In the vascular medicine and surgery departments, patients are polymedicated and mostly suffer from several chronic diseases. Approximately 50% of patients with a chronic disease are not adherent. Among the factors that can influence therapeutic adherence are the beliefs and representations of patients.

To evaluate the beliefs and representations of chronic treatments in patients with multiple medications and hospitalised in a vascular medicine and surgery department, and to evaluate the medication adherence, the knowledge and the importance patients attach to their treatments.

Observational, prospective and a single-centre study.

The study was conducted in a French tertiary hospital centre of around 3000 beds in 9 institutions.

Adult polymedicated (ie, minimum of five chronic treatments) patients hospitalised in a vascular medicine and surgery department were included after application of the exclusion criteria.

Patient interviews were carried out in the department and were based on three interviewer-administered questionnaires (a global questionnaire, the Belief Medical Questionnaire and the GIRERD questionnaire).

Our study showed that patients perceived their treatments as beneficial rather than worrying. A correlation between medication adherence and beliefs was observed. ‘Non-adherent’patients had a more negative overall view of medication than ‘adherent’ patients. The level of compliance and knowledge of our patients was low. Only 11% of the patients were ‘good adherent’, 16% of the patients could perfectly name their treatment and 36% knew all the indications.

Knowledge of treatment representation and beliefs are central to understanding patient behaviour. Considering patients’ representations will allow the identification of levers, and the development of actions and educational tools adapted to improve their adherence, their knowledge and therefore their drug management.