scispace - formally typeset
Search or ask a question

Showing papers in "BJA: British Journal of Anaesthesia in 2020"


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Detailed planning, strategy, and methods for tracheal intubation in COVID-19 patients are proposed, which create a risk to physiologically compromised patients and to attending healthcare providers.
Abstract: Tracheal intubation in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) patients creates a risk to physiologically compromised patients and to attending healthcare providers. Clinical information on airway management and expert recommendations in these patients are urgently needed. By analysing a two-centre retrospective observational case series from Wuhan, China, a panel of international airway management experts discussed the results and formulated consensus recommendations for the management of tracheal intubation in COVID-19 patients. Of 202 COVID-19 patients undergoing emergency tracheal intubation, most were males (n=136; 67.3%) and aged 65 yr or more (n=128; 63.4%). Most patients (n=152; 75.2%) were hypoxaemic (Sao2 <90%) before intubation. Personal protective equipment was worn by all intubating healthcare workers. Rapid sequence induction (RSI) or modified RSI was used with an intubation success rate of 89.1% on the first attempt and 100% overall. Hypoxaemia (Sao2 <90%) was common during intubation (n=148; 73.3%). Hypotension (arterial pressure <90/60 mm Hg) occurred in 36 (17.8%) patients during and 45 (22.3%) after intubation with cardiac arrest in four (2.0%). Pneumothorax occurred in 12 (5.9%) patients and death within 24 h in 21 (10.4%). Up to 14 days post-procedure, there was no evidence of cross infection in the anaesthesiologists who intubated the COVID-19 patients. Based on clinical information and expert recommendation, we propose detailed planning, strategy, and methods for tracheal intubation in COVID-19 patients.

300 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Outbreak of a new coronavirus: what anaesthetists should know Philip W. H. Peng*, Pak-Leung Ho and Susy S. Hota.
Abstract: Outbreak of a new coronavirus: what anaesthetists should know Philip W. H. Peng*, Pak-Leung Ho and Susy S. Hota Department of Anesthesiology and Pain Medicine, University Health Network, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada, Department of Microbiology and Carol Yu Centre for Infection, University of Hong Kong, Hong Kong, Infection Prevention and Control Department, University Health Network, Toronto, ON, Canada and Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, ON, Canada

293 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: It is proposed that risk assessment and perioperative risk reduction may be the most effective approaches in managing postoperative delirium.
Abstract: Summary Postoperative delirium is a relatively common and serious complication. It increases hospital stay by 2–3 days and is associated with a 30-day mortality of 7–10%. It is most prevalent in older patients, those with existing neurocognitive disorders, and those undergoing complex or emergency procedures. Preclinical and clinical research in recent years has uncovered more about the pathophysiology of postoperative delirium and may yield more potential therapeutic options. Using the enhanced recovery pathway framework of risk stratification, risk reduction, and rescue treatment, we have reviewed the current clinical evidence on the validity of delirium prediction scores for the surgical population, the effectiveness of perioperative delirium risk reduction interventions, and management options for established delirium. Effective perioperative interventions include depth of anaesthesia monitoring, intraoperative dexmedetomidine infusion, and multimodal analgesia. Choice of general anaesthetic agent may not be associated with significant difference in delirium risk. Several other factors, such as preoperative fasting, temperature control, and blood pressure management have some association with the risk of postoperative delirium; these will require further studies. Because of the limited treatment options available for established delirium, we propose that risk assessment and perioperative risk reduction may be the most effective approaches in managing postoperative delirium.

189 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The ‘state of the art’ environmental sustainability research within anaesthesia and critical care is surveyed, addressing why it matters, what is known, and ideas for future work.
Abstract: Summary The detrimental health effects of climate change continue to increase. Although health systems respond to this disease burden, healthcare itself pollutes the atmosphere, land, and waterways. We surveyed the ‘state of the art' environmental sustainability research in anaesthesia and critical care, addressing why it matters, what is known, and ideas for future work. Focus is placed upon the atmospheric chemistry of the anaesthetic gases, recent work clarifying their relative global warming potentials, and progress in waste anaesthetic gas treatment. Life cycle assessment (LCA; i.e. ‘cradle to grave' analysis) is introduced as the definitive method used to compare and contrast ecological footprints of products, processes, and systems. The number of LCAs within medicine has gone from rare to an established body of knowledge in the past decade that can inform doctors of the relative ecological merits of different techniques. LCAs with practical outcomes are explored, such as the carbon footprint of reusable vs single-use anaesthetic devices (e.g. drug trays, laryngoscope blades, and handles), and the carbon footprint of treating an ICU patient with septic shock. Avoid, reduce, reuse, recycle, and reprocess are then explored. Moving beyond routine clinical care, the vital influences that the source of energy (renewables vs fossil fuels) and energy efficiency have in healthcare's ecological footprint are highlighted. Discussion of the integral roles of research translation, education, and advocacy in driving the perioperative and critical care environmental sustainability agenda completes this review.

148 citations



Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Spinal anaesthesia was delivered safely in patients with active COVID-19 infection, the majority of whom had Caesarean sections, and was not associated with cardiorespiratory compromise intraoperatively.
Abstract: Background The safety of performing spinal anaesthesia for both patients and anaesthetists alike in the presence of active infection with the novel coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear. Here, we report the clinical characteristics and outcomes for both patients with COVID-19 and the anaesthetists who provided their spinal anaesthesia. Methods Forty-nine patients with radiologically confirmed COVID-19 for Caesarean section or lower-limb surgery undergoing spinal anaesthesia in Zhongnan Hospital, Wuhan, China participated in this retrospective study. Clinical characteristics and perioperative outcomes were recorded. For anaesthesiologists exposed to patients with COVID-19 by providing spinal anaesthesia, the level of personal protective equipment (PPE) used, clinical outcomes (pulmonary CT scans), and confirmed COVID-19 transmission rates (polymerase chain reaction [PCR]) were reviewed. Results Forty-nine patients with COVID-19 requiring supplementary oxygen before surgery had spinal anaesthesia (ropivacaine 0.75%), chiefly for Caesarean section (45/49 [91%]). Spinal anaesthesia was not associated with cardiorespiratory compromise intraoperatively. No patients subsequently developed severe pneumonia. Of 44 anaesthetists, 37 (84.1%) provided spinal anaesthesia using Level 3 PPE. Coronavirus disease 2019 infection was subsequently confirmed by PCR in 5/44 (11.4%) anaesthetists. One (2.7%) of 37 anaesthetists who wore Level 3 PPE developed PCR-confirmed COVID-19 compared with 4/7 (57.1%) anaesthetists who had Level 1 protection in the operating theatre (relative risk reduction: 95.3% [95% confidence intervals: 63.7–99.4]; P Conclusions Spinal anaesthesia was delivered safely in patients with active COVID-19 infection, the majority of whom had Caesarean sections. Level 3 PPE appears to reduce the risk of transmission to anaesthetists who are exposed to mildly symptomatic surgical patients.

109 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Suggestions for how personal protective equipment policies relate to the viral pandemic context and how the risk of transmission by and to anaesthetists, intensivists, and other healthcare workers can be minimised are presented.
Abstract: The world is currently facing an unprecedented healthcare crisis caused by a pandemic novel beta coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The pathogen is spread by human-to-human transmission via droplets exposure and contact transfer, causing mild symptoms in the majority of cases, but critical illness, bilateral viral pneumonia, and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in a minority. Currently, controlling infection to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 is the primary public healthcare intervention used. The pace of transmission and global scale of SARS-CoV-2 infections has implications for strategic oversight, resource management, and responsiveness in infection control. This article presents a summary of learning points in epidemiological infection control from the SARS epidemic, alongside a review of evidence connecting current understanding of the virologic and environmental contamination properties of SARS-CoV-2. We present suggestions for how personal protective equipment policies relate to the viral pandemic context and how the risk of transmission by and to anaesthetists, intensivists, and other healthcare workers can be minimised.

104 citations



Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The use of barrier-enclosure devices adds to the complexity of airway procedures with potential adverse consequences, especially during airway emergencies, and their use should be avoided until adequate validation studies can be reported.
Abstract: Summary Exposure of healthcare providers to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is a significant safety concern during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, requiring contact/droplet/airborne precautions. Because of global shortages, limited availability of personal protective equipment (PPE) has motivated the development of barrier-enclosure systems, such as aerosol boxes, plastic drapes, and similar protective systems. We examined the available evidence and scientific publications about barrier-enclosure systems for airway management in suspected/confirmed COVID-19 patients. MEDLINE/Embase/Google Scholar databases (from December 1, 2019 to May 27, 2020) were searched for all articles on barrier enclosures for airway management in COVID-19, including references and websites. All sources were reviewed by a panel of experts using a Delphi method with a modified nominal group technique. Fifty-two articles were reviewed for their results and level of evidence regarding barrier device feasibility, advantages, protection against droplets and aerosols, effectiveness, safety, ergonomics, and cleaning/disposal. The majority of analysed papers were expert opinions, small case series, technical descriptions, small-sample simulation studies, and pre-print proofs. The use of barrier-enclosure devices adds to the complexity of airway procedures with potential adverse consequences, especially during airway emergencies. Concerns include limitations on the ability to perform airway interventions and the aid that can be delivered by an assistant, patient injuries, compromise of PPE integrity, lack of evidence for added protection of healthcare providers (including secondary aerosolisation upon barrier removal), and lack of cleaning standards. Enclosure barriers for airway management are no substitute for adequate PPE, and their use should be avoided until adequate validation studies can be reported.

88 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: COVID-19 (SARS-CoV2) has dislocated clinical services and postgraduate training and had consequences for wellbeing and mental health, and anaesthetists have developed innovations in teaching and trainee support.
Abstract: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19; severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 [SARS-CoV-2] has dislocated clinical services and postgraduate training. To better understand and to document these impacts, we contacted anaesthesia trainees and trainers across six continents and collated their experiences during the pandemic. All aspects of training programmes have been affected. Trainees report that reduced caseload, sub-specialty experience, and supervised procedures are impairing learning. Cancelled educational activities, postponed examinations, and altered rotations threaten progression through training. Job prospects and international opportunities are downgraded. Work-related anxieties about provision of personal protective equipment, and risks to self and to colleagues are superimposed on concerns for family and friends and domestic disruption. These seismic changes have had consequences for well-being and mental health. In response, anaesthetists have developed innovations in teaching and trainee support. New technologies support trainer-trainee interactions, with a focus on e-learning. National training bodies and medical regulators that specify training and oversee assessment of trainees and their progression have provided flexibility in their requirements. Within anaesthesia departments, support transcends grades and job titles with lessons for the future. Attention to wellness, awareness of mental health issues and multimodal support can attenuate but not eliminate trainee distress.

85 citations


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Compared with SAP, ESP provides superior quality of recovery at 24 h, lower morbidity, and better analgesia after minimally invasive thoracic surgery.
Abstract: Background Minimally invasive thoracic surgery causes significant postoperative pain. Erector spinae plane (ESP) block and serratus anterior plane (SAP) block promise effective thoracic analgesia compared with systemically administered opioids, but have never been compared in terms of terms of quality of recovery and overall morbidity after minimally invasive thoracic surgery. Methods Sixty adult patients undergoing minimally invasive thoracic surgery were randomly assigned to receive either single-shot ESP or SAP block before surgery using levobupivacaine 0.25%, 30 ml. The primary outcome was quality of patient recovery at 24 h, using the Quality of Recovery-15 (QoR-15) scale. Secondary outcomes included area under the curve (AUC) of pain verbal rating scale (VRS) over time, time to first opioid analgesia, postoperative 24 h opioid consumption, in-hospital comprehensive complication index (CCI) score and hospital stay. Results The QoR-15 score was higher among ESP patients compared with those in the SAP group, mean (standard deviation): 114 (16) vs 102 (22) (P=0.02). Time (min) to first i.v. opioid analgesia in recovery was 32.6 (20.6) in ESP vs 12.7 (9.5) in SAP (P=0.003). AUC at rest was 92 (31) mm h−1 vs 112 (35) in ESP and SAP (P=0.03), respectively, whereas AUC on deep inspiration was 107 mm h−1 (32) vs 129 (32) in ESP and SAP (P=0.01), respectively. VRS pain on movement in ESP and SAP at 24 h was, median (25–75% range): 4 (2–4) vs 5 (3–6) (P=0.04), respectively. Opioid consumption at 24 h postoperatively was 29 (31) vs 39 (34) (P=0.37). Median (25–75%) CCI in ESP and SAP was 1 (0–2) vs 4 (0–26) (P=0.03), whereas hospital stay was 3 (2–6) vs 6 (3–9) days (P=0.17), respectively. Conclusion Compared with SAP, ESP provides superior quality of recovery at 24 h, lower morbidity, and better analgesia after minimally invasive thoracic surgery. Clinical trial registration NCT 03862612.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs found all study medications were better than placebo or no medication in reducing moderate to severe emergence cough, with dexmedetomidine ranked the most effective.
Abstract: Background Emergence coughing can harm the patient following completion of surgery, but it is unclear which medication is most effective at reducing this event. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis of RCTs to determine the medications' relative efficacies on decreasing moderate to severe emergence coughing after general anaesthesia. Medications studied were lidocaine (i.v., intracuff, topical, or tracheal application), dexmedetomidine, remifentanil, and fentanyl. Methods We searched eight different medical literature databases, conference abstracts, and article references. After screening, included citations were evaluated for bias and had their data extracted. Pooled odds ratios and 95% confidence intervals for each treatment comparison were calculated. A surface under the cumulative ranking curve analysis (SUCRA) determined the relative rank of each intervention to decrease moderate to severe emergence coughing. Subgroup analyses included severe coughing only, extubation times, type of maintenance anaesthetic, and dosages. Results The network meta-analysis included 70 studies and 5286 patients. All study medications had favourable odds in reducing moderate and severe peri-extubation coughing compared with either no medication or placebo. No single medication was favoured over another. Dexmedetomidine had the highest SUCRA rank, followed in order by remifentanil, fentanyl, and lidocaine via intracuff, tracheal/topical, and i.v. routes. Remifentanil was ranked highest for decreasing severe coughing only. Intracuff lidocaine had higher odds of prolonging extubation times compared with placebo, dexmedetomidine, fentanyl, and remifentanil. Conclusion All study medications were better than placebo or no medication in reducing moderate to severe emergence cough, with dexmedetomidine ranked the most effective. Systematic review registration PROSPERO registration number: CRD42018102870.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A DASI score of 34 represents a threshold for identifying patients at risk for myocardial injury, myocardia infarction, moderate-to-severe complications, and new disability, and a nested cohort analysis of the Measurement of Exercise Tolerance before Surgery study characterised the association of preoperative DASi scores with postoperative death or complications.
Abstract: Background The Duke Activity Status Index (DASI) questionnaire might help incorporate self-reported functional capacity into preoperative risk assessment. Nonetheless, prognostically important thresholds in DASI scores remain unclear. We conducted a nested cohort analysis of the Measurement of Exercise Tolerance before Surgery (METS) study to characterise the association of preoperative DASI scores with postoperative death or complications. Methods The analysis included 1546 participants (≥40 yr of age) at an elevated cardiac risk who had inpatient noncardiac surgery. The primary outcome was 30-day death or myocardial injury. The secondary outcomes were 30-day death or myocardial infarction, in-hospital moderate-to-severe complications, and 1 yr death or new disability. Multivariable logistic regression modelling was used to characterise the adjusted association of preoperative DASI scores with outcomes. Results The DASI score had non-linear associations with outcomes. Self-reported functional capacity better than a DASI score of 34 was associated with reduced odds of 30-day death or myocardial injury (odds ratio: 0.97 per 1 point increase above 34; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.96–0.99) and 1 yr death or new disability (odds ratio: 0.96 per 1 point increase above 34; 95% CI: 0.92–0.99). Self-reported functional capacity worse than a DASI score of 34 was associated with increased odds of 30-day death or myocardial infarction (odds ratio: 1.05 per 1 point decrease below 34; 95% CI: 1.00–1.09), and moderate-to-severe complications (odds ratio: 1.03 per 1 point decrease below 34; 95% CI: 1.01–1.05). Conclusions A DASI score of 34 represents a threshold for identifying patients at risk for myocardial injury, myocardial infarction, moderate-to-severe complications, and new disability.



Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: A post hoc analysis of patients receiving quantitative monitoring of neuromuscular function suggests that postoperative pulmonary complications are reduced for TOFR < 0.95 before tracheal extubation compared with TOFR > 0.9.
Abstract: Background The prospective observational European multicentre cohort study (POPULAR) of postoperative pulmonary complications (NCT01865513) did not demonstrate that adherence to the recommended train-of-four ratio (TOFR) of 0.9 before extubation was associated with better pulmonary outcomes from the first postoperative day up to hospital discharge. We re-analysed the POPULAR data as to whether there existed a better threshold for TOFR recovery before extubation to reduce postoperative pulmonary complications in patients who had quantitative neuromuscular monitoring (87% acceleromyography). Methods To identify the optimal TOFR, the complete case cohort of patients with quantitative neuromuscular monitoring (n=3150) was split into several pairs of sub-cohorts related to TOFR values from 0.86 to 0.96; values of 0.97 and higher could not be used as the sub-cohorts were too small. The optimal TOFR was considered to have the lowest P-value from multivariate logistic regression calculated for each of the TOFR values. Data are presented as adjusted absolute risk reduction or median difference with 95% confidence interval. Results Extubating patients with TOFR >0.95 rather than >0.9 reduced the adjusted risk of postoperative pulmonary complications by 3.5% (0.7–6.0%) from that reported in POPULAR (11.3%). Increasing the recommended TOFR from 0.9 to 0.95 reduced the adjusted risk by 4.9% (1.2–8.5%). Sub-cohorts resulting from 1:1 propensity score matching revealed that sugammadex had been given in higher doses by 0.30 (0.13–0.48) mg kg−1 in the sub-cohort with TOFR > 0.95. Conclusions A post hoc analysis of patients receiving quantitative monitoring of neuromuscular function suggests that postoperative pulmonary complications are reduced for TOFR > 0.95 before tracheal extubation compared with TOFR > 0.9. Trial registration number NCT01865513.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The history of the collaborative, its database infrastructure and analytics, and patient outcomes from more than 6500 patients globally are reported, providing the foundation for future risk-adjusted benchmarking and a learning community that drives ongoing quality improvement efforts worldwide.
Abstract: Summary There is growing recognition of the need for a coordinated, systematic approach to caring for patients with a tracheostomy. Tracheostomy-related adverse events remain a pervasive global problem, accounting for half of all airway-related deaths and hypoxic brain damage in critical care units. The Global Tracheostomy Collaborative (GTC) was formed in 2012 to improve patient safety and quality of care, emphasising knowledge, skills, teamwork, and patient-centred approaches. Inspired by quality improvement leads in Australia, the UK, and the USA, the GTC implements and disseminates best practices across hospitals and healthcare trusts. Its database collects patient-level information on quality, safety, and organisational efficiencies. The GTC provides an organising structure for quality improvement efforts, promoting safety of paediatric and adult patients. Successful implementation requires instituting key drivers for change that include effective training for health professionals; multidisciplinary team collaboration; engagement and involvement of patients, their families, and carers; and data collection that allows tracking of outcomes. We report the history of the collaborative, its database infrastructure and analytics, and patient outcomes from more than 6500 patients globally. We characterise this patient population for the first time at such scale, reporting predictors of adverse events, mortality, and length of stay indexed to patient characteristics, co-morbidities, risk factors, and context. In one example, the database allowed identification of a previously unrecognised association between bleeding and mortality, reflecting ability to uncover latent risks and promote safety. The GTC provides the foundation for future risk-adjusted benchmarking and a learning community that drives ongoing quality improvement efforts worldwide.


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: In older adults undergoing prolonged surgery, sugammadex was associated with a 40% reduction with residual neuromuscular block, a 10% reduction in 30 day hospital readmission rate, but no difference in the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complications.
Abstract: Background Residual neuromuscular block has been associated with postoperative pulmonary complications. We hypothesised that sugammadex reduces postoperative pulmonary complications in patients aged ≥70 yr having surgery ≥3 h, compared with neostigmine. Methods Patients were enrolled in an open-label, assessor-blinded, randomised, controlled trial. At surgical closure, subjects were equally randomised to receive sugammadex 2 mg kg−1 or neostigmine 0.07 mg kg−1 (maximum 5 mg) for rocuronium reversal. The primary endpoint was incidence of postoperative pulmonary complications. Secondary endpoints included residual paralysis (train-of-four ratio Results Of the 200 subjects randomised, 98 received sugammadex and 99 received neostigmine. There was no significant difference in the primary endpoint of postoperative pulmonary complications despite a signal towards reduced incidence for sugammadex (33% vs 40%; odds ratio [OR]=0.74; 95% confidence interval [CI]=[0.40, 1.37]; P=0.30) compared with neostigmine. Sugammadex decreased residual neuromuscular block (10% vs 49%; OR=0.11, 95% CI=[0.04, 0.25]; P Conclusions In older adults undergoing prolonged surgery, sugammadex was associated with a 40% reduction in residual neuromuscular block, a 10% reduction in 30 day hospital readmission rate, but no difference in the occurrence of postoperative pulmonary complications. Based on this exploratory study, larger studies should determine whether sugammadex may reduce postoperative pulmonary complications and 30 day hospital readmissions. Clinical trial registration NCT02861131.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The pooled results of this meta-analysis indicate that AP and CO/CI measurements using finger cuff technologies and reference methods are not interchangeable in surgical or critically ill patients.
Abstract: Background Finger cuff technologies allow continuous noninvasive arterial blood pressure (AP) and cardiac output/index (CO/CI) monitoring. Methods We performed a meta-analysis of studies comparing finger cuff-derived AP and CO/CI measurements with invasive measurements in surgical or critically ill patients. We calculated overall random effects model-derived pooled estimates of the mean of the differences and of the percentage error (PE; CO/CI studies) with 95%-confidence intervals (95%-CI), pooled 95%-limits of agreement (95%-LOA), Cochran's Q and I2 (for heterogeneity). Results The pooled mean of the differences (95%-CI) was 4.2 (2.8 to 5.62) mm Hg with pooled 95%-LOA of –14.0 to 22.5 mm Hg for mean AP (Q=230.4 [P Conclusions Study heterogeneity was high. Several studies showed interchangeability between AP and CO/CI measurements using finger cuff technologies and reference methods. However, the pooled results of this meta-analysis indicate that AP and CO/CI measurements using finger cuff technologies and reference methods are not interchangeable in surgical or critically ill patients. Clinical trial number PROSPERO registration number: CRD42019119266.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Preoperative iron deficiency was independently associated with increased mortality, more SAEs, and prolonged hospital stay after cardiac surgery, which underline the importance of preoperativeIron deficiency screening in the context of a comprehensive patient blood management programme.
Abstract: Background Iron deficiency is frequent in patients undergoing cardiac surgery. The relevance of iron deficiency, however, is ill defined. Therefore, our study aimed to investigate the impact of iron deficiency (ferritin Methods In this prospective observational study, 730 patients undergoing elective cardiac surgery were assigned into four groups according to their iron status and anaemia. Mortality, serious adverse events (SAEs), major cardiac and cerebrovascular events (MACCEs), allogenic blood transfusion requirements, and length of hospital stay were assessed during a 90-day follow-up period. The effect of iron deficiency on these outcomes was first calculated in models adjusting for anaemia only, followed by two multivariate models adjusting for anaemia and either the EuroSCORE II or any possible confounders. Results The presence of iron deficiency (ferritin Conclusions Preoperative iron deficiency (ferritin Clinical trial registration NCT02031289.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Independent of the severity of critical illness from COVID-19, 30-day survival was higher and ICU stay shorter in patients receiving tracheostomy, and early trachostomy appears to be safe in CO VID-19.
Abstract: Background The role of tracheostomy in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is unclear, with several consensus guidelines advising against this practice. We developed both a dedicated airway team and coordinated education programme to facilitate ward management of tracheostomised COVID-19 patients. Here, we report outcomes in the first 100 COVID-19 patients who underwent tracheostomy at our institution. Methods This was a prospective observational cohort study of patients confirmed to have COVID-19 who required mechanical ventilation at Queen Elizabeth Hospital, Birmingham, UK. The primary outcome measure was 30-day survival, accounting for severe organ dysfunction (Acute Physiology and Chronic Health [APACHE]-II score>17). Secondary outcomes included duration of ventilation, ICU stay, and healthcare workers directly involved in tracheostomy care acquiring COVID-19. Results A total of 164 patients with COVID-19 were admitted to the ICU between March 9, 2020 and April 21, 2020. A total of 100 patients (mean [standard deviation] age: 55 [12] yr; 29% female) underwent tracheostomy; 64 (age: 57 [14] yr; 25% female) did not undergo tracheostomy. Despite similar APACHE-II scores, 30-day survival was higher in 85/100 (85%) patients after tracheostomy, compared with 27/64 (42%) non-tracheostomised patients {relative risk: 3.9 (95% confidence intervals [CI]: 2.3–6.4); P Conclusion Independent of the severity of critical illness from COVID-19, 30-day survival was higher and ICU stay shorter in patients receiving tracheostomy. Early tracheostomy appears to be safe in COVID-19.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: ERAS components were used more frequently over time, and the level of utilisation was independently associated with incrementally improved complication odds and reduced length of stay during the primary admission.
Abstract: Background Enhanced recovery after surgery (ERAS) protocols have been shown to benefit recovery after several operations. However, large-scale data on the association between the level of ERAS use and perioperative complications are scarce, particularly in surgeries with increasing ERAS uptake, including total hip (THA) and knee arthroplasty (TKA). Using US national data, we examined the relationship between the number of ERAS components implemented (‘level') and perioperative outcomes. Methods After ethics approval, we included 1 540 462 elective THA/TKA procedures (2006–2016, as recorded in the Premier Healthcare claims database) in this retrospective cohort study. Main outcomes were any complication, cardiopulmonary complications, mortality, blood transfusions, and length of stay. Eight commonly used ERAS components were included. Mixed-effects models measured associations between ERAS level and outcomes, with odds ratios (OR) and confidence intervals (CI) reported. Results ERAS use increased over time; overall, 21.6% (n=324 437), 62.7% (n=965 953), and 18.0% (n=250 072) of cases were classified as ‘High', ‘Medium', or ‘Low' ERAS. ‘High ERAS', ‘Medium ERAS', and ‘Low ERAS' level of use were defined as such if they received either >6, 5–6, or Conclusions ERAS components were used more frequently over time, and the level of utilisation was independently associated with incrementally improved complication odds and reduced length of stay during the primary admission. Possible indication bias limits the certainty of these findings.


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Despite absence of differences in fentanyl and morphine consumption during and after surgery, a 1.6-point improvement in postoperative pain scores was observed in the NOL-guided group, attributing this to N OL-driven rather than BP- and HR-driven fentanyl dosing during anaesthesia.
Abstract: Background The majority of postoperative patients report moderate to severe pain, possibly related to opioid underdosing or overdosing during surgery. Objective guidance of opioid dosing using the Nociception Level (NOL) index, a multiparameter artificial intelligence-driven index designed to monitor nociception during surgery, may lead to a more appropriate analgesic regimen, with effects beyond surgery. We tested whether NOL-guided opioid dosing during general anaesthesia results in less postoperative pain. Methods In this two-centre RCT, 50 patients undergoing abdominal surgery under fentanyl/sevoflurane anaesthesia were randomised to NOL-guided fentanyl dosing or standard care in which fentanyl dosing was based on haemodynamics. The primary endpoint of the study was postoperative pain assessed in the PACU. Results Median postoperative pain scores were 3.2 (inter-quartile range 1.3–4.3) and 4.8 (3.0–5.3) in NOL-guided and standard care groups, respectively (P=0.006). Postoperative morphine consumption (standard deviation) was 0.06 (0.07) mg kg−1 (NOL-guided group) and 0.09 (0.09) mg kg−1 (control group; P=0.204). During surgery, fentanyl dosing was not different between groups (NOL-guided group: 6.4 [4.2] μg kg−1 vs standard care: 6.0 [2.2] μg kg−1, P=0.749), although the variation between patients was greater in the NOL-guided group (% coefficient of variation 66% in the NOL-guided group vs 37% in the standard care group). Conclusions Despite absence of differences in fentanyl and morphine consumption during and after surgery, a 1.6-point improvement in postoperative pain scores was observed in the NOL-guided group. We attribute this to NOL-driven rather than BP- and HR-driven fentanyl dosing during anaesthesia. Clinical trial registration www.trialregister.nl under identifier NL7845.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Emergency Caesarean delivery in a patient with confirmed COVID-19 under spinal anaesthesia Haifa Xia1,y, Shuai Zhao1,Y, Zhouyang Wu, Huilin Luo, Cheng Zhou and Xiangdong Chen
Abstract: Emergency Caesarean delivery in a patient with confirmed COVID-19 under spinal anaesthesia Haifa Xia1,y, Shuai Zhao1,y, Zhouyang Wu, Huilin Luo, Cheng Zhou and Xiangdong Chen Department of Anaesthesiology, Union Hospital, Tongji Medical College, Huazhong University of Science and Technology, Wuhan 430022, China, Department of Anaesthesiology, Wuhan Red Cross Hospital, Wuhan 430015, China and Laboratory of Anaesthesia & Critical Care Medicine, Translational Neuroscience Center, Department of Anaesthesiology, West China Hospital of Sichuan University, Chengdu, 610041, Sichuan, China

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: The results suggest that neostigmine might be safer than sugammadex when assessing only the incidence of anaphylaxis, and there is room for reconsideration of the choice of reversal agent for neuromuscular blocking agents by all anaesthetists.
Abstract: Background Although cases of anaphylaxis caused by sugammadex have been reported, its incidence remains uncertain. Conversely, no studies have evaluated the incidence of anaphylaxis to neostigmine. Methods This was a retrospective multicentre observational study of patients who underwent surgery under general anaesthesia between 2012 and 2016 to compare the incidence of anaphylaxis with sugammadex with that of neostigmine at four tertiary hospitals in Japan. To ensure the quality of diagnosis, only cases with a clinical history suggestive of anaphylaxis, along with positive results from in vitro or in vivo testing, were assessed. Results From a total of 49 532 patients who received general anaesthesia included in this study, 18 cases of anaphylaxis were reported, of which six were attributable to sugammadex and none to neostigmine. There were no fatalities attributable to anaphylaxis. The incidence of anaphylaxis caused by all drugs or by sugammadex was calculated as 0.036% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.022–0.057%) and 0.02% (of the number of sugammadex cases) (95% CI: 0.007–0.044%), respectively. Conclusions The results suggest that neostigmine might be safer than sugammadex when assessing only the incidence of anaphylaxis. We believe that there is room for reconsideration of the choice of reversal agent for neuromuscular blocking agents by all anaesthetists. Clinical trial registration UMIN000022365; UMIN000033561.

Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: Serotonergic toxicity can mimic other serious syndromes, such as malignant hyperthermia, sepsis, thyroid storm, and neuroleptic malignant syndrome, and Anaesthetists must maintain a heightened awareness of its possible occurrence and a readiness to engage in early treatment to avoid poor outcomes.
Abstract: Summary Most cases of serotonin toxicity are provoked by therapeutic doses of a combination of two or more serotonergic drugs, defined as drugs affecting the serotonin neurotransmitter system. Common serotonergic drugs include many antidepressants, antipsychotics, and opioid analgesics, particularly fentanyl, tramadol, meperidine (pethidine), and methadone, but rarely morphine and other related phenanthrenes. Symptoms of serotonin toxicity are attributable to an effect on monoaminergic transmission caused by an increased synaptic concentration of serotonin. The serotonin transporter (SERT) maintains low serotonin concentrations and is important for the reuptake of the neurotransmitter into the presynaptic nerve terminals. Some opioids inhibit the reuptake of serotonin by inhibiting SERT, thus increasing the plasma and synaptic cleft serotonin concentrations that activate the serotonin receptors. Opioids that are good inhibitors of SERT (tramadol, dextromethorphan, methadone, and meperidine) are most frequently associated with serotonin toxicity. Tramadol also has a direct serotonin-releasing action. Fentanyl produces an efflux of serotonin, and binds to 5-hydroxytryptamine (5-HT)1A and 5-HT2A receptors, whilst methadone, meperidine, and more weakly tapentadol, bind to 5-HT2A but not 5-HT1A receptors. The perioperative period is a time where opioids and other serotonergic drugs are frequently administered in rapid succession, sometimes to patients with other serotonergic drugs in their system. This makes the perioperative period a relatively risky time for serotonin toxicity to occur. The intraoperative recognition of serotonin toxicity is challenging as it can mimic other serious syndromes, such as malignant hyperthermia, sepsis, thyroid storm, and neuroleptic malignant syndrome. Anaesthetists must maintain a heightened awareness of its possible occurrence and a readiness to engage in early treatment to avoid poor outcomes.


Journal ArticleDOI
TL;DR: This guided improvement programme for tracheostomy patients significantly improved the quality and safety of care, contributing rich qualitative improvement data.
Abstract: Background Inconsistent and poorly coordinated systems of tracheostomy care commonly result in frustrations, delays, and harm. Quality improvement strategies described by exemplar hospitals of the Global Tracheostomy Collaborative have potential to mitigate such problems. This 3 yr guided implementation programme investigated interventions designed to improve the quality and safety of tracheostomy care. Methods The programme management team guided the implementation of 18 interventions over three phases (baseline/implementation/evaluation). Mixed-methods interviews, focus groups, and Hospital Anxiety and Depression Scale questionnaires defined outcome measures, with patient-level databases tracking and benchmarking process metrics. Appreciative inquiry, interviews, and Normalisation Measure Development questionnaires explored change barriers and enablers. Results All sites implemented at least 16/18 interventions, with the magnitude of some improvements linked to staff engagement (1536 questionnaires from 1019 staff), and 2405 admissions (1868 ICU/high-dependency unit; 7.3% children) were prospectively captured. Median stay was 50 hospital days, 23 ICU days, and 28 tracheostomy days. Incident severity score reduced significantly (n=606; P Conclusions This guided improvement programme for tracheostomy patients significantly improved the quality and safety of care, contributing rich qualitative improvement data. Patient-centred outcomes were improved along with significant efficiency and cost savings across diverse UK hospitals. Clinical trial registration IRAS-ID-206955; REC-Ref-16/LO/1196; NIHR Portfolio CPMS ID 31544.