Patient characteristics, anaesthetic workload and techniques in the UK: an analysis from the 7th National Audit Project (NAP7) activity survey.

Detailed contemporary knowledge of the characteristics of the surgical population, national anaesthetic workload, anaesthetic techniques and behaviours are essential to monitor productivity, inform policy and direct research themes. Every 3-4 years, the Royal College of Anaesthetists, as part of its National Audit Projects (NAP), performs a snapshot activity survey in all UK hospitals delivering anaesthesia, collecting patient-level encounter data from all cases under the care of an anaesthetist. During November 2021, as part of NAP7, anaesthetists recorded details of all cases undertaken over 4 days at their site through an online survey capturing anonymous patient characteristics and anaesthetic details. Of 416 hospital sites invited to participate, 352 (85%) completed the activity survey. From these, 24,177 reports were returned, of which 24,172 (99%) were included in the final dataset. The work patterns by day of the week, time of day and surgical specialty were similar to previous NAP activity surveys. However, in non-obstetric patients, between NAP5 (2013) and NAP7 (2021) activity surveys, the estimated median age of patients increased by 2.3 years from median (IQR) of 50.5 (28.4-69.1) to 52.8 (32.1-69.2) years. The median (IQR) BMI increased from 24.9 (21.5-29.5) to 26.7 (22.3-31.7) kg.m-2 . The proportion of patients who scored as ASA physical status 1 decreased from 37% in NAP5 to 24% in NAP7. The use of total intravenous anaesthesia increased from 8% of general anaesthesia cases to 26% between NAP5 and NAP7. Some changes may reflect the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the anaesthetic population, though patients with confirmed COVID-19 accounted for only 149 (1%) cases. These data show a rising burden of age, obesity and comorbidity in patients requiring anaesthesia care, likely to impact UK peri-operative services significantly.

The impact of COVID-19 on anaesthesia and critical care services in the UK: a serial service evaluation.

Between October 2020 and January 2021, we conducted three national surveys to track anaesthetic, surgical and critical care activity during the second COVID-19 pandemic wave in the UK. We surveyed all NHS hospitals where surgery is undertaken. Response rates, by round, were 64%, 56% and 51%. Despite important regional variations, the surveys showed increasing systemic pressure on anaesthetic and peri-operative services due to the need to support critical care pandemic demands. During Rounds 1 and 2, approximately one in eight anaesthetic staff were not available for anaesthetic work. Approximately one in five operating theatres were closed and activity fell in those that were open. Some mitigation was achieved by relocation of surgical activity to other locations. Approximately one-quarter of all surgical activity was lost, with paediatric and non-cancer surgery most impacted. During January 2021, the system was largely overwhelmed. Almost one-third of anaesthesia staff were unavailable, 42% of operating theatres were closed, national surgical activity reduced to less than half, including reduced cancer and emergency surgery. Redeployed anaesthesia staff increased the critical care workforce by 125%. Three-quarters of critical care units were so expanded that planned surgery could not be safely resumed. At all times, the greatest resource limitation was staff. Due to lower response rates from the most pressed regions and hospitals, these results may underestimate the true impact. These findings have important implications for understanding what has happened during the COVID-19 pandemic, planning recovery and building a system that will better respond to future waves or new epidemics.

Mortality in patients admitted to intensive care with COVID-19: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

The COVID-19 pandemic continues to cause critical illness and deaths internationally. Up to 31 May 2020, mortality in patients admitted to intensive care units (ICU) with COVID-19 was 41.6%. Since then, changes in therapeutics and management may have improved outcomes. Also, data from countries affected later in the pandemic are now available. We searched MEDLINE, Embase, PubMed and Cochrane databases up to 30 September 2020 for studies reporting ICU mortality among adult patients with COVID-19 and present an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. The primary outcome measure was death in intensive care as a proportion of completed ICU admissions, either through discharge from intensive care or death. We identified 52 observational studies including 43,128 patients, and first reports from the Middle East, South Asia and Australasia, as well as four national or regional registries. Reported mortality was lower in registries compared with other reports. In two regions, mortality differed significantly from all others, being higher in the Middle East and lower in a single registry study from Australasia. Although ICU mortality (95%CI) was lower than reported in June (35.5% (31.3-39.9%) vs. 41.6% (34.0-49.7%)), the absence of patient-level data prevents a definitive evaluation. A lack of standardisation of reporting prevents comparison of cohorts in terms of underlying risk, severity of illness or outcomes. We found that the decrease in ICU mortality from COVID-19 has reduced or plateaued since May 2020 and note the possibility of some geographical variation. More standardisation in reporting would improve the ability to compare outcomes from different reports.

Outcomes from intensive care in patients with COVID-19: a systematic review and meta-analysis of observational studies.

The emergence of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has led to high demand for intensive care services worldwide. However, the mortality of patients admitted to the intensive care unit (ICU) with COVID-19 is unclear. Here, we perform a systematic review and meta-analysis, in line with PRISMA guidelines, to assess the reported ICU mortality for patients with confirmed COVID-19. We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed and Cochrane databases up to 31 May 2020 for studies reporting ICU mortality for adult patients admitted with COVID-19. The primary outcome measure was death in intensive care as a proportion of completed ICU admissions, either through discharge from the ICU or death. The definition thus did not include patients still alive on ICU. Twenty-four observational studies including 10,150 patients were identified from centres across Asia, Europe and North America. In-ICU mortality in reported studies ranged from 0 to 84.6%. Seven studies reported outcome data for all patients. In the remaining studies, the proportion of patients discharged from ICU at the point of reporting varied from 24.5 to 97.2%. In patients with completed ICU admissions with COVID-19 infection, combined ICU mortality (95%CI) was 41.6% (34.0-49.7%), I2  = 93.2%). Sub-group analysis by continent showed that mortality is broadly consistent across the globe. As the pandemic has progressed, the reported mortality rates have fallen from above 50% to close to 40%. The in-ICU mortality from COVID-19 is higher than usually seen in ICU admissions with other viral pneumonias. Importantly, the mortality from completed episodes of ICU differs considerably from the crude mortality rates in some early reports.