A Cross-Sectional Study to Ascertain the Effect of COVID-19 Pandemic on Regional Anaesthesia Practices Amongst Anaesthesiologists of India

Background and aims Regional anaesthesia has been advocated as a preferred modality during the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID‑19) pandemic, but pursuing regional anaesthesia during COVID-19 is challenging. Our cross-sectional survey aimed to analyze the challenges in conducting regional anaesthesia and the alterations in practices imposed by the COVID‑19 pandemic across the nation. Material and methods The questionnaire was validated by seven experts. Following ethical approval and trial registration, this Google Forms-based survey was circulated to anaesthesiologists across the country via emails over 3 months (April 2021 to June 2021). Weekly reminders were sent to the non-responders till the desired sample size was attained, after which the survey was closed and responses were analyzed. Results Five hundred and thirty-two of 1100 anaesthesiologists completed the survey (48.3% response rate). Among the 532 respondents, 65.8% reported an increase in the use of regional anaesthesia due to the pandemic, with 77.4% reporting a change in practice. Almost 90% of the respondents used a dedicated operation theatre for all infected patients. Most respondents (75%) used disposable plastic drapes (75%) and full personal protective equipment (PPE) for COVID-19-positive patients during the procedure. However, using PPE resulted in poor vision due to fogging and multiple attempts and increased performance duration. Most respondents (74.4%) used gloves to maintain ultrasound probe sterility, while many other respondents (65.7%) used a sterile camera cover for the same. Many respondents ordered inflammatory markers during preoperative evaluation. Conclusion The present survey revealed that there was increased utilization of regional anaesthesia with increased utilization of PPE, sterility routines, and ordering of investigations. The use of PPE led to many challenges while performing regional anaesthesia. However, many deviations were identified from the accepted recommendations, and one needs to be aware of proper practices to achieve optimal patient outcomes and provider safety.

Nationwide impact of COVID-19 pandemic on postgraduate medical teaching, research, and mental stress: A cross-sectional online questionnaire-based survey.

Background and Aims: Coronavirus disease-2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has affected postgraduate medical education, training, and ongoing research work across specialties. Our survey aimed to analyze the effect of COVID-19 on challenges in pursuing research and academics and ascertain the stressors on residents across medical specialties. Material and Methods: The questionnaire was validated by 10 experts and following ethical approval, this google form-based survey was circulated to postgraduates across specialties across the country through social media platforms over 1 month (22 August 2020 to 21 September 2020). On clicking the link, the participants received brief information regarding the survey followed by the questionnaire. Weekly reminders were sent to the nonresponders till the desired sample size was attained, after which the survey was closed, and responses were analyzed. Results: Four hundred and nineteen of 900 residents completed the survey (46.6% response rate). Majority (88.8%) admitted that the inability to conduct the thesis and break in academics caused a significant amount of mental stress upon them. Though classes had resumed through online platforms for most residents (75.4%), the residents reported that lack of bedside learning (65.4%), inadequate progress tests (26.4%), and delay in thesis topic allotment (84.6% among those not allotted thesis) correlated with increased stress. Fear of extension of the course (53%; P = 0.019) and getting infected with COVID-19 (46.6%; P = 0.019) were most cited reasons for significant stress in most of the residents. Many residents (26%) were unable to sleep properly and 22.1% were unable to concentrate on academics. Majority believed that extension of the submission deadline, reduction in sample size, and change in topic would help to complete thesis. Conclusion: The present survey revealed that there is a major impediment to research and academics of medical postgraduates during COVID-19 pandemic which has markedly increased their stress levels.

Effective Dose of Prophylactic Oxytocin Infusion During Cesarean Delivery in 90% Population of Nonlaboring Patients With Preeclampsia Receiving Magnesium Sulfate Therapy and Normotensives: An Up-Down Sequential Allocation Dose-Response Study.

BACKGROUND: Oxytocin administration during cesarean delivery is the first-line therapy for the prevention of uterine atony. Patients with preeclampsia may receive magnesium sulfate, a drug with known tocolytic effects, for seizure prophylaxis. However, no study has evaluated the minimum effective dose of oxytocin during cesarean delivery in women with preeclampsia. METHODS: This study compared the effective dose in 90% population (ED90) of oxytocin infusion for achieving satisfactory uterine tone during cesarean delivery in nonlaboring patients with preeclampsia who were receiving magnesium sulfate treatment with a control group of normotensives who were not receiving magnesium sulfate. This prospective dual-arm dose-finding study was based on a 9:1 biased sequential allocation design. Oxytocin infusion was initiated at 13 IU/h, on clamping of the umbilical cord, in the first patient of each group. Uterine tone was graded as satisfactory or unsatisfactory by the obstetrician at 4 minutes after initiation of oxytocin infusion. The dose of oxytocin infusion for subsequent patients was decided according to the response exhibited by the previous patient in the group; it was increased by 2 IU/h after unsatisfactory response or decreased by 2 IU/h or maintained at the same level after satisfactory response, in a ratio of 1:9. Oxytocin-associated side effects were also evaluated. Dose-response data for the groups were evaluated using a log-logistic function and ED90 estimates were derived from fitted equations using the delta method. RESULTS: The ED90 of oxytocin was significantly greater for the preeclampsia group (n = 27) than for the normotensive group (n = 40) (24.9 IU/h [95% confidence interval {CI}, 22.4-27.5] and 13.9 IU/h [95% CI, 12.4-15.5], respectively); the difference in dose requirement was 10.9 IU/h (95% CI, 7.9-14.0; P < .001). The number of patients with oxytocin-related hypotension, defined as a decrease in systolic blood pressure >20% from baseline or to <90 mm Hg, was significantly greater in the preeclampsia group (92.6% vs 62.5%; P = .030), while other side effects such as ST-T depression, nausea/vomiting, headache, and flushing, were not significantly different. There was no significant difference in the need for additional uterotonic or uterine massage, estimated blood loss, and need for re-exploration for uncontrolled bleeding. CONCLUSIONS: Patients with preeclampsia receiving preoperative magnesium therapy need a greater intraoperative dose of oxytocin to achieve satisfactory contraction of the uterus after fetal delivery, as compared to normotensives.

Surviving COVID-19 is Half the Battle; Living Life with Perceived Stigma is Other Half: A Cross-Sectional Study.

BACKGROUND: Year 2020 started with global health crisis known as COVID-19. In lack of established tools and management protocols, COVID-19 had become breeding ground for fear and confusion, leading to stigma toward affected individuals. METHOD: A cross-sectional study was conducted to estimate prevalence of stigma in discharged COVID-19 patients from a COVID hospital in India. Participants were approached telephonically using a semistructured questionnaire to record their experiences. Questions were asked regarding stigma at six major domains of daily life. Among total 1,673 discharged participants, 600 were conveniently selected and out of them 311 responded on telephonic interviews. RESULT: We found that 182 (58.52%) participants (95% CI: 53.04-64.00) have self-perceived stigma, 163 (52.41%) participants (95% CI: 46.86-57.96) experienced quarantine-related stigma, 222 (71.38%) participants (95% CI: 66.36-76.40) experienced neighborhood stigma, 214 (68.81%) participants (95% CI: 63.66-73.95) experienced stigma while going out in marketplaces, 180 (57.88%) participants (95% CI: 52.39-63.37) experienced stigma at their work place, and 207 (66.56%) participants (95% CI: 61.31-71.80) reported stigma experienced by their family members. With a total of 84.5% (95% CI: 80.06-88.39) participants experiencing stigma at some domain and about 42.8% of participants facing stigma at all six domains. The commonest noted cause of stigma was fear of getting infected, reported by 184 (59.2%) participants. CONCLUSION: This study shows high prevalence of stigma in COVID-19 patients suffering in their common domains of daily lives.

Comparison of KingVision Videolaryngoscope channelled blade with Tuoren Videolaryngoscope non-channelled blade in a simulated COVID-19 intubation scenario by non-anaesthesiologists and experienced anaesthesiologists: a prospective randomised crossover mannequin study

Purpose A videolaryngoscope has been recommended for intubation in the COVID-19 scenario but the videolaryngoscope providing optimal intubation conditions is not ascertained. We compared KingVision channelled blade with a non-Channelled videolaryngoscope for intubation times in a simulated COVID-19 intubation scenario by both anaesthesiologists and non-anaesthesiologists. Methods This prospective randomised cross over mannequin study was conducted in a skill training lab. 25 anaesthesiologists and 25 non-anaesthesiologists donned in standard personal protective equipment performed 100 intubations with KingVision and Tuoren videolaryngoscopes in a mannequin covered with a transparent plastic sheet. The total intubation time, percentage of glottic opening scores, first attempt success rates were assessed. Results The mean difference in intubation times in anaesthesiologists and non-anaesthesiologist less with KingVision videolaryngoscope (21.1s;95% CI 9.6 to 32.6s vs. 35.9s;95% CI 24.4 to 47.4 s;P=0.001). Percentage of glottic opening score was significantly better with KingVision by non-anaesthesiologists (60;IQR 42.5 to 75 vs. 70;IQR 50 to 100;P=0.019). KingVision provided superior first attempt success rate in non-anaesthesiologists (84% vs. 61.9%;P=0.02) and anaesthesiologists (96% vs. 76%;P=0.12). Conclusion KingVision channelled videolaryngoscope provided faster intubation times, glottic views and first attempt success rates in a simulated COVID-19 scenario in manikins and might be preferred over videolaryngoscopes with non-channelled blade. The findings need to be further verified in humans.