Perfusion index for early identification of regional anesthesia effectiveness: a narrative review.

Regional anesthesia (RA) is a common and irreplaceable technique in clinical, which can be used in different surgery sites and control of acute and chronic pain, especially for outpatients, pediatrics and the elderly. RA demands are increasing during COVID-19 pandemic because many surgeries could be performed under RA to reduce the risk of cross-infection between patients and health care workers. Early and accurate identification of the effects of RA can help physicians make timely decisions about whether to supplement analgesics or switch to general anesthesia, which will save time and improve patient satisfaction in a busy operating room. Perfusion index (PI) is a parameter derived from photoplethysmography (PPG) and represents the ratio of pulsatile and non-pulsatile blood flow at monitoring sites. It reflects local perfusion and is mainly affected by stroke volume and vascular tone. With characteristics of non-invasive, rapid, simple, and objective, PI is widely used in clinical practice, such as fluid responsiveness prediction, nociceptive assessment, etc. Recently, many studies have assessed the accuracy of PI in early prediction of RA success, including brachial plexus block, sciatic nerve block, neuraxial anesthesia, paravertebral block, caudal block and stellate ganglion block. Successful RA often parallels increased PI. In this narrative review, we describe the principles and influencing factors of PI, and introduce the effects of PI on early identification of RA effectiveness.

The effect of the COVID-19 pandemic on anesthesia techniques in tertiary hospital: general anesthesia or regional anesthesia - a retrospective cohort study.

OBJECTIVE: We aimed to find out how the pandemic process changed the anesthesia methods applied in Çorum Single Tertiary Region Hospital. In our hospital, we investigated the anesthesia methods used for surgical procedures before and during the pandemic, the number of cases, and the impact of the pandemic on emergency and elective surgeries. MATERIALS AND METHODS: This is a retrospective cohort study comparing COVID-19 pandemic's effect on the number of surgical operations and anesthesia techniques. The 22-month surgeries during the pandemic period and the 22-month pre-pandemic surgeries were compared in terms of anesthesia methods, branch-specific, and overall case changes. The data obtained were analyzed comparatively in terms of anesthetic techniques, branch-specific and overall case changes of the patients operated on in the operating room before and during the pandemic. RESULTS: While 65,984 surgical procedures were performed in the pre-pandemic period, only 54,352 were performed during the COVID-19 pandemic. The total number of surgical procedures decreased by 17.63% during the pandemic. While there was a 21.1% decrease in elective surgeries due to the pandemic, there was a 71.43% increase in emergency surgeries during the pandemic period. There was a significant disparity in the distribution of both elective and emergency cases by surgical specialty. It was found that the surgical specialties that received the most cases during the pandemic were General Surgery, Obstetrics-Gynecologic Surgery, Urologic Surgery and Orthopedic Surgery. During the COVID-19 pandemic, regional anesthesia (RA) was used in 16.95% of cases (as the primary technique). The use of RA as the primary anesthetic technique was significantly higher (10.61%) than in the pre-pandemic data. It was observed that specialties such as General Surgery, Obstetrics-Gynecologic Surgery, Urologic Surgery, And Orthopedic Surgery were prominent in the distribution of regional anesthesia. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic was not the first and will not be the last and during this period we saw how important the personnel and material management are. Our study plays an important role in showing the uneven distribution of expected surgical procedures in operating rooms during the pandemic situation. It may provide guidance on the distribution of limited and essential personnel and personal protective equipment (PPE, medications, etc.) during the pandemic period. In this context, regional anesthesia may play an important role in the future because it can provide high-quality perioperative care to patients while minimizing the preference for general anesthesia during surgical procedures, thus minimizing personnel burden and limited resource use.

Ad-hoc preoperative management and respiratory events in pediatric anesthesia during the first COVID-19 lockdown-an observational cohort study.

BACKGROUND: Early pre-anesthetic management for surgery is aimed at identifying risk factors, which notably in children are mostly airway related. The first COVID-19 lockdown opened a unique 'window of opportunity' to study what impact an ad-hoc management strategy would bring to bear on intraoperative respiratory events. METHODS: In this observational cohort study we included all patients with an American Society of Anesthesiology (ASA) Physical Status of I or II, aged 0 to ≤18 years, who underwent elective surgery at our center during the first national COVID-19 lockdown (March 15th to May 31st, 2020) and all analogue cases during the same calendar period of 2017-2019. The primary outcome parameter was a drop in peripheral oxygen saturation (SpO2) below 90% during anesthesia management. The study is completed and registered with the German Clinical Trials Register, DRKS00024128. RESULTS: Given 125 of 796 evaluable cases during the early 2020 lockdown, significant differences over the years did not emerge for the primary outcome or event counts (p>0.05). Events were exceedingly rare even under general anesthesia (n = 3) and non-existent under regional anesthesia (apart from block failures: n = 4). Regression analysis for SpO2 events <90% yielded no significant difference for ad-hoc vs standard preoperative management (p = 0.367) but more events based on younger patients (p = 0.007), endotracheal intubation (p = 0.007), and bronchopulmonary procedures (p = 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Early assessment may not add to the safety of pediatric anesthesia. As a potential caveat for other centers, the high rate of anesthesia without airway manipulation at our center may contribute to our low rate of respiratory events.

Intrapandemic regional anesthesia as practice: a historical cohort study in patients undergoing breast cancer surgery.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic has markedly increased delays in oncologic surgeries because of the virus's impact on traditional anesthetic management. Novel protocols, developed to protect patients and medical professionals, have altered the ways and instances in which general anesthesia (GA) can be safely performed. To reduce virus exposure related to aerosol-generating procedures, it is now recommended to avoid GA when feasible and promote regional anesthesia instead. At our institution, we observed faster postoperative recovery in patients who received paravertebral blocks for breast cancer surgery instead of GA. This led us to formally evaluate whether regional anesthesia instead of GA helped improve time to hospital discharge. METHODS: We conducted a historical cohort study to retrospectively analyze two cohorts of patients: prepandemic vs intrapandemic. We obtained approval from our institutional ethics committee to review files of consecutive patients who underwent breast cancer surgery between 30 March 2020 and 30 June 2020 (intrapandemic group; N = 106) and consecutive patients-moving backwards-from 28 February 2020 to 6 December 2019 (prepandemic group; N = 104). The primary outcome was the length of time between the end of surgery to readiness for hospital discharge. Secondary outcomes included the incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV), the need for postoperative analgesia, and the duration of stay in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU). RESULTS: The median [interquartile range (IQR)] time to readiness for hospital discharge was significantly lower in patients who received paravertebral blocks for breast cancer surgery compared with GA (intrapandemic group, 119 [99-170] min vs prepandemic group, 191 [164-234] min; P < 0.001) as was the incidence of PONV (3% vs 11%; P = 0.03) and median [IQR] PACU durations of stay (29 [21-39] min vs 46 [37-63] min; P < 0.001). CONCLUSIONS: Patients who received paravertebral blocks for breast cancer surgery in the intrapandemic group were ready for hospital discharge earlier, spent less time in the PACU, and experienced less PONV than those who received GA in the prepandemic group. With growing surgical wait times, concerns related to aerosol-generating procedures, and recommendations to avoid GA when feasible, paravertebral blocks as the principal anesthetic modality for breast cancer surgery offered benefits for patients and medical teams.

RéSUMé: CONTEXTE: La pandémie de COVID-19 a considérablement augmenté les retards dans les chirurgies oncologiques en raison de l'impact du virus sur la prise en charge anesthésique traditionnelle. De nouveaux protocoles, mis au point pour protéger les patients et les professionnels de la santé, ont modifié les façons et les cas dans lesquels une anesthésie générale (AG) peut être réalisée en toute sécurité. Afin de réduire l'exposition au virus liée aux interventions génératrices d'aérosols, il est maintenant recommandé d'éviter l'AG lorsque possible et de privilégier l'anesthésie régionale. Dans notre établissement, nous avons observé une récupération postopératoire plus rapide chez les patientes ayant reçu des blocs paravertébraux pour une chirurgie de cancer du sein au lieu d'une AG. Cela nous a menés à évaluer de façon formelle si l'anesthésie régionale au lieu de l'AG avait contribué à réduire les délais jusqu'au congé de l'hôpital. MéTHODE: Nous avons réalisé une étude de cohorte historique afin d'analyser rétrospectivement deux cohortes de patientes : prépandémie vs intrapandémie. Nous avons obtenu l'approbation de notre comité d'éthique institutionnel pour examiner les dossiers de patientes consécutives ayant bénéficié d'une chirurgie de cancer du sein entre le 30 mars 2020 et le 30 juin 2020 (groupe intrapandémie; n = 106) et des patientes consécutives ­ en reculant ­ du 28 février 2020 au 6 décembre 2019 (groupe prépandémie; n = 104). Le critère d'évaluation principal était le délai entre la fin de la chirurgie et le moment où les patientes étaient prêtes à recevoir leur congé de l'hôpital. Les critères d'évaluation secondaires comprenaient l'incidence de nausées et vomissements postopératoires (NVPO), la nécessité d'une analgésie postopératoire et la durée de séjour en salle de réveil (SDR). RéSULTATS: Le délai médian [écart interquartile (ÉIQ)] jusqu'à la disposition au congé de l'hôpital était significativement plus court chez les patientes ayant reçu des blocs paravertébraux pour une chirurgie de cancer du sein plutôt qu'une AG (groupe intrapandémie, 119 [99-170] min vs groupe prépandémie, 191 [164­234] min; P < 0,001), tout comme l'incidence de NVPO (3 % vs 11 %; P = 0,03) et les durées médianes [ÉIQ] de séjour en salle de réveil (29 [21­39] min vs 46 [37­63] min; P < 0,001). CONCLUSION: Les patientes qui ont reçu des blocs paravertébraux pour une chirurgie de cancer du sein dans le groupe intrapandémie étaient prêtes à quitter l'hôpital plus tôt, ont passé moins de temps en salle de réveil et ont ressenti moins de NVPO que celles qui ont reçu une AG dans le groupe prépandémie. Avec des temps d'attente pour accès à la chirurgie de plus en plus longs, des préoccupations liées aux interventions génératrices d'aérosols et les recommandations d'éviter l'AG lorsque possible, les blocs paravertébraux ont offert des avantages aux patientes et aux équipes médicales en tant que principale modalité anesthésique pour la chirurgie de cancer du sein.

The practice of regional anesthesia during the COVID-19 pandemic: an international survey of members of three regional anesthesia societies.

PURPOSE: To determine the preferences and attitudes of members of regional anesthesia societies during the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We distributed an electronic survey to members of the American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, Regional Anaesthesia-UK, and the European Society of Regional Anaesthesia & Pain Therapy. A questionnaire consisting of 19 questions was developed by a panel of experienced regional anesthesiologists and distributed by email to the participants. The survey covered the following domains: participant information, practice settings, preference for the type of anesthetic technique, the use of personal protective equipment, and oxygen therapy. RESULTS: The survey was completed by 729 participants from 73 different countries, with a response rate of 20.1% (729/3,630) for the number of emails opened and 8.5% (729/8,572) for the number of emails sent. Most respondents (87.7%) identified as anesthesia staff (faculty or consultant) and practiced obstetric and non-obstetric anesthesia (55.3%). The practice of regional anesthesia either expanded or remained the same, with only 2% of respondents decreasing their use compared with the pre-pandemic period. The top reasons for an increase in the use of regional anesthesia was to reduce the need for an aerosol-generating medical procedure and to reduce the risk of possible complications to patients. The most common reason for decreased use of regional anesthesia was the risk of urgent conversion to general anesthesia. Approximately 70% of the responders used airborne precautions when providing care to a patient under regional anesthesia. The most common oxygen delivery method was nasal prongs (cannula) with a surgical mask layered over it (61%). CONCLUSIONS: Given the perceived benefits of regional over general anesthesia, approximately half of the members of three regional anesthesia societies seem to have expanded their use of regional anesthesia techniques during the initial surge of the COVID-19 pandemic.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Déterminer les préférences et les attitudes des membres des sociétés d'anesthésie régionale pendant la pandémie de COVID-19. MéTHODE: Nous avons distribué un sondage électronique aux membres de l'American Society of Regional Anesthesia and Pain Medicine, de Regional Anesthesia-UK et de l'European Society of Regional Anaesthesia & Pain Therapy. Un questionnaire composé de 19 questions a été élaboré par un panel d'anesthésiologistes régionaux d'expérience et distribué par courriel aux participants. Le sondage couvrait les domaines suivants : les renseignements sur les participants, les contextes de pratique, leur préférence quant au type de technique d'anesthésie, l'utilisation d'équipement de protection individuelle et l'oxygénothérapie RéSULTATS: Le sondage a été complété par 729 participants provenant de 73 pays différents, avec un taux de réponse de 20,1 % (729/3630) pour le nombre de courriels ouverts et de 8,5 % (729/8572) pour le nombre de courriels envoyés. La plupart des répondants (87,7 %) se sont identifiés comme anesthésiologistes (académique ou consultant) et pratiquaient l'anesthésie obstétricale et non obstétricale (55,3 %). Leur pratique de l'anesthésie régionale s'est étendue ou est demeurée inchangée, et seulement 2 % des répondants ont indiqué avoir diminué leur utilisation de cette pratique par rapport à la période pré-pandémique. Les principales raisons d'une augmentation de l'utilisation de l'anesthésie régionale étaient de réduire la nécessité d'une intervention médicale générant des aérosols et de réduire le risque de complications potentielles pour les patients. La raison la plus courante de diminution du recours à l'anesthésie régionale était le risque de conversion urgente à une anesthésie générale. Environ 70 % des intervenants ont utilisé des précautions en matière de propagation des aérosols lorsqu'ils procuraient des soins à un patient sous anesthésie régionale. La méthode d'administration d'oxygène la plus fréquemment utilisée était les canules nasales avec un masque chirurgical superposé (61 %). CONCLUSION: Compte tenu des avantages perçus de l'anesthésie régionale par rapport à l'anesthésie générale, environ la moitié des membres de trois sociétés d'anesthésie régionale semblent avoir élargi leur utilisation des techniques d'anesthésie régionale pendant la vague initiale de la pandémie de COVID-19.

COVID-19: Regional Anesthesia, Benefits, and Practical Recommendations.

During coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic, efforts have been made to rethink the health system and provide various recommendations to the best care of patients and for the protection of health personnel. In patients with suspicion or confirmation of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) who require surgical intervention and anesthetic management, strategies must be established to minimize aerosol-generating procedures. Regional anesthesia (RA) is not considered an aerosol-generating procedure per se and is currently proposed such as a safe strategy and part of comprehensive perioperative care. However, the preoperative evaluation has undergone changes in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic, so in addition to routine preoperative evaluation, a patient-oriented history, clinical, laboratory, and radiologic evaluation should be performed, and a series of general recommendations should be taken into account before, during, and after the performance of RA procedure. A search of PubMed/MEDLINE, Web of Science, and Google Scholar databases was performed until August 22, 2020, using the words: 〞regional anesthesia or nerve block or peripheral nerve block or spinal anesthesia or epidural anesthesia and SARS-CoV-2 or COVID-19 or MERS or SARS-CoV-1 or influenza.〞 We included in this review all articles, regardless of design, published in the English language. Given the benefits reported with the use of RA techniques, both for the patient and for healthcare personnel, it has recently been suggested that RA should be considered as the first choice. However, it is important to generate more precise and homogeneous management guidelines based on the evidence obtained every day during the care of patients with COVID-19.

Audiovisual distraction as an anxiety-minimising adjuvant to regional anaesthesia in adult limb surgery: a service evaluation using patient reported experience measures.

Audiovisual distraction (AVD) is an expanding anxiety-minimising technique for patients undergoing surgery under regional anaesthesia (RA). We evaluated patient satisfaction with AVD in the setting of conscious RA for limb surgery using patient reported experience measures (PREMs). Service evaluation using PREMs, via standardised post-operative patient questionnaire, in a single tertiary referral centre for orthopaedic and plastic surgery over an 18-month period. Outcome measures included impact of AVD on peri-operative anxiety, comfort, satisfaction and comparison with previous general anaesthesia (GA) experiences. 50 adult patients undergoing elective limb surgery under RA ± sedation were provided with a wifi-enabled tablet device peri-operatively and completed a post-operative questionnaire regarding their AVD experience. 100% were satisfied with AVD and would recommend to others. 78% were anxious before or during the procedure, of which 97% felt that AVD improved their anxiety levels. Of the 94% with previous experience of GA, 89% reported a 'better' experience with RA + AVD. PREMs regarding AVD were encouraging and lay a foundation for further clinical service development and research into incorporation of this technique for appropriate RA patient groups. Our findings are particularly relevant in the COVID-affected era of anaesthesia as RA benefits and strategies to minimise anxiety are reappraised.

Regional anesthesia in coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Coronavirus disease 19 (COVID-19) has presented numerous challenges to healthcare systems worldwide. The virus is highly contagious and infectious since transmission can occur via multiple routes. General measures to prevent viral transmission to patients and healthcare personnel, such as a reduction in clinical load and routine testing, must be coupled with multiple additional safety measures in perioperative services. RECENT FINDINGS: Regional anesthesia preserves respiratory function and reduces aerosol-generating procedures typically associated with airway management in general anesthesia, making it the first choice for a suspected or confirmed COVID-19 patient in need of surgery with anesthesia. A well thought out regional anesthetic plan, implementation of hygiene and (personal) safety measures are necessary to ensure the best possible outcome for both the patient and the healthcare staff. SUMMARY: The present review addresses both practical and recommended measures for performing regional anesthesia in the pandemic, to ensure patient and staff safety, and equipment protection. Further research and evidence-based guidelines are necessary to devise an established standard of care during the current COVID-19 and possible future pandemics.

[Infection Control in Anesthesia]. / Infektionsprävention in der Anästhesie.

The anaesthesiological care of patients in the operating room involves many activities that can lead to an infection. Hand hygiene is the most effective single measure for the prevention of nosocomial infections. Hand disinfectant dispensers should be placed within easy reach. When preparing infusions and drugs to be administered intravenously, the introduction of microorganisms cannot be completely ruled out, even if all hygienic requirements are observed. Therefore, parenterals without preservatives may only be removed immediately before administration, not several times from the same container and not for several patients. For punctures for regional anaesthesia and for the placement of vascular catheters, the highest hygiene requirements apply when long seldinger wires are used or when catheters are placed in deep tissue spaces or body cavities. The timely application of antibiotic prophylaxis is one of the most important measures in perioperative infection prevention. Indications and choice of substance should be defined in an in-house guideline. Maintaining a balanced volume, body temperature and blood sugar level contributes to the prophylaxis of surgical site infections. The preparation of an operating room after an operation must always ensure that it does not pose a risk of infection for the following patient - regardless of the pathogens with which the previous patient is infected or colonized. There is no evidence for further measures to separate so-called aseptic and septic operations or of patients with multi-resistant pathogens. In order to be able to take the necessary measures for employee protection in corona-infected patients in the operating room, it is essential to know the current infection status. For example, when a patient is handed over to the OR, a current test result should be checked and documented on the OR checklist.

Ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia in COVID-19 and future pandemics: infection control.

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Infection control is inherent in ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia practice, because ultrasound transducer and coupling gel can be vectors for pathogen transmission. We reviewed the current standards and recommendations of ultrasound transducer cleaning, disinfection, and safe handling of ultrasound equipment. Based on the available data, we propose a set of practical recommendations applicable to coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic and future epidemics. RECENT FINDINGS: Regional anesthesia is often preferred over general anesthesia for COVID-19 patients. Avoidance of general anesthesia reduces the need for aerosol generating procedures. Administration of ultrasound-guided regional anesthesia and surgery under regional anesthesia in COVID-19 patients requires careful infectious precautions to prevent the viral spread through the use equipment. SUMMARY: Ultrasound machine, transducer and coupling gel can serve as a vector for transmission of pathogens. In the era of COVID-19 pandemic, standardized strategies are recommended to minimize the risk of spread of COVID-19 to both patients and the healthcare providers.