[Infection Prevention in Anesthesiology during the SARS-CoV 2-pandemic]. / Hygiene in der Anästhesie in Zeiten der SARS-CoV-2-Pandemie.

It is necessary to discuss the sometimes competing goals of sufficient critical care capacity, maintenance of regular patient care, protection of medical staff, interruption of infectious chains within the general public and individual aspects of patient care in anesthesia and the operating room in times of the SARS CoV-2 pandemic, given the uncertainty of many data on which decisions need to be based. Basic hygiene remains the cornerstone of infection prevention especially when resources are sparse and SARS-CoV-2 specific additional measures need to be taken according to a risk analysis taking the dynamic of the pandemic as well as local factors into account.

Coronavirus Disease 2019: Anesthesia Machine Circuit Pressure During Use as an Improvised Intensive Care Unit Ventilator.

BACKGROUND: Use of anesthesia machines as improvised intensive care unit (ICU) ventilators may occur in locations where waste anesthesia gas suction (WAGS) is unavailable. Anecdotal reports suggest as much as 18 cm H2O positive end-expiratory pressure (PEEP) being inadvertently applied under these circumstances, accompanied by inaccurate pressure readings by the anesthesia machine. We hypothesized that resistance within closed anesthesia gas scavenging systems (AGSS) disconnected from WAGS may inadvertently increase circuit pressures. METHODS: An anesthesia machine was connected to an anesthesia breathing circuit, a reference manometer, and a standard bag reservoir to simulate a lung. Ventilation was initiated as follows: volume control, tidal volume (TV) 500 mL, respiratory rate 12, ratio of inspiration to expiration times (I:E) 1:1.9, fraction of inspired oxygen (Fio2) 1.0, fresh gas flow (FGF) rate 2.0 liters per minute (LPM), and PEEP 0 cm H2O. After engaging the ventilator, PEEP and peak inspiratory pressure (PIP) were measured by the reference manometer and the anesthesia machine display simultaneously. The process was repeated using prescribed PEEP levels of 5, 10, 15, and 20 cm H2O. Measurements were repeated with the WAGS disconnected and then were performed again at FGF of 4, 6, 8, 10, and 15 LPM. This process was completed on 3 anesthesia machines: Dräger Perseus A500, Dräger Apollo, and the GE Avance CS2. Simple linear regression was used to assess differences. RESULTS: Utilizing nonparametric Bland-Altman analysis, the reference and machine manometer measurements of PIP demonstrated median differences of -0.40 cm H2O (95% limits of agreement [LOA], -1.00 to 0.55) for the Dräger Apollo, -0.40 cm H2O (95% LOA, -1.10 to 0.41) for the Dräger Perseus, and 1.70 cm H2O (95% LOA, 0.80-3.00) for the GE Avance CS2. At FGF 2 LPM and PEEP 0 cm H2O with the WAGS disconnected, the Dräger Apollo had a difference in PEEP of 0.02 cm H2O (95% confidence interval [CI], -0.04 to 0.08; P = .53); the Dräger Perseus A500, <0.0001 cm H2O (95% CI, -0.11 to 0.11; P = 1.00); and the GE Avance CS2, 8.62 cm H2O (95% CI, 8.55-8.69; P < .0001). After removing the hose connected to the AGSS and the visual indicator bag on the GE Avance CS2, the PEEP difference was 0.12 cm H2O (95% CI, 0.059-0.181; P = .0002). CONCLUSIONS: Displayed airway pressure measurements are clinically accurate in the setting of disconnected WAGS. The Dräger Perseus A500 and Apollo with open scavenging systems do not deliver inadvertent continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP) with WAGS disconnected, but the GE Avance CS2 with a closed AGSS does. This increase in airway pressure can be mitigated by the manufacturer's recommended alterations. Anesthesiologists should be aware of the potential clinically important increases in pressure that may be inadvertently delivered on some anesthesia machines, should the WAGS not be properly connected.

Time to adapt in the pandemic era: a prospective randomized non -inferiority study comparing time to intubate with and without the barrier box.

BACKGROUND: The challenges posed by the spread of COVID-19 disease through aerosols have compelled anesthesiologists to modify their airway management practices. Devices such as barrier boxes are being considered as potential adjuncts to full PPE's to limit the aerosol spread. Usage of the barrier box raises concerns of delay in time to intubate (TTI). We designed our study to determine if using a barrier box with glidescope delays TTI within acceptable parameters to make relevant clinical conclusions. METHODS: Seventy-eight patients were enrolled in this prospective non-inferiority controlled trial and were randomly allocated to either group C (without the barrier box) or the study group BB (using barrier box). The primary measured endpoint is time to intubate (TTI), which is defined as time taken from loss of twitches confirmed with a peripheral nerve stimulator to confirmation of end-tidal CO 2. 15 s was used as non-inferiority margin for the purpose of the study. We used an unpaired two-sample single-sided t-test to test our non- inferiority hypothesis (H 0: Mean TTI diff ≥15 s, H A: Mean TTI diff < 15 s). Secondary endpoints include the number of attempts at intubation, lowest oxygen saturation during induction, and the need for bag-mask ventilation. RESULTS: Mean TTI in group C was 42 s (CI 19.2 to 64.8) vs. 52.1 s (CI 26.1 to 78) in group BB. The difference in mean TTI was 10.1 s (CI -∞ to 14.9). We rejected the null hypothesis and concluded with 95% confidence that the difference of the mean TTI between the groups is less than < 15 s (95% CI -∞ to 14.9,p = 0.0461). Our induction times were comparable (67.7 vs. 65.9 s).100% of our patients were intubated on the first attempt in both groups. None of our patients needed rescue breaths. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude that in patients with normal airway exam, scheduled for elective surgeries, our barrier box did not cause any clinically significant delay in TTI when airway manipulation is performed by well-trained providers. The study was retrospectively registered at clinicaltrials.gov (NCT04411056) on May 27, 2020.

Educating Anesthesiologists During the Coronavirus Disease 2019 Pandemic and Beyond.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has altered approaches to anesthesiology education by shifting educational paradigms. This vision article discusses pre-COVID-19 educational methodologies and best evidence, adaptations required under COVID-19, and evidence for these modifications, and suggests future directions for anesthesiology education. Learning management systems provide structure to online learning. They have been increasingly utilized to improve access to didactic materials asynchronously. Despite some historic reservations, the pandemic has necessitated a rapid uptake across programs. Commercially available systems offer a wide range of peer-reviewed curricular options. The flipped classroom promotes learning foundational knowledge before teaching sessions with a focus on application during structured didactics. There is growing evidence that this approach is preferred by learners and may increase knowledge gain. The flipped classroom works well with learning management systems to disseminate focused preclass work. Care must be taken to keep virtual sessions interactive. Simulation, already used in anesthesiology, has been critical in preparation for the care of COVID-19 patients. Multidisciplinary, in situ simulations allow for rapid dissemination of new team workflows. Physical distancing and reduced availability of providers have required more sessions. Early pandemic decreases in operating volumes have allowed for this; future planning will have to incorporate smaller groups, sanitizing of equipment, and attention to use of personal protective equipment. Effective technical skills training requires instruction to mastery levels, use of deliberate practice, and high-quality feedback. Reduced sizes of skill-training workshops and approaches for feedback that are not in-person will be required. Mock oral and objective structured clinical examination (OSCE) allow for training and assessment of competencies often not addressed otherwise. They provide formative and summative data and objective measurements of Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME) milestones. They also allow for preparation for the American Board of Anesthesiology (ABA) APPLIED examination. Adaptations to teleconferencing or videoconferencing can allow for continued use. Benefits of teaching in this new era include enhanced availability of asynchronous learning and opportunities to apply universal, expert-driven curricula. Burdens include decreased social interactions and potential need for an increased amount of smaller, live sessions. Acquiring learning management systems and holding more frequent simulation and skills sessions with fewer learners may increase cost. With the increasing dependency on multimedia and technology support for teaching and learning, one important focus of educational research is on the development and evaluation of strategies that reduce extraneous processing and manage essential and generative processing in virtual learning environments. Collaboration to identify and implement best practices has the potential to improve education for all learners.

Changes in Pain Medicine Training Programs Associated With COVID-19: Survey Results.

BACKGROUND: The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic is a public health crisis of unprecedented proportions that has altered the practice of medicine. The pandemic has required pain clinics to transition from in-person visits to telemedicine, postpone procedures, and cancel face-to-face educational sessions. There are no data on how fellowship programs have adapted. METHODS: A 17-question survey was developed covering topics including changes in education, clinical care, and psychological stress due to the COVID pandemic. The initial survey was hosted by Qualtrics Inc and disseminated by the Association of Pain Program Directors on April 10, 2020, to program directors at Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education (ACGME)-accredited fellowships. Results are reported descriptively and stratified by COVID infection rate, which was calculated from Centers for Disease Control and Prevention data on state infections, and census data. RESULTS: Among 107 surveys distributed, 70 (65%) programs responded. Twenty-nine programs were located in states in the upper tertile for per capita infection rates, 17 in the middle third, and 23 in the lowest tertile. Nearly all programs (93%) reported a decreased workload, with 11 (16%) reporting a dramatic decrease (only urgent or emergent cases). Just more than half of programs had either already deployed (14%) or credentialed (39%) fellows to provide nonpain care. Higher state infection rates were significantly associated with reduced clinical demand (Rs = 0.31, 95% confidence interval [CI], 0.08-0.51; P = .011) and redeployment of fellows to nonpain areas (Rs = 0.30, 95% CI, 0.07-0.50; P = .013). Larger program size but not infection rate was associated with increased perceived anxiety level of trainees. CONCLUSIONS: We found a shift to online alternatives for clinical care and education, with correlations between per capita infection rates, and clinical care demands and redeployment, but not with overall trainee anxiety levels. It is likely that medicine in general, and pain medicine in particular, will change after COVID-19, with greater emphasis on telemedicine, virtual education, and greater national and international cooperation. Physicians should be prepared for these changes.

Anesthesiologists' Role in Value-based Perioperative Care and Healthcare Transformation.

Health care is undergoing major transformation with a shift from fee-for-service care to fee-for-value. The advent of new care delivery and payment models is serving as a driver for value-based care. Hospitals, payors, and patients increasingly expect physicians and healthcare systems to improve outcomes and manage costs. The impact of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic on surgical and procedural practices further highlights the urgency and need for anesthesiologists to expand their roles in perioperative care, and to impact system improvement. While there have been substantial advances in anesthesia care, perioperative complications and mortality after surgery remain a key concern. Anesthesiologists are in a unique position to impact perioperative health care through their multitude of interactions and influences on various aspects of the perioperative domain, by using the surgical experience as the first touchpoint to reengage the patient in their own health care. Among the key interventions that are being effectively instituted by anesthesiologists include proactive engagement in preoperative optimization of patients' health; personalization and standardization of care delivery by segmenting patients based upon their complexity and risk; and implementation of best practices that are data-driven and evidence-based and provide structure that allow the patient to return to their optimal state of functional, cognitive, and psychologic health. Through collaborative relationships with other perioperative stakeholders, anesthesiologists can consolidate their role as clinical leaders driving value-based care and healthcare transformation in the best interests of patients.

A Practical Guide for Anesthesia Providers on the Management of Coronavirus Disease 2019 Patients in the Acute Care Hospital.

The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic has infected millions of individuals and posed unprecedented challenges to health care systems. Acute care hospitals have been forced to expand hospital and intensive care capacity and deal with shortages in personal protective equipment. This guide will review 2 areas where the anesthesiologists will be caring for COVID-19 patients: the operating room and on airway teams. General principles for COVID-19 preparation and hospital procedures will be reviewed to serve as a resource for anesthesia departments to manage COVID-19 or future pandemics.

Patient barrier acceptance during airway management among anesthesiologists: a simulation pilot study.

BACKGROUND: Protection of healthcare providers (HCP) has been a serious challenge in the management of patients during the coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Additional physical barriers have been created to enhance personal protective equipment (PPE). In this study, user acceptability of two novel barriers was evaluated and the performance of airway management using PPE alone versus PPE plus the additional barrier were compared. METHODS: An open-label, double-armed simulation pilot study was conducted. Each participant performed bag-mask ventilation and endotracheal intubation using a GlideScope in two scenarios: 1) PPE donned, followed by 2) PPE donned plus the addition of either the isolation chamber (IC) or aerosol box (AB). Endotracheal intubation using videolaryngoscopy was timed. Participants completed pre- and post-simulation questionnaires. RESULTS: Twenty-nine participants from the Department of Anesthesia were included in the study. Pre- and post-simulation questionnaire responses supported the acceptance of additional barriers. There was no significant difference in intubating times across all groups (PPE vs. IC 95% CI, 26.3, 35.1; PPE vs. AB 95% CI, 25.9, 35.5; IC vs. AB 95% CI, 23.6, 39.1). Comparison of post-simulation questionnaire responses between IC and AB showed no significant difference. Participants did not find the additional barriers negatively affected communication, visualization, or maneuverability. CONCLUSIONS: Overall, the IC and AB were comparable, and there was no negative impact on performance under testing conditions. Our study suggests the positive acceptance of additional patient protection barriers by anesthesia providers during airway management.

Aerosol barriers in pediatric anesthesiology: Clinical data supports FDA caution.

BACKGROUND: The onset of the COVID19 pandemic drove the rapid development and adoption of physical barriers intended to protect providers from aerosols generated during airway management. We report our initial experience with aerosol barrier devices in pediatric patients and raise concerns that they may increase risk to patients. METHODS: In March 2020, we developed and implemented simulation training and use of plastic aerosol barrier devices as a component of our perioperative COVID-19 workflow. As part of our quality improvement process, we obtained detailed feedback via a web-based survey after cases were performed while using these aerosol barriers. RESULTS: Between March and June 2020, 36 pediatric patients age 1mo-18years with anatomically normal airways and either PCR confirmed or suspected COVID-19 were intubated under an aerosol barrier as part of urgent or emergent anesthetic care at our institution. Experienced providers had more difficulty than expected in six (16.7%) of the cases with four cases requiring multiple attempts to secure the airway and two cases involving pronounced difficulty in a single attempt. The aerosol barrier was perceived as a contributing factor to difficulty in all cases. CONCLUSION: The use of barriers may result in unanticipated difficulties with airway management, particularly in pediatric patients, which could lead to hypoxemia or other patient harm. Our initial experience in pediatric patients is the first such report in patients and provides clinical data which corroborates the simulation data prompting the FDA to withdraw support of barriers.

International cooperation group of emergency surgery during the COVID-19 pandemic.

PURPOSE: The COVID-19 pandemic has changed working conditions for emergency surgical teams around the world. International surgical societies have issued clinical recommendations to optimize surgical management. This international study aimed to assess the degree of emergency surgical teams' adoption of recommendations during the pandemic. METHODS: Emergency surgical team members from over 30 countries were invited to answer an anonymous, prospective, online survey to assess team organization, PPE-related aspects, OR preparations, anesthesiologic considerations, and surgical management for emergency surgery during the pandemic. RESULTS: One-hundred-and-thirty-four questionnaires were returned (N = 134) from 26 countries, of which 88% were surgeons, 7% surgical trainees, 4% anesthetists. 81% of the respondents got involved with COVID-19 crisis management. Social media were used by 91% of the respondents to access the recommendations, and 66% used videoconference tools for team communication. 51% had not received PPE training before the pandemic, 73% reported equipment shortage, and 55% informed about re-use of N95/FPP2/3 respirators. Dedicated COVID operating areas were cited by 77% of the respondents, 44% had performed emergency surgical procedures on COVID-19 patients, and over half (52%), favored performing laparoscopic over open surgical procedures. CONCLUSION: Surgical team members have responded with leadership to the COVID-19 pandemic, with crisis management principles. Social media and videoconference have been used by the vast majority to access guidelines or to communicate during social distancing. The level of adoption of current recommendations is high for organizational aspects and surgical management, but not so for PPE training and availability, and anesthesiologic considerations.

Practical considerations for performing regional anesthesia: lessons learned from the COVID-19 pandemic.

Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) was declared a pandemic by the World Health Organization on 11 March 2020 because of its rapid worldwide spread. In the operating room, as part of hospital outbreak response measures, anesthesiologists are required to have heightened precautions and tailor anesthetic practices to individual patients. In particular, by minimizing the many aerosol-generating procedures performed during general anesthesia, anesthesiologists can reduce exposure to patients' respiratory secretions and the risk of perioperative viral transmission to healthcare workers and other patients. To avoid any airway manipulation, regional anesthesia should be considered whenever surgery is planned for a suspect or confirmed COVID-19 patient or any patient who poses an infection risk. Regional anesthesia has benefits of preservation of respiratory function, avoidance of aerosolization and hence viral transmission. This article explores the practical considerations and recommended measures for performing regional anesthesia in this group of patients, focusing on control measures geared towards ensuring patient and staff safety, equipment protection, and infection prevention. By doing so, we hope to address an issue that may have downstream implications in the way we practice infection control in anesthesia, with particular relevance to this new era of emerging infectious diseases and novel pathogens. The severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) is not the first, and certainly will not be the last novel virus that will lead to worldwide outbreaks. Having a well thought out regional anesthesia plan to manage these patients in this new normal will ensure the best possible outcome for both the patient and the perioperative management team.

RéSUMé: Le 11 mars 2020, l'Organisation mondiale de la Santé déclarait que la nouvelle maladie du coronavirus 2019 (COVID-19) était une pandémie en raison de sa propagation mondiale rapide. En salle d'opération, dans le cadre des mesures de réponse aux épidémies, les anesthésiologistes doivent prendre des précautions supplémentaires et adapter les pratiques anesthésiques au cas par cas selon chaque patient. Plus particulièrement, en minimisant les nombreuses interventions générant des aérosols pendant la réalisation de l'anesthésie générale, les anesthésiologistes peuvent réduire l'exposition aux sécrétions respiratoires des patients et le risque de transmission virale périopératoire aux travailleurs de la santé et aux autres patients. Afin d'éviter toute manipulation des voies aériennes, il convient d'envisager la réalisation d'une anesthésie régionale si une chirurgie est prévue chez un patient sous enquête de COVID-19 ou confirmé, ou chez tout patient posant un risque infectieux. L'anesthésie régionale comporte des avantages en matière de maintien de la fonction respiratoire et ce, tout en évitant la production d'aérosols et par conséquent la transmission virale. Cet article explore les considérations pratiques et les mesures recommandées pour réaliser une anesthésie régionale dans ce groupe de patients, en se concentrant sur les mesures de surveillance visant à garantir la sécurité des patients et du personnel soignant, la protection des équipements et la prévention des infections. Ce faisant, nous espérons répondre à des interrogations qui pourraient avoir des implications à plus long terme dans la manière dont nous pratiquerons la prévention de la contagion en anesthésie, avec une pertinence toute particulière pour cette nouvelle ère de maladies infectieuses émergentes et de nouveaux pathogènes. Le coronavirus du syndrome respiratoire aigu sévère 2 (SARS-CoV-2) n'est pas le premier et ne sera certainement pas le dernier nouveau virus qui entraînera des épidémies mondiales. En disposant d'un plan bien conçu d'anesthésie régionale pour prendre en charge ces patients dans cette nouvelle ère, les meilleures issues possibles seront assurées tant pour le patient que pour l'équipe de prise en charge périopératoire.

Sustainability in the Operating Room: Reducing Our Impact on the Planet.

Climate change will be the defining health crisis of the twenty-first century, and environmental health is directly linked with human health. The health sector should lead the sustainability effort by greening itself and reducing its ecological footprint to improve global health and the health of the planet. Anesthesiology has an oversized role in production of greenhouse gases and waste, and thus its impact on affecting change is also oversized. Decreasing the waste of volatile anesthetic agents, medications, and anesthesia equipment is a powerful start to the many sustainability changes needed in health care.

Healthcare at the time of COVID-19: A review of the current situation with emphasis on anesthesia providers.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is spreading rapidly around the world with devastating consequences on patients, healthcare workers, health systems, as well as economies. While, healthcare systems are globally operating at maximum capacity, healthcare workers and especially anesthesia providers are facing extreme pressures, something that is also leading to declining availability and increasing stress. In this regard, it is extremely concerning the fact that some regions worldwide have reported up to 20% of their cases to be healthcare workers. When considering that the global case fatality rate may be as much as 5.4%, these numbers are concerning and unacceptable. As this pandemic accelerates, access to personal protective equipment for health workers is a key concern since at present, healthcare workers are every country's most valuable resource in the fight against COVID-19. Governments and heath organizations should take care of their staff and support them in any way possible. This review aims to describe the current situation anesthesia providers are facing in the setting of COVID-19 and provide solutions and evidence on important concerns, including which guidance to follow, the level of equipment that is adequate, and the level of protection they need for every patient being administered an anesthetic.