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.

Aerosol precautions and airway complications: a national prospective multicentre cohort study.

The perceived risk of transmission of aerosolised viral particles from patients to airway practitioners during the COVID-19 pandemic led to the widespread use of aerosol precautions, including personal protective equipment and modifications to anaesthetic technique. The risk of these aerosol precautions on peri-operative airway complications has not been assessed outside of simulation studies. This prospective, national, multicentre cohort study aimed to quantify this risk. Adult patients undergoing general anaesthesia for elective or emergency procedures over a 96-hour period were included. Data collected included use of aerosol precautions by the airway practitioner, airway complications and potential confounding variables. Mixed-effects logistic regression was used to assess the risk of individual aerosol precautions on overall and specific airway complications. Data from 5905 patients from 70 hospital sites were included. The rate of airway complications was 10.0% (95%CI 9.2-10.8%). Use of filtering facepiece class 2 or class 3 respirators was associated with an increased risk of airway complications (odds ratio 1.38, 95%CI 1.04-1.83), predominantly due to an association with difficult facemask ventilation (odds ratio 1.68, 95%CI 1.09-2.61) and desaturation on pulse oximetry (odds ratio 2.39, 95%CI 1.26-4.54). Use of goggles, powered air-purifying respirators, long-sleeved gowns, double gloves and videolaryngoscopy were not associated with any alteration in the risk of airway complications. Overall, the use of filtering facepiece class 2 or class 3 respirators was associated with an increased risk of airway complications, but most aerosol precautions used during the COVID-19 pandemic were not.

Anaesthetists' current practice and perceptions of aerosol-generating procedures: a mixed-methods study.

The evidence base surrounding the transmission risk of 'aerosol-generating procedures' has evolved primarily through quantification of aerosol concentrations during clinical practice. Consequently, infection prevention and control guidelines are undergoing continual reassessment. This mixed-methods study aimed to explore the perceptions of practicing anaesthetists regarding aerosol-generating procedures. An online survey was distributed to the Membership Engagement Group of the Royal College of Anaesthetists during November 2021. The survey included five clinical scenarios to identify the personal approach of respondents to precautions, their hospital's policies and the associated impact on healthcare provision. A purposive sample was selected for interviews to explore the reasoning behind their perceptions and behaviours in greater depth. A total of 333 survey responses were analysed quantitatively. Transcripts from 18 interviews were coded and analysed thematically. The sample was broadly representative of the UK anaesthetic workforce. Most respondents and their hospitals were aware of, supported and adhered to UK guidance. However, there were examples of substantial divergence from these guidelines at both individual and hospital level. For example, 40 (12%) requested respiratory protective equipment and 63 (20%) worked in hospitals that required it to be worn whilst performing tracheal intubation in SARS-CoV-2 negative patients. Additionally, 173 (52%) wore respiratory protective equipment whilst inserting supraglottic airway devices. Regarding the use of respiratory protective equipment and fallow times in the operating theatre: 305 (92%) perceived reduced efficiency; 376 (83%) perceived a negative impact on teamworking; 201 (64%) were worried about environmental impact; and 255 (77%) reported significant problems with communication. However, 269 (63%) felt the negative impacts of respiratory protection equipment were appropriately balanced against the risks of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Attitudes were polarised about the prospect of moving away from using respiratory protective equipment. Participants' perceived risk from COVID-19 correlated with concern regarding stepdown (Spearman's test, R = 0.36, p < 0.001). Attitudes towards aerosol-generating procedures and the need for respiratory protective equipment are evolving and this information can be used to inform strategies to facilitate successful adoption of revised guidelines.

Quantitative evaluation of aerosol generation from upper airway suctioning assessed during tracheal intubation and extubation sequences in anaesthetized patients.

BACKGROUND: Open respiratory suctioning is defined as an aerosol generating procedure (AGP). Laryngopharyngeal suctioning, used to clear secretions during anaesthesia, is widely managed as an AGP. However, it is uncertain whether upper airway suctioning should be designated as an AGP due to the lack of both aerosol and epidemiological evidence. AIM: To assess the relative risk of aerosol generation by upper airway suctioning during tracheal intubation and extubation in anaesthetized patients. METHODS: This prospective environmental monitoring study was undertaken in an ultraclean operating theatre setting to assay aerosol concentrations during intubation and extubation sequences, including upper airway suctioning, for patients undergoing surgery (N=19). An optical particle sizer (particle size 0.3-10 µm) sampled aerosol 20 cm above the patient's mouth. Baseline recordings (background, tidal breathing and volitional coughs) were followed by intravenous induction of anaesthesia with neuromuscular blockade. Four periods of laryngopharyngeal suctioning were performed with a Yankauer sucker: pre-laryngoscopy, post-intubation, pre-extubation and post-extubation. FINDINGS: Aerosol was reliably detected {median 65 [interquartile range (IQR) 39-259] particles/L} above background [median 4.8 (IQR 1-7) particles/L, P<0.0001] when sampling in close proximity to the patient's mouth during tidal breathing. Upper airway suctioning was associated with a much lower average aerosol concentration than breathing [median 6.0 (IQR 0-12) particles/L, P=0.0007], and was indistinguishable from background (P>0.99). Peak aerosol concentrations recorded during suctioning [median 45 (IQR 30-75) particles/L] were much lower than during volitional coughs [median 1520 (IQR 600-4363) particles/L, P<0.0001] and tidal breathing [median 540 (IQR 300-1826) particles/L, P<0.0001]. CONCLUSION: Upper airway suctioning during airway management was not associated with a higher aerosol concentration compared with background, and was associated with a much lower aerosol concentration compared with breathing and coughing. Upper airway suctioning should not be designated as a high-risk AGP.

Timing of elective surgery and risk assessment after SARS-CoV-2 infection: an update: A multidisciplinary consensus statement on behalf of the Association of Anaesthetists, Centre for Perioperative Care, Federation of Surgical Specialty Associations, Royal College of Anaesthetists, Royal College of Surgeons of England.

The impact of vaccination and new SARS-CoV-2 variants on peri-operative outcomes is unclear. We aimed to update previously published consensus recommendations on timing of elective surgery after SARS-CoV-2 infection to assist policymakers, administrative staff, clinicians and patients. The guidance remains that patients should avoid elective surgery within 7 weeks of infection, unless the benefits of doing so exceed the risk of waiting. We recommend individualised multidisciplinary risk assessment for patients requiring elective surgery within 7 weeks of SARS-CoV-2 infection. This should include baseline mortality risk calculation and assessment of risk modifiers (patient factors; SARS-CoV-2 infection; surgical factors). Asymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infection with previous variants increased peri-operative mortality risk three-fold throughout the 6 weeks after infection, and assumptions that asymptomatic or mildly symptomatic omicron SARS-CoV-2 infection does not add risk are currently unfounded. Patients with persistent symptoms and those with moderate-to-severe COVID-19 may require a longer delay than 7 weeks. Elective surgery should not take place within 10 days of diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection, predominantly because the patient may be infectious, which is a risk to surgical pathways, staff and other patients. We now emphasise that timing of surgery should include the assessment of baseline and increased risk, optimising vaccination and functional status, and shared decision-making. While these recommendations focus on the omicron variant and current evidence, the principles may also be of relevance to future variants. As further data emerge, these recommendations may be revised.

Aerosol clearance times to better communicate safety after aerosol-generating procedures

As infection prevention and control, specifically transmission-based precautions and personal protective equipment, have become important topics in recent months, one issue has become a particular bugbear. Hospitals cannot interpret recommendations without knowing the air exchange rates in their hospital locations, although typical exchange rates may be 2.h SP -1 sp on a ward, 6.h SP -1 sp on an intensive care unit (ICU) and 20.h SP -1 sp in an operating theatre. [Extracted from the article] Copyright of Anaesthesia is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

Quantitative evaluation of aerosol generation during manual facemask ventilation.

Manual facemask ventilation, a core component of elective and emergency airway management, is classified as an aerosol-generating procedure. This designation is based on one epidemiological study suggesting an association between facemask ventilation and transmission during the SARS-CoV-1 outbreak in 2003. There is no direct evidence to indicate whether facemask ventilation is a high-risk procedure for aerosol generation. We conducted aerosol monitoring during routine facemask ventilation and facemask ventilation with an intentionally generated leak in anaesthetised patients. Recordings were made in ultraclean operating theatres and compared against the aerosol generated by tidal breathing and cough manoeuvres. Respiratory aerosol from tidal breathing in 11 patients was reliably detected above the very low background particle concentrations with median [IQR (range)] particle counts of 191 (77-486 [4-1313]) and 2 (1-5 [0-13]) particles.l-1 , respectively, p = 0.002. The median (IQR [range]) aerosol concentration detected during facemask ventilation without a leak (3 (0-9 [0-43]) particles.l-1 ) and with an intentional leak (11 (7-26 [1-62]) particles.l-1 ) was 64-fold (p = 0.001) and 17-fold (p = 0.002) lower than that of tidal breathing, respectively. Median (IQR [range]) peak particle concentration during facemask ventilation both without a leak (60 (0-60 [0-120]) particles.l-1 ) and with a leak (120 (60-180 [60-480]) particles.l-1 ) were 20-fold (p = 0.002) and 10-fold (0.001) lower than a cough (1260 (800-3242 [100-3682]) particles.l-1 ), respectively. This study demonstrates that facemask ventilation, even when performed with an intentional leak, does not generate high levels of bioaerosol. On the basis of this evidence, we argue facemask ventilation should not be considered an aerosol-generating procedure.

A quantitative evaluation of aerosol generation during supraglottic airway insertion and removal.

Many guidelines consider supraglottic airway use to be an aerosol-generating procedure. This status requires increased levels of personal protective equipment, fallow time between cases and results in reduced operating theatre efficiency. Aerosol generation has never been quantitated during supraglottic airway use. To address this evidence gap, we conducted real-time aerosol monitoring (0.3-10-µm diameter) in ultraclean operating theatres during supraglottic airway insertion and removal. This showed very low background particle concentrations (median (IQR [range]) 1.6 (0-3.1 [0-4.0]) particles.l-1 ) against which the patient's tidal breathing produced a higher concentration of aerosol (4.0 (1.3-11.0 [0-44]) particles.l-1 , p = 0.048). The average aerosol concentration detected during supraglottic airway insertion (1.3 (1.0-4.2 [0-6.2]) particles.l-1 , n = 11), and removal (2.1 (0-17.5 [0-26.2]) particles.l-1 , n = 12) was no different to tidal breathing (p = 0.31 and p = 0.84, respectively). Comparison of supraglottic airway insertion and removal with a volitional cough (104 (66-169 [33-326]), n = 27), demonstrated that supraglottic airway insertion/removal sequences produced <4% of the aerosol compared with a single cough (p < 0.001). A transient aerosol increase was recorded during one complicated supraglottic airway insertion (which initially failed to provide a patent airway). Detailed analysis of this event showed an atypical particle size distribution and we subsequently identified multiple sources of non-respiratory aerosols that may be produced during airway management and can be considered as artefacts. These findings demonstrate supraglottic airway insertion/removal generates no more bio-aerosol than breathing and far less than a cough. This should inform the design of infection prevention strategies for anaesthetists and operating theatre staff caring for patients managed with supraglottic airways.

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.

The effect of respiratory activity, non-invasive respiratory support and facemasks on aerosol generation and its relevance to COVID-19.

Respirable aerosols (< 5 µm in diameter) present a high risk of SARS-CoV-2 transmission. Guidelines recommend using aerosol precautions during aerosol-generating procedures, and droplet (> 5 µm) precautions at other times. However, emerging evidence indicates respiratory activities may be a more important source of aerosols than clinical procedures such as tracheal intubation. We aimed to measure the size, total number and volume of all human aerosols exhaled during respiratory activities and therapies. We used a novel chamber with an optical particle counter sampling at 100 l.min-1 to count and size-fractionate close to all exhaled particles (0.5-25 µm). We compared emissions from ten healthy subjects during six respiratory activities (quiet breathing; talking; shouting; forced expiratory manoeuvres; exercise; and coughing) with three respiratory therapies (high-flow nasal oxygen and single or dual circuit non-invasive positive pressure ventilation). Activities were repeated while wearing facemasks. When compared with quiet breathing, exertional respiratory activities increased particle counts 34.6-fold during talking and 370.8-fold during coughing (p < 0.001). High-flow nasal oxygen 60 at l.min-1 increased particle counts 2.3-fold (p = 0.031) during quiet breathing. Single and dual circuit non-invasive respiratory therapy at 25/10 cm.H2 O with quiet breathing increased counts by 2.6-fold and 7.8-fold, respectively (both p < 0.001). During exertional activities, respiratory therapies and facemasks reduced emissions compared with activities alone. Respiratory activities (including exertional breathing and coughing) which mimic respiratory patterns during illness generate substantially more aerosols than non-invasive respiratory therapies, which conversely can reduce total emissions. We argue the risk of aerosol exposure is underappreciated and warrants widespread, targeted interventions.

SARS-CoV-2 infection, COVID-19 and timing of elective surgery: A multidisciplinary consensus statement on behalf of the Association of Anaesthetists, the Centre for Peri-operative Care, the Federation of Surgical Specialty Associations, the Royal College of Anaesthetists and the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

The scale of the COVID-19 pandemic means that a significant number of patients who have previously been infected with SARS-CoV-2 will require surgery. Given the potential for multisystem involvement, timing of surgery needs to be carefully considered to plan for safe surgery. This consensus statement uses evidence from a systematic review and expert opinion to highlight key principles in the timing of surgery. Shared decision-making regarding timing of surgery after SARS-CoV-2 infection must account for severity of the initial infection; ongoing symptoms of COVID-19; comorbid and functional status; clinical priority and risk of disease progression; and complexity of surgery. For the protection of staff, other patients and the public, planned surgery should not be considered during the period that a patient may be infectious. Precautions should be undertaken to prevent pre- and peri-operative infection, especially in higher risk patients. Elective surgery should not be scheduled within 7 weeks of a diagnosis of SARS-CoV-2 infection unless the risks of deferring surgery outweigh the risk of postoperative morbidity or mortality associated with COVID-19. SARS-CoV-2 causes either transient or asymptomatic disease for most patients, who require no additional precautions beyond a 7-week delay, but those who have persistent symptoms or have been hospitalised require special attention. Patients with persistent symptoms of COVID-19 are at increased risk of postoperative morbidity and mortality even after 7 weeks. The time before surgery should be used for functional assessment, prehabilitation and multidisciplinary optimisation. Vaccination several weeks before surgery will reduce risk to patients and might lessen the risk of nosocomial SARS-CoV-2 infection of other patients and staff. National vaccine committees should consider whether such patients can be prioritised for vaccination. As further data emerge, these recommendations may need to be revised, but the principles presented should be considered to ensure safety of patients, the public and staff.