ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Thoracic epidural analgesia is beneficial after major abdominal surgery, though side-effects and complications are rare but potentially devastating. The incidence of catheter-related infection is approximately 5.5%. Several guidelines have been recommended to prevent complications during thoracic epidural catheterization. Tunnelling is often recommended to reduce the incidence of infections and dislocations. METHODS: A retrospective, single-centre analysis of our acute pain service database was performed between 2010 and 2018. The hygiene measures of the German Society of Anaesthesiology have been incorporated in our standard operating protocol since 2009. The procedure remained constant, but the skin disinfectant was changed from propan-2-ol to propan-2-ol with octenidine in 2014. Tunnelling of catheters was not performed. We analysed the incidence of catheter-related infections (primary endpoint) and effect of the used disinfectant (secondary endpoint). RESULTS: A total of 2755 patients underwent elective major abdominal surgery with thoracic epidural catheterization. Sixteen patients (0.6%) showed symptoms of mild catheter-related infection. Moderate or severe infections were not observed in any patient. The type of disinfectant did not show any significant effect on the incidence of infection. CONCLUSION: The incidence of catheter-related infections was low, and only mild signs of infection were observed. Non-tunnelling could be an alternative to tunnelling, especially if hygiene protocols are followed, and the duration of catheter use is short. A comprehensive database and regular examinations by trained staff are essential for early detection of abnormalities and immediate removal of the catheter, if required.
Subject(s)
Analgesia, Epidural , Analgesia, Epidural/adverse effects , Catheters/adverse effects , Humans , Incidence , Prospective Studies , Retrospective StudiesABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Pre-operative risk assessment is important to quantify the patient's risks of morbidity and mortality, but its quality differs. We created a process-oriented score (PRO-score) for risk evaluation of adults as a three-stage warning score checklist with concrete guidance. It contains the contents of current guidelines and the assessment of vital signs. OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether the PRO-score is suitable to detect 'red flag' warning signs not only in American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) physical status (PS) 3 or 4 patients but also in ASA-PS 1 or 2 patients. Resulting medical, therapeutic or structural consequences were recorded. DESIGN: Prospective single-centre study. SETTING: The study was performed in a German university hospital between November 2015 and December 2018. PATIENTS: We included 54 455 adult patients undergoing a pre-operative risk assessment for general or regional anaesthesia and elective noncardiac surgery. RESULTS: In all, 388 patients presented 'red flag' warning signs in the PRO-score during risk assessment; 85 (21.9%) were labelled ASA-PS 1 or 2, 244 (62.9%) ASA-PS 3 and 59 (15.2%) ASA-PS 4. Additional examinations were performed in 179 patients and technical tests in 175 patients (ASA-PS 1 or 2: 53 and 63 patients, respectively). After re-evaluation of the peri-operative risk in an interdisciplinary conference, surgery was cancelled in 44 patients (ASA-PS 1 and 2, 17 patients) or performed under local anaesthesia in 15 patients (ASA-PS 1 and 2, 2 patients). A downgrading to PRO-score 2 was reached in 168 patients after therapeutic interventions (ASA-PS 1 and 2, 54 patients). Undergoing surgery despite 'red flag' events resulted in major complications in 34 patients, and 16 patients died (ASA-PS 1 or 2: 7 and 3 patients, respectively). CONCLUSION: The PRO-score detected warning signs in 'healthy' ASA-PS 1 or 2 and in ASA-PS 3 or 4 patients. Furthermore, it influenced the management of these patients, and thus improved the process quality of risk assessment. The physical examination should include the assessment of vital signs.
