Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia - Revised Edition 2021.

OVERVIEW: The Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia Revised Edition 2021 (the Guidelines) were prepared by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society (CAS), which reserves the right to determine their publication and distribution. The Guidelines are subject to revision and updated versions are published annually. The Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia Revised Edition 2021 supersedes all previously published versions of this document. Although the CAS encourages Canadian anesthesiologists to adhere to its practice guidelines to ensure high-quality patient care, the CAS cannot guarantee any specific patient outcome. Anesthesiologists should exercise their own professional judgement in determining the proper course of action for any patient's circumstances. The CAS assumes no responsibility or liability for any error or omission arising from the use of any information contained in its Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia.

RéSUMé: Le Guide d'exercice de l'anesthésie, version révisée 2021 (le Guide), a été préparé par la Société canadienne des anesthésiologistes (SCA), qui se réserve le droit de décider des termes de sa publication et de sa diffusion. Le Guide est soumis à révision et des versions mises à jour sont publiées chaque année. Le Guide d'exercice de l'anesthésie, version révisée 2021, remplace toutes les versions précédemment publiées de ce document. Bien que la SCA incite les anesthésiologistes du Canada à se conformer à son guide d'exercice pour assurer une grande qualité des soins dispensés aux patients, elle ne peut garantir les résultats d'une intervention spécifique. Les anesthésiologistes doivent exercer leur jugement professionnel pour déterminer la méthode d'intervention la mieux adaptée à l'état de leur patient. La SCA n'accepte aucune responsabilité ou imputabilité de quelque nature que ce soit découlant d'erreurs ou d'omissions ou de l'utilisation des renseignements contenus dans son Guide d'exercice de l'anesthésie.

Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia - Revised Edition 2020.

OVERVIEW: The Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia Revised Edition 2020 (the Guidelines) were prepared by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society (CAS), which reserves the right to determine their publication and distribution. The Guidelines are subject to revision and updated versions are published annually. The Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia Revised Edition 2020 supersedes all previously published versions of this document. Although the CAS encourages Canadian anesthesiologists to adhere to its practice guidelines to ensure high-quality patient care, the CAS cannot guarantee any specific patient outcome. Anesthesiologists should exercise their own professional judgement in determining the proper course of action for any patient's circumstances. The CAS assumes no responsibility or liability for any error or omission arising from the use of any information contained in its Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia.

Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia - Revised Edition 2019.

OVERVIEW: The Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia Revised Edition 2019 (the Guidelines) were prepared by the Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society (CAS), which reserves the right to determine their publication and distribution. The Guidelines are subject to revision and updated versions are published annually. The Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia Revised Edition 2019 supersedes all previously published versions of this document. Although the CAS encourages Canadian anesthesiologists to adhere to its practice guidelines to ensure high-quality patient care, the CAS cannot guarantee any specific patient outcome. Anesthesiologists should exercise their own professional judgement in determining the proper course of action for any patient's circumstances. The CAS assumes no responsibility or liability for any error or omission arising from the use of any information contained in its Guidelines to the Practice of Anesthesia.

Effects of phlebotomy and phenylephrine infusion on portal venous pressure and systemic hemodynamics during liver transplantation.

BACKGROUND: A regimen of fluid restriction, phlebotomy, vasopressors, and strict, protocol-guided product replacement has been associated with low blood product use during orthotopic liver transplantation. However, the physiologic basis of this strategy remains unclear. We hypothesized that a reduction of intravascular volume by phlebotomy would cause a decrease in portal venous pressure (PVP), which would be sustained during subsequent phenylephrine infusion, possibly explaining reduced bleeding. Because phenylephrine may increase central venous pressure (CVP), we questioned the validity of CVP as a correlate of cardiac filling in this context and compared it with other pulmonary artery catheter and transesophageal echocardiography-derived parameters. In particular, because optimal views for echocardiographic estimation of preload and stroke volume are not always applicable during liver transplantation, we evaluated the use of transmitral flow (TMF) early peak (E) velocity as a surrogate. METHODS: In study 1, the changes in directly measured PVP and CVP were recorded before and after phlebotomy and phenylephrine infusion in 10 patients near the end of the dissection phase of liver transplantation. In study 2, transesophageal echocardiography-derived TMF velocity in early diastole was measured in 20 patients, and the changes were compared with changes in CVP, pulmonary artery pressure (PAP), pulmonary capillary wedge pressure (PCWP), cardiac output (CO), and calculated systemic vascular resistance (SVR) at the following times: postinduction, postphlebotomy, preclamping of the inferior vena cava, during clamping, and postunclamping. RESULTS: Phlebotomy decreased PVP along with CO, PAP, PCWP, CVP, and TMF E velocity. Phenylephrine given after phlebotomy increased CVP, SVR, and arterial blood pressure but had no significant effect on CO, PAP, PCWP, or PVP. The change in TMF E velocity correlated well with the change in CO (Pearson correlation coefficient 95% confidence interval 0.738-0.917, P< or =0.015) but less well with the change in PAP (0.554-0.762, P< or =0.012) and PCWP (0.576-0.692, P< or =0.008). TMF E velocity did not correlate significantly with CVP or calculated SVR. CONCLUSION: Phlebotomy during the dissection phase of liver transplantation decreased PVP, which was unaffected when phenylephrine infusion was used to restore systemic arterial pressure. This may contribute to a decrease in operative blood loss. CVP often increased in response to phenylephrine infusion and did not seem to reflect cardiac filling. The changes in TMF E velocity correlated well with the changes in CO, PAP, and PCWP during liver transplantation but not with the changes in CVP.

Perioperative interscalene block versus intra-articular injection of local anesthetics for postoperative analgesia in shoulder surgery.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Up to 70% of patients report moderate to severe pain after shoulder surgery, which can compromise early rehabilitation and functional recuperation. Postoperative shoulder pain control is improved with both interscalene block and intra-articular local anesthetic injection. The present study hypothesized that perioperative interscalene analgesia would offer pain control superior to perioperative intra-articular local anesthetics over the first 24 hours after surgery. METHODS: Sixty patients undergoing shoulder surgery were randomly assigned to 1 of 2 groups: group IS had interscalene block with catheter installation, while group IA received intra-articular local anesthetic, also with catheter installation. All patients received 3 local anesthetic injections: 0.25 mL/kg of 2% lidocaine with epinephrine 2.5 microg/mL immediately before and after surgery, and 0.25 mL/kg of 0.5% bupivacaine with epinephrine 2.5 microg/mL 1 hour after the end of surgery, after which the catheters were removed, and no further local anesthetics were administered. Postoperative pain at rest was evaluated in the postanesthesia care unit (PACU), 3 hours, 6 hours and 24 hours after surgery. The area under the 24 hour pain over time curve was calculated. Hydromorphone consumption in the PACU and over 24 hours was recorded. RESULTS: Pain scores (IS: 0.4 +/- 2 vs. IA: 4 +/- 3, P < .0001) and opioid consumption (IS: 0.7 mg +/- 1.4 vs. IA: 1.5 mg +/- 1.2, P = .02) were significantly higher in the PACU for group IA. However, neither the mean pain scores over the first day after surgery (IS: 5 +/- 2 vs. IA: 5 +/- 3; P = .4) nor 24-hour opioid consumption (IS: 4.4 mg +/- 2.8 vs. IA: 4.2 mg +/- 2.6; P = .4) were significantly higher in group IA. CONCLUSIONS: PACU measurements of immediate postoperative pain and narcotic consumption favor perioperative interscalene analgesia over intra-articular analgesia. This benefit does not translate into lower overall pain for the first 24 hours after surgery.