Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 2 de 2
Filtrar
Mais filtros










Base de dados
Intervalo de ano de publicação
1.
Med J Aust ; 214(1): 40-44, 2021 01.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-33040381

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) is a contagious disease that is caused by the severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Health care workers are at risk of infection from aerosolisation of respiratory secretions, droplet and contact spread. There are a number of procedures that represent a high risk of aerosol generation during cardiothoracic surgery. It is important that adequate training, equipment and procedures are in place to reduce that risk. RECOMMENDATIONS: We provide a number of key recommendations, which reduce the risk of aerosol generation during cardiothoracic surgery and help protect patients and staff. These include general measures such as patient risk stratification, appropriate use of personal protective equipment, consideration to delay surgery in positive patients, and careful attention to theatre planning and preparation. There are also recommended procedural interventions during airway management, transoesophageal echocardiography, cardiopulmonary bypass, chest drain management and specific cardiothoracic surgical procedures. Controversies exist regarding the management of low risk patients undergoing procedures at high risk of aerosol generation, and recommendations for these patients will change depending on the regional prevalence, risk of community transmission and the potential for asymptomatic patients attending for these procedures. CHANGES IN MANAGEMENT AS A RESULT OF THIS STATEMENT: This statement reflects changes in management based on expert opinion, national guidelines and available evidence. Our knowledge with regard to COVID-19 continues to evolve and with this, guidance may change and develop. Our colleagues are urged to follow national guidelines and institutional recommendations regarding best practices to protect their patients and themselves. ENDORSED BY: Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons and the Anaesthetic Continuing Education Cardiac Thoracic Vascular and Perfusion Special Interest Group.


Assuntos
Aerossóis , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Controle de Infecções/métodos , Transmissão de Doença Infecciosa do Paciente para o Profissional/prevenção & controle , SARS-CoV-2 , Anestesia , Austrália , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/transmissão , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Cardíacos , Consenso , Pessoal de Saúde/educação , Humanos , Nova Zelândia , Sociedades Médicas , Procedimentos Cirúrgicos Torácicos
2.
J Cardiothorac Vasc Anesth ; 31(2): 411-417, 2017 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-27692903

RESUMO

OBJECTIVE: General anesthesia with endobronchial intubation and one-lung positive-pressure ventilation always has been considered mandatory for thoracic surgery. Recently, there has been interest in nonintubated techniques for video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) in awake and sedated patients. The authors' center developed a nonintubated technique with spontaneous ventilation with the patient under general anesthesia using a supraglottic airway device. The authors believe that this was the first study to compare a nonintubated general anesthetic technique with an intubated general anesthetic technique for VATS. DESIGN: Retrospective, observational study. SETTING: Specialist cardiothoracic hospital in the United Kingdom. PARTICIPANTS: All patients who underwent elective minor VATS over 8 months (n = 73). INTERVENTIONS: A nonintubated general anesthetic technique with spontaneous ventilation via a supraglottic airway device was used for minor VATS procedures. This was compared with a case-matched intubated group. MEASUREMENTS AND MAIN RESULTS: Both groups had comparable baseline characteristics and surgical procedures. The anesthetic time was shorter in the nonintubated group (13.6±8.3 v 24.1±10.9 minutes, p<0.001). Surgical operating time and feasibility were similar. Intraoperatively, there were increases in end-tidal carbon dioxide (59.1±12.9 v 41.8±4.6, p<0.001) and respiratory rate (17.8±5.6 v 13.5±2.0, p<0.001) in the nonintubated group. Fewer patients in the nonintubated group had moderate-severe pain during recovery (19.4% v 48.4%, p = 0.02) and pain on discharge to the ward (25.8% v 61.3%, p = 0.004). There was a trend toward shorter recovery times, reduced oxygen requirement, and shorter hospital stays in the nonintubated group. CONCLUSIONS: A nonintubated general anesthetic technique is a feasible alternative to intubated general anesthesia for minor VATS procedures.


Assuntos
Anestesia Geral/métodos , Intubação Intratraqueal/métodos , Cirurgia Torácica Vídeoassistida/métodos , Adulto , Idoso , Anestesia Geral/normas , Estudos de Casos e Controles , Feminino , Humanos , Intubação Intratraqueal/normas , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Medição da Dor/métodos , Estudos Retrospectivos , Cirurgia Torácica Vídeoassistida/normas
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...