Handling injectable medications in anaesthesia: Guidelines from the Association of Anaesthetists.

Peri-operative medication safety is complex. Avoidance of medication errors is both system- and practitioner-based, and many departments within the hospital contribute to safe and effective systems. For the individual anaesthetist, drawing up, labelling and then the correct administration of medications are key components in a patient's peri-operative journey. These guidelines aim to provide pragmatic safety steps for the practitioner and other individuals within the operative environment, as well as short- to long-term goals for development of a collaborative approach to reducing errors. The aim is that they will be used as a basis for instilling good practice.

Greener Operations: a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership to define research priorities in environmentally sustainable perioperative practice through a structured consensus approach.

OBJECTIVES: To agree on the 'top 10' research priorities for environmentally sustainable perioperative practice. DESIGN: Surveys and literature review; final consensus workshop using a nominal group technique. SETTING: UK-based setting. PARTICIPANTS: Healthcare professionals, patients, carers and the public. OUTCOME MEASURES: Initial survey-suggested research questions; interim survey-shortlist of 'indicative' questions (the 20 most frequently nominated by patients, carers and the public, and healthcare professionals); final workshop-ranked research priorities. RESULTS: Initial survey-1926 suggestions by 296 respondents, refined into 60 indicative questions. Interim survey-325 respondents. Final workshop-21 participants agreed the 'top 10': (1) How can more sustainable reusable equipment safely be used during and around the time of an operation? (2) How can healthcare organisations more sustainably procure (obtain) medicines, equipment and items used during and around the time of an operation? (3) How can healthcare professionals who deliver care during and around the time of an operation be encouraged to adopt sustainable actions in practice? (4) Can more efficient use of operating theatres and associated practices reduce the environmental impact of operations? (5) How can the amount of waste generated during and around the time of an operation be minimised? (6) How do we measure and compare the short-term and long-term environmental impacts of surgical and non-surgical treatments for the same condition? (7) What is the environmental impact of different anaesthetic techniques (eg, different types of general, regional and local anaesthesia) used for the same operation? (8) How should the environmental impact of an operation be weighed against its clinical outcomes and financial costs? (9) How can environmental sustainability be incorporated into the organisational management of operating theatres? (10) What are the most sustainable forms of effective infection prevention and control used around the time of an operation (eg, personal protective equipment, drapes, clean air ventilation)? CONCLUSIONS: A broad range of 'end-users' have identified research priorities for sustainable perioperative care.

Defining the decision-to-delivery interval at caesarean section: narrative literature review and proposal for standardisation.

The decision-to-delivery interval is a widely used term at non-elective caesarean section. While the definition may appear self-evident, there is no universally agreed consensus about when this period begins and ends. We reviewed the literature for original research utilising the terms 'decision-to-delivery', 'decision-to-incision' or 'incision-to-delivery' and examined definitions used for decision, delivery, incision, as well as any additional time intervals that were assessed. Our analysis demonstrated an inconsistent non-standardised approach to defining these intervals, which might have clinical practice and medicolegal ramifications. We propose that the decision-to-delivery interval should be defined as follows: the interval between the time at which the senior obstetrician makes the decision that a caesarean section is required and the time at which the fetus (or first fetus in the case of multiples) is delivered. The decision time should ideally be recorded contemporaneously in the medical notes or partogram.

An audit of the effect of case selection on compliance with a 30-minute audit standard for decision-to-delivery interval at category 1 caesarean section.

BACKGROUND: Our hospital has an audit standard that ≥90% of women having category 1 (emergency) caesarean section should have a decision-to-delivery interval (DDI) ≤30 min. This audit aimed to identify potential influences of case selection on compliance. METHODS: A prospective audit of category 1 caesarean section recorded urgency at time of decision for surgery and any urgency changes, as well as whether caesarean section followed failed operative vaginal delivery in the operating theatre. RESULTS: Among 405 women, 158 women had failed operative vaginal delivery in the operating theatre followed by caesarean section, 247 had the delivery decision made in the labour room, 43 had a change in urgency. Depending on case inclusion, the proportion of women with DDI room, and 43 >30 min ranged between 8.3% (30/362; no urgency change, failed operative vaginal delivery included) and 21.9% (54/247; change in urgency, failed operative vaginal delivery excluded). The proportion of women with a DDI >30 min was 18.5% (42/227) if the decision for category 1 caesarean section was made in the labour delivery room (excluding cases of failed operative vaginal delivery). CONCLUSIONS: Compliance with an audit standard for (DDI) at category 1 caesarean section is markedly influenced by the inclusion criteria. For comparability with other publications, it is suggested urgency should be reported as that applied at the point of decision for caesarean section, however, category 1 caesarean section cases following failed operative vaginal delivery in the operating theatre should be identified and reported separately.

Selection of baseline blood pressure to guide management of hypotension during spinal anaesthesia for caesarean section.

INTRODUCTION: Recommendations on vasopressor management during caesarean section under spinal anaesthesia suggest maintaining systolic arterial pressure ≥90% of an accurately measured baseline value. The baseline is often taken as the first reading in the operating room. We hypothesise that this reading may not reflect an accurate baseline value. METHODS: A retrospective case note review of 300 non-hypertensive women undergoing caesarean section with neuraxial anaesthesia, including spinal anaesthesia for elective delivery (n=100), and spinal (n=100) and epidural top-up anaesthesia (n=100) for emergency delivery. Systolic arterial pressure values recorded at various time points between the last antenatal visit and the first blood pressure value recorded in the operating room were compared. RESULTS: There was a stepwise and significant increase in systolic arterial pressure over three time points (last antenatal clinic, morning of surgery, operating room) before elective caesarean section (all P <0.001). In women having emergency caesarean under spinal anaesthesia, a stepwise increase over four time points (last antenatal clinic, first reading in labour, final reading in labour, operating room) was observed. A similar trend was seen over these time points for women having emergency caesarean under epidural top-up, although the systolic blood pressure did not rise during labour. CONCLUSIONS: Using the initial blood pressure reading in the operating room as the baseline value may lead to unnecessary vasopressor use and hypertension. Prospective research is required to clarify which reading represents the most accurate baseline to maintain homeostasis and reduce the hypotensive sequelae of neuraxial anaesthesia for both the mother and fetus.

Guideline on anaesthesia and sedation in breastfeeding women 2020: Guideline from the Association of Anaesthetists.

Breastfeeding has many health benefits for the mother and infant. Women who are breastfeeding may require anaesthesia or sedation. Concerns regarding the passage of drugs into breast milk may lead to inconsistent advice from professionals. This can sometimes result in the interruption of feeding for 24 hours or longer after anaesthesia, or expressing and discarding ('pumping and dumping') breast milk; this may contribute to early cessation of breastfeeding. However, there are data regarding the transfer of most anaesthetic drugs into breast milk. We advise that breastfeeding is acceptable to continue after anaesthesia and should be supported as soon as the woman is alert and able to feed, without the need to discard breast milk. We provide evidence-based information on the pharmacokinetics of drugs commonly used during anaesthesia so that professionals can undertake a risk-benefit discussion with the woman. We advise the development of local policies that aid logistical planning and guide staff to facilitate breastfeeding during the woman's hospital stay.

Anticipated difficult airway during obstetric general anaesthesia: narrative literature review and management recommendations.

We reviewed the literature on management of general and regional anaesthesia in pregnant women with anticipated airway difficulty. We identified 138 publications comprising 158 cases; these either described equipment or techniques for the provision of general anaesthesia, or the management of women with regional analgesia or anaesthesia, with the aim of avoiding general anaesthesia. Most of the former group described women requiring caesarean section alone, or in combination with other surgery, which was sometimes airway-related. Management techniques were largely similar to those in non-obstetric patients requiring surgery who have airway difficulties, although suggested differences related to physiological changes of pregnancy and avoidance of nasal intubation. In the reports discussing regional anaesthesia, consideration was often given to the possible requirement for urgent out-of-hours anaesthetic intervention, and the predicted difficulty of management of general anaesthesia should it be required. In a number of reported cases, multidisciplinary planning led to the conclusion that elective caesarean section should be performed in order to avoid emergency airway management. Based on this literature review, we advise antenatal planning that includes: assessment of the patient's clinical characteristics; consideration of the equipment and personnel available to provide safe airway management out-of-hours; and elective caesarean section should these be lacking. If general anaesthesia is required, a risk assessment must be made as to the probability of safe airway management after the induction of anaesthesia, and awake tracheal intubation should be used if this cannot be assured. Decision aids are provided to illustrate these points. Online appendices include a comprehensive compendium of case reports on the management of a number of rare syndromes and airway conditions.

International consensus statement on the use of uterotonic agents during caesarean section.

It is routine to give a uterotonic drug following delivery of the neonate during caesarean section. However, there is much heterogeneity in the relevant research, which has largely been performed in low-risk elective cases or women with uncomplicated labour. This is reflected in considerable variation in clinical practice. There are significant differences between dose requirements during elective and intrapartum caesarean section. Standard recommended doses are higher than required, with the potential for acute cardiovascular adverse effects. We recommend a small initial bolus dose of oxytocin, followed by a titrated infusion. The recommended doses of oxytocin may have to be increased in women with risk factors for uterine atony. Carbetocin at equipotent doses to oxytocin has similar actions, while avoiding the requirement for a continuous infusion after the initial dose and reducing the need for additional uterotonics. As with oxytocin, carbetocin dose requirements are higher for intrapartum caesarean sections. A second-line agent should be considered early if oxytocin/carbetocin fails to produce good uterine tone. Women with cardiac disease may be very sensitive to the adverse effects of oxytocin and other uterotonics, and their management needs to be individualised.

Multicentre clinical simulation evaluation of the ISO 80369-6 neuraxial non-Luer connector.

To avoid potentially fatal wrong-route neuraxial drug errors, international standard ISO 80369-6 specifying a non-Luer neuraxial connector design was published in 2016. We describe usability studies used in development of the design. Thirty-eight doctors and 17 nurses performed simulated procedures on manikins, using devices fitted with Luer connectors or draft ISO 80369-6 'non-Luer' connectors. The procedures included spinal anaesthesia; intrathecal chemotherapy; lumbar puncture, cerebrospinal fluid collection and pressure measurement; epidural catheter placement with bolus injection and critical care use. Participants attempted cross connection between neuraxial connectors and a range of other medical device connectors, including those from the ISO 80369 small-bore connector series. Video recording analysis was used for all assessments. Participants subjectively assessed performance of the draft non-Luer connector, including suitability for routine clinical use. Participants performed 198 procedures. The connector achieved easy, leak-free connections. The willingness of participants to use the non-Luer connectors were: spinal anaesthesia 100%; intrathecal chemotherapy 88%; lumbar puncture, cerebrospinal fluid collection and pressure measurement 93%; epidural catheter placement with bolus injection 78%; critical care use 100%. Concerns raised were generally device related, rather than connector related. Most cross-connection attempts failed, even using above clinical forces and, when successful, were judged of low clinical risk potential; the exception was a malaligned connection between the non-Luer slip and female Luer connectors. This led to revision of the dimensional tolerances of the non-Luer connector to reduce this risk, before publication of the final specification in 2016. We conclude that the ISO 80369-6 neuraxial non-Luer connector is suitable for clinical use.

Guidelines for the safe provision of anaesthesia in magnetic resonance units 2019: Guidelines from the Association of Anaesthetists and the Neuro Anaesthesia and Critical Care Society of Great Britain and Ireland.

There has been an increase in the number of units providing anaesthesia for magnetic resonance imaging and the strength of magnetic resonance scanners, as well as the number of interventions and operations performed within the magnetic resonance environment. More devices and implants are now magnetic resonance imaging conditional, allowing scans to be undertaken in patients for whom this was previously not possible. There has also been a revision in terminology relating to magnetic resonance safety of devices. These guidelines have been put together by organisations who are involved in the pathways for patients needing magnetic resonance imaging. They reinforce the safety aspects of providing anaesthesia in the magnetic resonance environment, from the multidisciplinary decision making process, the seniority of anaesthetist accompanying the patient, to training in the recognition of hazards of anaesthesia in the magnetic resonance environment. For many anaesthetists this is an unfamiliar site to give anaesthesia, often in a remote site. Hospitals should develop and audit governance procedures to ensure that anaesthetists of all grades are competent to deliver anaesthesia safely in this area.

Impact of Volatile Anesthetic Agents on Early Clinical Outcomes in Liver Transplantation.

BACKGROUND: Few studies have assessed the ability of inhaled anesthetic agents to ameliorate ischemia-reperfusion injury (IRI) in liver transplantation (LT). This study compares inhaled anesthetics in early liver allograft IRI. LT recipient and organ donor data were extracted retrospectively for all LTs at a single center between 2001 and 2015. METHODS: LT recipient and organ donor data were extracted retrospectively for all LTs at a single center between 2001 and 2015. The choice of primary anesthetic agent was at the discretion of the anesthesiologist. Serum alanine aminotransferase (ALT) and total bilirubin (TB) levels were measured daily in the post-transplant period as measures of early graft injury and function. Survival and clinical outcomes are reported. RESULTS: There were 1291 primary LTs included in the analysis, with 3 primary inhaled agents: isoflurane (62%), desflurane (8%), and sevoflurane (30%). In the first 7 days post-transplant, the peak ALT level was lowest for desflurane (352), followed by sevoflurane (411) and isoflurane (481) (P = .09). All groups had similar ALT and TB by 7 days post-transplant. Graft survival for all 3 groups was statistically similar at 1, 7, and 30 days, with equivalent patient and graft survival at 1 year. CONCLUSIONS: All 3 agents had similar rates of early allograft dysfunction and renal dysfunction. Subgroup analysis of high-risk donor grafts showed no statistical difference. In conclusion, administration of desflurane or sevoflurane may provide some early hepatoprotection against IRI, but longer-term outcomes were equivalent for all agents.

Cost-utility analysis in orthopaedic trauma; what pays? A systematic review.

BACKGROUND: As healthcare systems come under ever-increasing pressure to provide more care with fewer resources, emphasis is being placed on value-based systems that maximise quality and minimize cost. The aim of this study was to determine which interventions in fracture care have been demonstrated to be cost effective. METHODS: A systemic review of cost-utility studies on the management of fractures from 1976 to 2015 was carried out using a search of the Cost-Effectiveness Analysis Registry, National Health Service Economic Evaluation Database (NHS EED) and MEDLINE. RESULTS: 20 studies were included with 15 (75%) studies assessing interventions in lower limb trauma and 8 (25%) studies assessing interventions in upper limb trauma. 50% of studies used a decision tree model and 50% used collected data alongside a randomised clinical trial. Interventions which were shown to be cost effective in lower limb trauma were total hip replacement in displaced femoral neck fractures, the SHS in stable (A1 and A2) fractures and IM nailing for unstable (A3) fractures, salvage treatment for grade IIIB and IIIC open tibial fractures and operative treatment of ankle and calcaneal fractures. For systems-based strategies, there is evidence demonstrating cost effectiveness to treating hip fractures in high volume centres and to having resources in place to facilitate fractures being treated within 48 h of injury. In upper limb trauma there was evidence showing operative treatment of displaced proximal humerus fractures to be neither clinically nor cost effective. There was evidence supporting the operative treatment of non-displaced scaphoid fractures. Overall the quality of the studies was poor with only 50% (10) of studies able to make a treatment recommendation. Reasons for this included poor quality primary source data and poor reporting methodological practices. CONCLUSION: Certain aspects of fracture management have been shown to be cost effective. However, there is a paucity of evidence in this area and further research is required so that value-based interventions are chosen by healthcare providers engaged in orthopaedic trauma care.