Pediatric anesthesia in Europe: Variations within uniformity.

Organization of healthcare strongly differs between European countries and results in country-specific requirements in postgraduate medical training. Within the European Union (EU), the European Board of Anaesthesiology has set recommendations of training for the Specialty of Anaesthesiology including standards for Postgraduate Medical Specialist training including a description for providing service in pediatric anesthesia. However, these standards are advisory and not mandatory. Here we aimed to review the current state and associated challenges of pediatric anesthesia training in Europe. We report an important country-specific variability both in training and regulations of practice of pediatric anesthesia in the EU and in the United Kingdom. The requirements for training in pediatric anesthesia varies between nothing specified (Belgium) or providing anesthesia with direct supervision to a minimum of 50 cases below 5 years of age (Germany) to 3-6 month clinical practice in a specialized pediatric hospital (France). Likewise, the regulations for providing anesthesia to children varies from no regulations at all (Belgium) to age specific requirements and centralization of all children below 4 years of age to specified centers (United Kingdom). Officially recognized pediatric anesthesia fellowship programs are not available in most countries of Europe. It remains unclear if and how country-specific differences in pediatric anesthesia training are associated with clinical outcomes in pediatric perioperative care. There is converging interest and support for the establishment of a European pediatric anesthesia curriculum.

Epidemiology and complications of anaesthesia in the French centres that participated to NECTARINE: A secondary analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Neonatal and infant anaesthesia are associated with a high risk of perioperative complications. The aim of the current study was to describe those risks in France using the French data from the NECTARINE study. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data from the French centres that participated to the NECTARINE study were analysed. The primary goal of the study was the description of patients' characteristics, procedures and perioperative management and their comparison with the results of the European NECTARINE study. Secondary outcomes were the description of major perioperative complications and death. RESULTS: Overall, 926 procedures collected in 15 centres (all teaching hospitals) were analysed. Comparison between the French and European NECTARINE cohorts found few differences related to patients' characteristics and procedures. The rate of interventions for critical events (respiratory, haemodynamic, and metabolic) was similar between the two cohorts. Near-infrared spectroscopy monitoring was used in 12% of procedures. Nearly none of the thresholds for these interventions met the published standards. By day 30, complications (respiratory, haemodynamic, metabolic, renal, and liver failure) and death were observed in 14.4% [95% CI 11.6-16.4]% and 1.8% [95% CI 1.1-2.9] of cases, respectively. DISCUSSION: Although the health status of the patients in the French cohort was less severe, procedures, management and postoperative complications and mortality rates were similar to the European cohort. However, thresholds for interventions were often inadequate in both cohorts. Efforts should be undertaken to improve the knowledge and use of new monitoring devices in this population.

Description of practices and complications in the French centres that participated to APRICOT: A secondary analysis.

INTRODUCTION: Analysing national patients' profile and organisation of human resources are important for improving the perioperative quality of care. The aim of the current study was to achieve these goals using the French data from the APRICOT study. MATERIAL AND METHODS: Data from the French centres that participated to the APRICOT study were extracted and analysed. The primary goal of the study was to describe patients' characteristics, procedures and perioperative anaesthetic management in France, and compare them to the results of the European APRICOT trial. Secondary outcomes were the description of major perioperative complications and the determination of human resources organisation possibly associated with these perioperative complications. RESULTS: Overall 3535 procedures collected in 20 facilities (17 teaching hospitals, one community hospital and two private institutions) were analysed. Comparison between the French and European APRICOT cohorts found differences related to the more specialised French centres participating to the study. Overall complications (respiratory complications, haemodynamic instability, cardiac arrest, drug errors, and anaphylactic reactions) were observed in 6.4% [95% CI: 5.6; 6.3] of cases. Multivariate analysis identified the anaesthesiologist's experience of<15 years and the absence of an anaesthetic nurse as human factors independently associated with an increased risk for perioperative complications. DISCUSSION: The current study identified some important differences between the French and the whole APRICOT cohort in terms of preoperative evaluation, surgical specialties involved, and monitoring of neuromuscular blockade. It confirms that, in France, the presence of an anaesthetic nurse and an experienced anaesthesiologist prevents anaesthetic complications.

Management of the child's airway under anaesthesia: The French guidelines.

OBJECTIVE: To provide French guidelines about "Airway management during paediatric anaesthesia". DESIGN: A consensus committee of 17 experts from the French Society of Anaesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine (Société Française d'Anesthésie-Réanimation, SFAR) and the Association of French speaking paediatric anaesthesiologists and intensivists (Association Des Anesthésistes Réanimateurs Pédiatriques d'Expression Francophone, ADARPEF) was convened. The entire process was conducted independently of any industry funding. The authors followed the principles of the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE®) system to assess the quality of evidence. The potential drawbacks of making strong recommendations in the presence of low-quality evidence were emphasised. Few recommendations were not graded. METHODS: The panel focused on 7 questions: 1) Supraglottic Airway devices 2) Cuffed endotracheal tubes 3) Videolaryngoscopes 4) Neuromuscular blocking agents 5) Rapid sequence induction 6) Airway device removal 7) Airway management in the child with recent or ongoing upper respiratory tract infection. Population, intervention, comparison, and outcomes (PICO) questions were reviewed and updated as needed, and evidence profiles were generated. The analysis of the literature and the redaction of the recommendations were then conducted according to the GRADE® methodology. RESULTS: The SFAR Guideline panel provides 17 statements on "airway management during paediatric anaesthesia". After two rounds of discussion and various amendments, a strong agreement was reached for 100% of the recommendations. Of these recommendations, 6 have a high level of evidence (Grade 1 ± ), 6 have a low level of evidence (Grade 2 ± ) and 5 are experts' opinions. No recommendation could be provided for 3 questions. CONCLUSIONS: Substantial agreement exists among experts regarding many strong recommendations for paediatric airway management.