Level of agreement of point-of-care and laboratory HbA1c measurements in the preoperative outpatient clinic in non-diabetic patients who are overweight or obese.

Implementation of point-of-care HbA1c devices in the preoperative outpatient clinic might facilitate the early diagnosis of glycemic disturbances in overweight or obese patients undergoing surgery, but validation studies in this setting do not exist. We determined the level of agreement between a point-of-care and laboratory HbA1c test in non-diabetic patients visiting the outpatient clinic for preoperative risk profiling. Point-of-care HbA1c levels were measured in whole blood obtained by a finger prick (Siemens DCA Vantage HbA1c analyzer) and in hemolysed EDTA blood in the central laboratory (LAB). Bland Altman and Clarke's error grid analysis were used to analyze the agreement between the point-of-care and laboratory measurements. Patients (n = 49) were 55 ± 11 years old, 47% were male with a body mass index (BMI) of 30.6 ± 3.4 kg/m2. The mean HbA1c was 38.1 ± 3.7 mmol/mol or 5.6 ± 0.3%. One patient was diagnosed with a HbA1c indicative for diabetes mellitus (6.7%). Bland Altman analysis revealed a bias of - 0.53 ± 1.81 mmol/mol with limits of agreement of - 4.09 to 3.03 mmol/mol and a bias of - 0.05 ± 0.17% with limits of agreement - 0.39 to 0.28%. The percentage error was 9.2% and 5.9% for HbA1c expressed in mmol/mol and %, respectively. Clarke's error grid analysis showed that 48 out of 49 measurements were located in area A (98%). Point-of-care HbA1c measurements showed a high level of agreement with the laboratory test in the outpatient setting, and may be used for preoperative risk profiling in patients prone to cardiometabolic complications.Trial registration: Netherlands Trial Register NTR3057.

Health risk factors in the anesthesia population.

STUDY OBJECTIVE: We investigated the prevalence of lifestyle risk factors in patients admitted to our preoperative assessment outpatient clinic, and compared patient self-reports and anesthetist reports of health risk factors to evaluate the patient self-image of preoperative health status. DESIGN: Cross-sectional survey. SETTING: The study was performed in an academic teaching hospital in Amsterdam, the Netherlands, during 3 consecutive months at the preoperative screening clinic. PATIENTS: A total of 1227 adult patients scheduled for surgery were screened, and 1111 were included (patients being excluded where data were incomplete). INTERVENTIONS AND MEASUREMENTS: Before health risk screening by an anesthetist, patients filled out a lifestyle risk factor questionnaire including overweight, hypertension, diabetes mellitus, smoking, physical activity, and alcohol use. These were compared with risk factors stated in the preoperative assessment report of the anesthetist. MAIN RESULTS: The study population was aged 51 ± 17 years with a body mass index of 25.6 ± 4.7 kg/m(2). The most frequent lifestyle risk factors reported by the anesthetist were overweight and obesity (47.5%), smoking (25.3%), and hypertension (23.7%). The prevalence of no, 1, or 2 lifestyle risk factors in the preoperative assessment outpatient clinic population was, respectively, 30.1%, 35.6%, and 18.5% reported by the anesthetist and 36.4%, 36.7%, and 18.6% reported by the patients. Patients with more lifestyle risk factors were older with a higher body mass index and American Society of Anesthesiologists classification. Differences in reporting of lifestyle risk factors between patients and anesthetist occurred especially with overweight (26.5% vs 47.5%). CONCLUSIONS: The prevalence of lifestyle risk factors in perioperative patients is high, and differences in reporting between patients and anesthetists may suggest that patients are unaware of or ignore their unhealthy state. Further studies are warranted to investigate the association between the lifestyle risk factors and outcome in the anesthesiology setting.

Essentials in cardiac arrest during cesarean section.

Cardiac arrest during cesarean section is very rare. Obstetrical teams have low exposure to these critical situations necessitating frequent rehearsal and knowledge of its differential diagnosis and treatment. A 40-year-old woman pregnant with triplets underwent cesarean sections because of vaginal bleeding due to a placenta previa at 35.2 weeks of gestation. Spinal anesthesia was performed. Asystole occurred during uterotomy. Immediate resuscitation and delivery of the neonates eventually resulted in good maternal and neonatal outcomes. The differential diagnosis is essential and should include obstetric and non-obstetric causes. We describe the consideration of Bezold Jarisch reflex and amniotic fluid embolism as most appropriate in this case.

Routine use of nasogastric tubes does not reduce postoperative nausea and vomiting.

Routine use of a nasogastric (NG) tube has been suggested to prevent postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) despite conflicting data. Accordingly, we tested the hypothesis that routine use of a NG tube does not reduce PONV. Our work is based on data from a large trial of 4055 patients initially designed to quantify the effectiveness of combinations of antiemetic treatments for the prevention of PONV. This analysis uses propensity scores for case matching to ensure group comparability on baseline factors. Intraoperative NG tube use patients and perioperative NG tube use patients were respectively matched to nonuse patients on all available potential confounders. Matched-pairs were identified using propensity scores for 1032 patients with or without intraoperative NG tube use and 176 patients with or without perioperative NG tube use. The incidences of PONV in the intraoperative group were 44.4% vs 41.5% (P = 0.35) with and without tube use, respectively, and 27.8% vs 31.3% (P = 0.61) in the perioperative group. Our results provide evidence that routine use of a NG tube does not reduce the incidence of PONV.

PONV: a problem of inhalational anaesthesia?

Even nowadays every third or fourth patient suffers from postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) after general anaesthesia with volatile anaesthetics. There is now strong evidence that volatile anaesthetics are emetogenic and that there are no meaningful differences between halothane, enflurane, isoflurane, sevoflurane, and desflurane in this respect. However, when propofol is substituted for volatile anaesthetics the risk for PONV is reduced by only about one fifth, indicating that there are other even more important causes for PONV following general anaesthesia. A main causative factor might be the use of perioperative opioids, but their impact--relative to other factors including volatile anaesthetics--has never been quantified. Patient-specific risk factors have also been shown to be clinically relevant; they are therefore included in the calculation of simplified risk scores that allow prediction of a patient's risk independent of the type of surgery. Although controversial, the well-known different incidences following certain types of surgery are most likely caused by patient-specific and anaesthesia-related risk factors. There is a common consensus that prophylaxis with anti-emetic strategies is rarely justified when the risk of PONV is low, while it is warranted in case of imminent medical risk associated with vomiting or in a patient with a high risk for PONV. A recently published large multicentre trial of factorial design, IMPACT, has demonstrated that various anti-emetic strategies are associated with a very similar and constant relative reduction rate of about 25-30% and that the main predictor for the efficacy of prophylaxis is the patient's risk for PONV. Interestingly, all anti-emetics (dexamethasone, droperidol and ondansetron) work independently, so that their combined benefit can be derived directly from the single effects. The effectiveness of the anti-emetics was also independent of a variety of risk factors, including volatile anaesthetics. This means that any anti-emetic prophylaxis for PONV induced by volatile anaesthetics is equally effective. Of course, the most logical approach for prevention would be the omission of volatile anaesthetics and nitrous oxide using a total intravenous anaesthesia with propofol. However, since volatile anaesthetics are probably not the most important risk factors, it might be even better--if appropriate--to avoid general anaesthesia by using a regional, opioid-free anaesthesia if PONV is a serious problem.