Risk and crisis management in intraoperative hemorrhage: Human factors in hemorrhagic critical events

Hemorrhage is the major cause of cardiac arrest developing in the operating room. Many human factors including surgical procedures, transfusion practices, blood supply, and anesthetic management are involved in the process that leads to hemorrhage developing into a critical situation. It is desirable for hospital transfusion committees to prepare hospital regulations on 'actions to be taken to manage critical hemorrhage', and practice the implementation of these regulations by simulated drills. If intraoperative hemorrhage seems to be critical, a state of emergency should immediately be declared to the operating room staff, the blood transfusion service staff, and blood bank staff in order to organize a systematic approach to the ongoing problem and keep all responsible staff working outside the operating room informed of events developing in the operating room. To rapidly deal with critical hemorrhage, not only cooperation between anesthesiologists and surgeons but also linkage of operating rooms with blood transfusion services and a blood bank are important. When time is short, cross-matching tests are omitted, and ABO-identical red blood cells are used. When supplies of ABO-identical red blood cells are not available, ABO-compatible, non-identical red blood cells are used. Because a systematic, not individual, approach is required to prevent and manage critical hemorrhage, whether a hospital can establish a procedure to deal with it or not depends on the overall capability of critical and crisis management of the hospital

Regional block versus general anaesthesia for caesarean section and neonatal outcomes: a population-based study

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Anaesthesia guidelines recommend regional anaesthesia for most caesarean sections due to the risk of failed intubation and aspiration with general anaesthesia. However, general anaesthesia is considered to be safe for the foetus, based on limited evidence, and is still used for caesarean sections.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Cohorts of caesarean sections by indication (that is, planned repeat caesarean section, failure to progress, foetal distress) were selected from the period 1998 to 2004 (<it>N </it>= 50,806). Deliveries performed under general anaesthesia were compared with those performed under spinal or epidural, for the outcomes of neonatal intubation and 5-minute Apgar (Apgar5) <7.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>The risk of adverse outcomes was increased for caesarean sections under general anaesthesia for all three indications and across all levels of hospital. The relative risks were largest for low-risk planned repeat caesarean deliveries: resuscitation with intubation relative risk was 12.8 (95% confidence interval 7.6, 21.7), and Apgar5 <7 relative risk was 13.4 (95% confidence interval 9.2, 19.4). The largest absolute increase in risk was for unplanned caesareans due to foetal distress: there were five extra intubations per 100 deliveries and six extra Apgar5 <7 per 100 deliveries.</p> <p>Conclusion</p> <p>The infants most affected by general anaesthesia were those already compromised <it>in utero</it>, as evidenced by foetal distress. The increased rate of adverse neonatal outcomes should be weighed up when general anaesthesia is under consideration.</p