25 research outputs found

    Peri-operative red blood cell transfusion in neonates and infants: NEonate and Children audiT of Anaesthesia pRactice IN Europe: A prospective European multicentre observational study

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Little is known about current clinical practice concerning peri-operative red blood cell transfusion in neonates and small infants. Guidelines suggest transfusions based on haemoglobin thresholds ranging from 8.5 to 12 g dl-1, distinguishing between children from birth to day 7 (week 1), from day 8 to day 14 (week 2) or from day 15 (≥week 3) onwards. OBJECTIVE: To observe peri-operative red blood cell transfusion practice according to guidelines in relation to patient outcome. DESIGN: A multicentre observational study. SETTING: The NEonate-Children sTudy of Anaesthesia pRactice IN Europe (NECTARINE) trial recruited patients up to 60 weeks' postmenstrual age undergoing anaesthesia for surgical or diagnostic procedures from 165 centres in 31 European countries between March 2016 and January 2017. PATIENTS: The data included 5609 patients undergoing 6542 procedures. Inclusion criteria was a peri-operative red blood cell transfusion. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: The primary endpoint was the haemoglobin level triggering a transfusion for neonates in week 1, week 2 and week 3. Secondary endpoints were transfusion volumes, 'delta haemoglobin' (preprocedure - transfusion-triggering) and 30-day and 90-day morbidity and mortality. RESULTS: Peri-operative red blood cell transfusions were recorded during 447 procedures (6.9%). The median haemoglobin levels triggering a transfusion were 9.6 [IQR 8.7 to 10.9] g dl-1 for neonates in week 1, 9.6 [7.7 to 10.4] g dl-1 in week 2 and 8.0 [7.3 to 9.0] g dl-1 in week 3. The median transfusion volume was 17.1 [11.1 to 26.4] ml kg-1 with a median delta haemoglobin of 1.8 [0.0 to 3.6] g dl-1. Thirty-day morbidity was 47.8% with an overall mortality of 11.3%. CONCLUSIONS: Results indicate lower transfusion-triggering haemoglobin thresholds in clinical practice than suggested by current guidelines. The high morbidity and mortality of this NECTARINE sub-cohort calls for investigative action and evidence-based guidelines addressing peri-operative red blood cell transfusions strategies. TRIAL REGISTRATION: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: NCT02350348

    Relationship Between Glycosylated Hemoglobin Level and Sciatic Nerve Block Performance in Diabetic Patients

    No full text
    WOS: 000314274600012PubMed ID: 23386766Background: The objective of the present study was to explore the effects of deficiencies in glucose regulation on the onset, regression, and block performance times in a group of patients with diabetes-related foot problems. Methods: Forty-eight patients with American Society of Anesthetists physical status 2-4 undergoing foot and ankle surgery with a popliteal fossa block were prospectively studied. Patients were stratified into cohorts based on 3 groups according to their HbA1c levels: group 1 (n = 15), HbA1c 5%-6%; group 2 (n = 16), HbA1c 7%-8%; group 3 (n = 17), HbA1c 9%-10%. A standardized local anesthetic mixture containing 10 mL of 2% prilocaine and 10 mL of 0.5% levobupivacaine was used in all study groups. The primary outcome of the study was the time for regression of the sensory block. Results: The onset times of sensory and motor blocks in group 3 were significantly longer than those in groups 2 and 1. Motor block regression time differed significantly between groups (P = .04), being longer in group 3 compared with group 1. In group 3, the sensory block regression time and the time of first analgesic use were significantly longer than the times in groups 1 and 2. Conclusions: We found that sensory block regression time was longer in diabetic patients with poor glycemic control than in the patients with better glycemic control. Longer block performance time, probably due to reduction in sensory and motor conduction velocity in diabetic patients with poor glycemic control, should be taken into consideration when peripheral nerve blocks are used. Level of Evidence: Level II, prospective comparative study
    corecore