9 research outputs found

    Morbidity and mortality after anaesthesia in early life: results of the European prospective multicentre observational study, neonate and children audit of anaesthesia practice in Europe (NECTARINE)

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Neonates and infants requiring anaesthesia are at risk of physiological instability and complications, but triggers for peri-anaesthetic interventions and associations with subsequent outcome are unknown. METHODS: This prospective, observational study 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. The primary aim was to identify thresholds of pre-determined physiological variables that triggered a medical intervention. The secondary aims were to evaluate morbidities, mortality at 30 and 90 days, or both, and associations with critical events. RESULTS: Infants (n=5609) born at mean (standard deviation [sd]) 36.2 (4.4) weeks postmenstrual age (35.7% preterm) underwent 6542 procedures within 63 (48) days of birth. Critical event(s) requiring intervention occurred in 35.2% of cases, mainly hypotension (>30% decrease in blood pressure) or reduced oxygenation (SpO2 <85%). Postmenstrual age influenced the incidence and thresholds for intervention. Risk of critical events was increased by prior neonatal medical conditions, congenital anomalies, or both (relative risk [RR]=1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04–1.28) and in those requiring preoperative intensive support (RR=1.27; 95% CI, 1.15–1.41). Additional complications occurred in 16.3% of patients by 30 days, and overall 90-day mortality was 3.2% (95% CI, 2.7–3.7%). Co-occurrence of intraoperative hypotension, hypoxaemia, and anaemia was associated with increased risk of morbidity (RR=3.56; 95% CI, 1.64–7.71) and mortality (RR=19.80; 95% CI, 5.87–66.7). CONCLUSIONS: Variability in physiological thresholds that triggered an intervention, and the impact of poor tissue oxygenation on patient's outcome, highlight the need for more standardised perioperative management guidelines for neonates and infants

    Difficult tracheal intubation in neonates and infants. NEonate and Children audiT of Anaesthesia pRactice IN Europe (NECTARINE): a prospective European multicentre observational study

    Get PDF
    BACKGROUND: Neonates and infants are susceptible to hypoxaemia in the perioperative period. The aim of this study was to analyse interventions related to anaesthesia tracheal intubations in this European cohort and identify their clinical consequences. METHODS: We performed a secondary analysis of tracheal intubations of the European multicentre observational trial (NEonate and Children audiT of Anaesthesia pRactice IN Europe [NECTARINE]) in neonates and small infants with difficult tracheal intubation. The primary endpoint was the incidence of difficult intubation and the related complications. The secondary endpoints were the risk factors for severe hypoxaemia attributed to difficult airway management, and 30 and 90 day outcomes. RESULTS: Tracheal intubation was planned in 4683 procedures. Difficult tracheal intubation, defined as two failed attempts of direct laryngoscopy, occurred in 266 children (271 procedures) with an incidence (95% confidence interval [CI]) of 5.8% (95% CI, 5.1–6.5). Bradycardia occurred in 8% of the cases with difficult intubation, whereas a significant decrease in oxygen saturation (SpO2<90% for 60 s) was reported in 40%. No associated risk factors could be identified among co-morbidities, surgical, or anaesthesia management. Using propensity scoring to adjust for confounders, difficult anaesthesia tracheal intubation did not lead to an increase in 30 and 90 day morbidity or mortality. CONCLUSIONS: The results of the present study demonstrate a high incidence of difficult tracheal intubation in children less than 60 weeks post-conceptual age commonly resulting in severe hypoxaemia. Reassuringly, the morbidity and mortality at 30 and 90 days was not increased by the occurrence of a difficult intubation event

    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

    Adverse reaction to ceftriaxone in a 28-day-old infant undergoing urgent craniotomy due to epidural hematoma: review of neonatal biliary pseudolithiasis

    No full text
    Alicja Bartkowska-Śniatkowska,1 Katarzyna Jończyk-Potoczna,2 Marzena Zielińska,3 Jowita Rosada-Kurasińska1 1Department of Pediatric Anesthesiology and Intensive Therapy, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland; 2Department of Pediatric Radiology, Poznan University of Medical Sciences, Poznan, Poland; 3Department of Anesthesiology and Intensive Care, Pediatric Intensive Care Unit, Wroclaw Medical University, Wroclaw,&nbsp;Poland Abstract: The debate as to whether to administer ceftriaxone to neonates is likely to continue. Ceftriaxone has numerous advantages for critically ill pediatric patients. However, it is also known to contribute substantially to the development of biliary pseudolithiasis. Although pediatric patients rarely develop gallbladder disorders, this complication may lead to adverse events in high-risk patients with predisposing factors, particularly in neonates and infants treated with ceftriaxone. In this paper we present an interesting case report of a 28-day-old neonate with spontaneous severe epidural hematoma who developed biliary pseudolithiasis related to the use of ceftriaxone. We also discuss the efficacy of ceftriaxone in neonates and infants. Neonatologists and pediatric intensivists should be aware of the higher risk of co-existence of hyperbilirubinemia and gallbladder disorders while using ceftriaxone in pediatric settings. Keywords: ceftriaxone, pharmacodynamics, neonate, pseudolithiasis, efficac

    Procedural sedation and analgesia for gastrointestinal endoscopy in infants and children: how, with what, and by whom?

    No full text
    Endoscopic procedures involving the gastrointestinal tract have been successfully developed in paediatric practice over the last two decades, improving both diagnosis and treatment in many children’s gastrointestinal diseases. In this group of patients, experience and co-operation between paediatricians/endoscopists and paediatric anaesthesiologists should help to guarantee the quality and safety of a procedure and should additionally help to minimise the risk of adverse events which are greater the smaller the child is. This principle is more and more important especially since the announcement of the Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety in Anaesthesiology in 2010, emphasising the role of anaesthesiology in promoting safe perioperative care. The Helsinki Declaration has been endorsed by all European anaesthesiology institutions as well as the World Health Organisation’s ‘Safe Surgery Saves Lives’ initiative including the ‘Surgical Safety Checklist’. Although most of these procedures could be performed by paediatricians under procedural sedation and analgesia, children with congenital defects and serious coexisting diseases (ASA ≥ III) as well as the usage of anaesthetics (e.g. propofol) must be managed by paediatric anaesthesiologists. We have reviewed the specific principles employed during qualification and performance of procedural sedation and analgesia for gastrointestinal endoscopy in paediatrics. We have also tried to answer the questions as to how, with what, and by whom, procedural sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy in children should be performed.Endoscopic procedures involving the gastrointestinal tract have been successfully developed in paediatric practice over the last two decades, improving both diagnosis and treatment in many children’s gastrointestinal diseases. In this group of patients, experience and co-operation between paediatricians/endoscopists and paediatric anaesthesiologists should help to guarantee the quality and safety of a procedure and should additionally help to minimise the risk of adverse events which are greater the smaller the child is. This principle is more and more important especially since the announcement of the Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety in Anaesthesiology in 2010, emphasising the role of anaesthesiology in promoting safe perioperative care. The Helsinki Declaration has been endorsed by all European anaesthesiology institutions as well as the World Health Organisation’s ‘Safe Surgery Saves Lives’ initiative including the ‘Surgical Safety Checklist’. Although most of these procedures could be performed by paediatricians under procedural sedation and analgesia, children with congenital defects and serious coexisting diseases (ASA ≥ III) as well as the usage of anaesthetics (e.g. propofol) must be managed by paediatric anaesthesiologists. We have reviewed the specific principles employed during qualification and performance of procedural sedation and analgesia for gastrointestinal endoscopy in paediatrics. We have also tried to answer the questions as to how, with what, and by whom, procedural sedation for gastrointestinal endoscopy in children should be performed

    Mobilization practices in critically ill children: A European point prevalence study (EU PARK-PICU)

    Get PDF
    Background: Early mobilization of adults receiving intensive care improves health outcomes, yet little is known about mobilization practices in paediatric intensive care units (PICUs). We aimed to determine the prevalence of and factors associated with physical rehabilitation in PICUs across Europe. Methods: A 2-day, cross-sectional, multicentre point prevalence study was conducted in May and November 2018. The primary outcome was the prevalence of physical therapy (PT)- or occupational therapy (OT)-provided mobility. Clinical data and data on patient mobility, potential mobility safety events, and mobilization barriers were prospectively collected in patients admitted for ≥72 h. Results: Data of 456 children admitted to one of 38 participating P

    Metabolic syndrome is associated with similar long-term prognosis in non-obese and obese patients. An analysis of 45 615 patients from the nationwide LIPIDOGRAM 2004-2015 cohort studies

    No full text
    Aims We aimed to evaluate the association between metabolic syndrome (MetS) and long-term all-cause mortality. Methods The LIPIDOGRAM studies were carried out in the primary care in Poland in 2004, 2006 and 2015. MetS was diagnosed based on the National Cholesterol Education Program, Adult Treatment Panel III (NCEP/ATP III) and Joint Interim Statement (JIS) criteria. The cohort was divided into four groups: non-obese patients without MetS, obese patients without MetS, non-obese patients with MetS and obese patients with MetS. Differences in all-cause mortality was analyzed using Kaplan-Meier and Cox regression analyses. Results 45,615 participants were enrolled (mean age 56.3, standard deviation: 11.8 years; 61.7% female). MetS was diagnosed in 14,202 (31%) by NCEP/ATP III criteria, and 17,216 (37.7%) by JIS criteria. Follow-up was available for 44,620 (97.8%, median duration 15.3 years) patients. MetS was associated with increased mortality risk among the obese (hazard ratio, HR: 1.88 [95% CI, 1.79-1.99] and HR: 1.93 [95% CI 1.82-2.04], according to NCEP/ATP III and JIS criteria, respectively) and non-obese individuals (HR: 2.11 [95% CI 1.85-2.40] and 1.7 [95% CI, 1.56-1.85] according to NCEP/ATP III and JIS criteria respectively). Obese patients without MetS had a higher mortality risk than non-obese patients without MetS (HR: 1.16 [95% CI 1.10-1.23] and HR: 1.22 [95%CI 1.15-1.30], respectively in subgroups with NCEP/ATP III and JIS criteria applied). Conclusions MetS is associated with increased all-cause mortality risk in non-obese and obese patients. In patients without MetS obesity remains significantly associated with mortality. The concept of metabolically healthy obesity should be revised

    Morbidity and mortality after anaesthesia in early life: results of the European prospective multicentre observational study, neonate and children audit of anaesthesia practice in Europe (NECTARINE)

    No full text
    Background: Neonates and infants requiring anaesthesia are at risk of physiological instability and complications, but triggers for peri-anaesthetic interventions and associations with subsequent outcome are unknown. Methods: This prospective, observational study 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. The primary aim was to identify thresholds of pre-determined physiological variables that triggered a medical intervention. The secondary aims were to evaluate morbidities, mortality at 30 and 90 days, or both, and associations with critical events. Results: Infants (n=5609) born at mean (standard deviation [sd]) 36.2 (4.4) weeks postmenstrual age (35.7% preterm) underwent 6542 procedures within 63 (48) days of birth. Critical event(s) requiring intervention occurred in 35.2% of cases, mainly hypotension (&gt;30% decrease in blood pressure) or reduced oxygenation (SpO2 &lt;85%). Postmenstrual age influenced the incidence and thresholds for intervention. Risk of critical events was increased by prior neonatal medical conditions, congenital anomalies, or both (relative risk [RR]=1.16; 95% confidence interval [CI], 1.04-1.28) and in those requiring preoperative intensive support (RR=1.27; 95% CI, 1.15-1.41). Additional complications occurred in 16.3% of patients by 30 days, and overall 90-day mortality was 3.2% (95% CI, 2.7-3.7%). Co-occurrence of intraoperative hypotension, hypoxaemia, and anaemia was associated with increased risk of morbidity (RR=3.56; 95% CI, 1.64-7.71) and mortality (RR=19.80; 95% CI, 5.87-66.7). Conclusions: Variability in physiological thresholds that triggered an intervention, and the impact of poor tissue oxygenation on patient's outcome, highlight the need for more standardised perioperative management guidelines for neonates and infants
    corecore