The Danish Anaesthesia Database

Kristian Antonsen,1 Charlotte Vallentin Rosenstock,2 Lars Hyldborg Lundstrøm2 1Board of Directors, Copenhagen University Hospital, Bispebjerg and Frederiksberg Hospital, Capital Region of Denmark, Denmark; 2Department of Anesthesiology, Copenhagen University Hospital, Nordsjællands Hospital-Hillerød, Capital Region of Denmark, Denmark Aim of database: The aim of the Danish Anaesthesia Database (DAD) is the nationwide collection of data on all patients undergoing anesthesia. Collected data are used for quality assurance, quality development, and serve as a basis for research projects. Study population: The DAD was founded in 2004 as a part of Danish Clinical Registries (Regionernes Kliniske Kvalitetsudviklings Program [RKKP]). Patients undergoing general anesthesia, regional anesthesia with or without combined general anesthesia as well as patients under sedation are registered. Data are retrieved from public and private anesthesia clinics, single-centers as well as multihospital corporations across Denmark. In 2014 a total of 278,679 unique entries representing a national coverage of ~70% were recorded, data completeness is steadily increasing. Main variable: Records are aggregated for determining 13 defined quality indicators and eleven defined complications all covering the anesthetic process from the preoperative assessment through anesthesia and surgery until the end of the postoperative recovery period. Descriptive data: Registered variables include patients' individual social security number (assigned to all Danes) and both direct patient-related lifestyle factors enabling a quantification of patients' comorbidity as well as variables that are strictly related to the type, duration, and safety of the anesthesia. Data and specific data combinations can be extracted within each department in order to monitor patient treatment. In addition, an annual DAD report is a benchmark for departments nationwide. Conclusion: The DAD is covering the anesthetic process for the majority of patients undergoing anesthesia in Denmark. Data in the DAD are increasingly used for both quality and research projects. Keywords: anesthesia, quality indicators, complication, registries, epidemiology, registry-based researc

Bedside tests for predicting difficult airways : an abridged Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy systematic review

Although bedside screening tests are routinely used to identify people at high risk of having a difficult airway, their clinical utility is unclear. We estimated the diagnostic accuracy of commonly used bedside examination tests for assessing the airway in adult patients without apparent anatomical abnormalities scheduled to undergo general anaesthesia. We searched for studies that reported our pre-specified bedside index screening tests against a reference standard, published in any language, from date of inception to 16 December 2016, in seven bibliographic databases. We included 133 studies (127 cohort type and 6 case–control) involving 844,206 participants. Overall, their methodological quality (according to QUADAS-2, a standard tool for assessing quality of diagnostic accuracy studies) was moderate to high. Our pre-specified tests were: the Mallampati test (6 studies); modified Mallampati test (105 studies); Wilson risk score (6 studies); thyromental distance (52 studies); sternomental distance (18 studies); mouth opening test (34 studies); and the upper lip bite test (30 studies). Difficult facemask ventilation, difficult laryngoscopy, difficult intubation and failed intubation were the reference standards in seven, 92, 50 and two studies, respectively. Across all reference standards, we found all index tests had relatively low sensitivities, with high variability, but specificities were consistently and markedly higher than sensitivities. For difficult laryngoscopy, the sensitivity and specificity (95%CI) of the upper lip bite test were 0.67 (0.45–0.83) and 0.92 (0.86–0.95), respectively; upper lip bite test sensitivity (95%CI) was significantly higher than that for the mouth opening test (0.22, 0.13–0.33; p < 0.001). For difficult tracheal intubation, the modified Mallampati test had a significantly higher sensitivity (95%CI) at 0.51 (0.40–0.61) compared with mouth opening (0.27, 0.16–0.41; p < 0.001) and thyromental distance (0.24, 0.12–0.43; p < 0.001). Although the upper lip bite test showed the most favourable diagnostic test accuracy properties, none of the common bedside screening tests is well suited for detecting unanticipated difficult airways, as many of them are missed