Improving patient safety after rigid bronchoscopy in adults: laryngeal mask airway versus face mask – a pilot study

Fulvio Nisi,1 Antonio Galzerano,1 Gaetano Cicchitto,2 Francesco Puma,3 Vito Aldo Peduto1 1Department of Anesthesiology, Intensive Care and Pain Therapy Centre, 2Department of Pneumology and Respiratory Medicine, 3Department of Thoracic Surgery, AO Santa Maria della Misericordia, Perugia, Italy Background: There are still no clear guidelines in the literature on per procedural bronchoscopic management for anesthesiologists, and few relevant datasets are available. To obtain rapid recovery from anesthesia, it is often necessary to keep patients in the recovery room for several hours until they become clinically stable. In this study, we tested the hypothesis that the laryngeal mask airway (LMA) enables better respiratory and hemodynamic recovery than the oxygen face mask (FM) in patients undergoing rigid bronchoscopy. Methods: Twenty-one patients undergoing elective bronchoscopy of the upper airway were randomized to ventilation assistance with FM or LMA after a rigid bronchoscopy procedure under general anesthesia. The primary endpoint was duration of post-surgical recovery and the secondary endpoints were postoperative hemodynamic and respiratory parameters. Assessment of the study endpoints was performed by an intensive care specialist blinded to the method of ventilation used. The statistical analysis was performed using the Fisher’s Exact test for nominal data and the Student's t-test for continuous data. Results: There was no statistically significant difference in post-procedural time between the two groups (P=0.972). The recovery parameters were significantly better in the LMA group than in the FM group, with significantly fewer desaturation, hypotensive, and bradycardic events (P<0.05). Conclusion: We conclude that the LMA may be safer and more comfortable than the FM in patients undergoing rigid bronchoscopy. Keywords: face mask, laryngeal mask airway, anesthesiology, rigid bronchoscopy, safety&nbsp

SIAARTI-ESA Task Force. The Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety inAnesthesiology: a way forward with the European Board and the European Society ofAnesthesiology

Anesthesiology, which includes anaesthesia, perioperative care, intensive care medicine, emergency medicine and pain therapy, is acknowledged as the leading medical specialty in addressing issues of patient safety, but there is still a long way to go. Several factors pose hazards in Anesthesiology, like increasingly older and sicker patients, more complex surgical interventions, more pressure on throughput, as well as new drugs and devices. To better design educational and research strategies to improve patient safety, the European Board of Anesthesiology (EBA) and the European Society of Anesthesiology (ESA) have produced a blueprint for patient safety in Anesthesiology. This document, to be known as the Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety in Anesthesiology, was endorsed together with the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Federation of Societies of Anesthesiologists (WFSA), and the European Patients' Federation (EPF) at the Euroanaesthesia meeting in Helsinki in June 2010. It was signed by several Presidents of National Anesthesiology Societies as well as other stakeholders. The Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety in Anesthesiology represents a shared European view of what is necessary to improve patient safety, recommending practical steps that all anesthesiologists can include in their own clinical practice. The Italian Society of Anaesthesia, Analgesia, Reanimation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) is looking forward to continuing work on "patient safety" issues in Europe, and to cooperating with the ESA in the best interest of European patients

EPIDURAL LOCAL ANESTHETIC PLUS CORTICOSTEROID FOR THE TREATMENT OF CERVICAL BRACHIAL RADICULAR PAIN: SINGLE INJECTION VERSUS CONTINUOUS INFUSION.

Abstract: Background: Efficacy of epidural local anesthetics plus steroids for the treatment of cervicobrachial pain is uncertain. Methods: A prospective study randomized 160 patients with cervicobrachial pain resistant to conventional therapy. Patients were divided into 4 groups on the basis of the time between pain onset and treatment initiation: group A, 40 patients with pain onset 15 to 30 days; group B, 40 patients with pain from 31 to 60 days; group C, 40 patients, 61 to 180 days; and group D, 40 patients with pain > 180 days. Patients of each group were randomized to receive an epidural block with bupivacaine and methylprednisolone at intervals of 4 to 5 days (Single ii#cction) or continuous epidural bupivacame every 6, 12, or 24 hours plus methylprednisolone every 4 to 5 days (Continitos epidural). The maximum duration of treatment (9 blocks in Single injection, and 30 days in Contintios epidural) was dependent on achieving Pain Control (PC) > 80% [PC is defined by this formulae: (100) (VAS(intial), - VASfi,,.1)/VASinitia1]. Follow-up at I rilonth and 6 Months compared PC and the number of pain-free hours of sleep. Results: One hundred forty-one patients completed the study. The 4 groups had similar characteristics. At the 1-month and 6-month follow-up analysis based on the time between pain onset and treatment initiation showed that patients of group D, who received the Continuous epidural treatment, had significantly greater PC and significantly more pain-free hours of sleep compared with similar patients in Single injection. Conclusions: Therapy with continuous epidural local anesthetic and methylprednisolone provides better control of chronic cervicobrachial pain compared with Single injcction. These results are discussed with respect to the possible mechanism o

The Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety in Anesthesiology: a way forward with the European Board and the European Society of Anesthesiology.

Abstract Anesthesiology, which includes anaesthesia, perioperative care, intensive care medicine, emergency medicine and pain therapy, is acknowledged as the leading medical specialty in addressing issues of patient safety, but there is still a long way to go. Several factors pose hazards in Anesthesiology, like increasingly older and sicker patients, more complex surgical interventions, more pressure on throughput, as well as new drugs and devices. To better design educational and research strategies to improve patient safety, the European Board of Anesthesiology (EBA) and the European Society of Anesthesiology (ESA) have produced a blueprint for patient safety in Anesthesiology. This document, to be known as the Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety in Anesthesiology, was endorsed together with the World Health Organization (WHO), the World Federation of Societies of Anesthesiologists (WFSA), and the European Patients' Federation (EPF) at the Euroanaesthesia meeting in Helsinki in June 2010. It was signed by several Presidents of National Anesthesiology Societies as well as other stakeholders. The Helsinki Declaration on Patient Safety in Anesthesiology represents a shared European view of what is necessary to improve patient safety, recommending practical steps that all anesthesiologists can include in their own clinical practice. The Italian Society of Anaesthesia, Analgesia, Reanimation and Intensive Care (SIAARTI) is looking forward to continuing work on "patient safety" issues in Europe, and to cooperating with the ESA in the best interest of European patients