Thromboelastography (TEG (R)) demonstrates that tinzaparin 4500 international units has no detectable anticoagulant activity after caesarean section

Background Low molecular weight heparin is routinely used for thromboprophylaxis in pregnancy and the puerperium. Consensus guidelines recommend waiting 10–12 h after administration of a thromboprophylactic dose of low molecular weight heparin before performing a neuraxial block or removing an epidural catheter. Thromboelastography (TEG®) has been reported to be sensitive to the effects of enoxaparin 4 h after administration. The purpose of this study was to use TEG to examine coagulation changes in the first 10 h after a thromboprophylactic dose of tinzaparin in an attempt to ratify the current consensus guidelines about timing of neuraxial blockade and epidural catheter removal. Methods Twenty-four women who had undergone caesarean delivery and were classified as low or intermediate risk of thrombosis were recruited. Blood samples were taken before subcutaneous administration of tinzaparin 4500 IU, and at 4, 8 and 10 h post-dose. Standard TEG analyses were performed using plain and heparinase cuvettes and samples were also sent for laboratory anti-Xa assay. Thromboelastograph profiles were analysed for a low molecular weight heparin effect. Results Analysis revealed no significant differences in R time, K time, alpha angle or maximum amplitude between plain and heparinase samples at any time point. Apart from a small statistically significant (P=0.033) decrease in maximum amplitude of 2.8% (95% CI 0.3 to 5.4%) at 4 h, there were no significant changes in coagulation for any TEG parameter. Anti-Xa levels were virtually undetectable in all patients over the 10 h period (median 0.00 U/mL; range 0.00–0.13 U/mL). Conclusion A thromboprophylactic dose of tinzaparin 4500 IU had little detectable effect on coagulation as assessed by TEG and anti-Xa assay. These findings support consensus guidelines which state that it is acceptable to perform neuraxial blockade or remove an epidural catheter 10–12 h after a thromboprophylactic dose of tinzaparin. Rather than suggesting a lack of anticoagulant activity, the findings indicate that TEG may not have the sensitivity to detect a tinzaparin effect when this dose is used in this patient group

General anaesthetic and airway management practice for obstetric surgery in England: a prospective, multi-centre observational study

There are no current descriptions of general anaesthesia characteristics for obstetric surgery, despite recent changes to patient baseline characteristics and airway management guidelines. This analysis of data from the direct reporting of awareness in maternity patients' (DREAMY) study of accidental awareness during obstetric anaesthesia aimed to describe practice for obstetric general anaesthesia in England and compare with earlier surveys and best-practice recommendations. Consenting patients who received general anaesthesia for obstetric surgery in 72 hospitals from May 2017 to August 2018 were included. Baseline characteristics, airway management, anaesthetic techniques and major complications were collected. Descriptive analysis, binary logistic regression modelling and comparisons with earlier data were conducted. Data were collected from 3117 procedures, including 2554 (81.9%) caesarean deliveries. Thiopental was the induction drug in 1649 (52.9%) patients, compared with propofol in 1419 (45.5%). Suxamethonium was the neuromuscular blocking drug for tracheal intubation in 2631 (86.1%), compared with rocuronium in 367 (11.8%). Difficult tracheal intubation was reported in 1 in 19 (95%CI 1 in 16-22) and failed intubation in 1 in 312 (95%CI 1 in 169-667). Obese patients were over-represented compared with national baselines and associated with difficult, but not failed intubation. There was more evidence of change in practice for induction drugs (increased use of propofol) than neuromuscular blocking drugs (suxamethonium remains the most popular). There was evidence of improvement in practice, with increased monitoring and reversal of neuromuscular blockade (although this remains suboptimal). Despite a high risk of difficult intubation in this population, videolaryngoscopy was rarely used (1.9%)

"In questo", il teatro gli scenari della commedia dell'arte "In this", the theater and the scenery of the commedia dell'arte

Il segreto della commedia dell'arte è stato nel paradosso di Maschera e Improvvisazione, Tipo Fisso e Testo Variabile, Conservazione e Innovazione. Per questo è stato nei secoli esaltata o denigrata: considerata reazionaria dalla Rivoluzione francese e esaltata come rivoluzionaria dai Romantici. Nel Novecento, Copeau, Mejerchol'd, Mnouchkine e Fo hanno dovuto fare i conti con questa ambivalenza. Dunque ciò che oggi si chiama commedia dell'arte è "reazionario" o "rivoluzionario"? "Popolare"o "populista"?<br>The secret of the Commedia dell'Arte lies in the paradox between Mask and Improvisation, Fixed Character and Variable Text, Conservation and Innovation. Therefore along the centuries it has been exalted or vilified: considered as reactionary during the French revolution and praised by the romantics. In the 20th century Copeau, Meierhold, Mnouchkine and Fo faced this ambivalence. Is that which is today called commedia dell'arte "reactionary" or "revolutionary"? "Popular" or "populist"