Anaesthesia-related maternal mortality in low-income and middle-income countries: a systematic review and meta-analysis

Background The risk factors contributing to maternal mortality from anaesthesia in low-income and middle-income countries and the burden of the problem have not been comprehensively studied up to now. We aimed to obtain precise estimates of anaesthesia-attributed deaths in pregnant women exposed to anaesthesia and to identify the factors linked to adverse outcomes in pregnant women exposed to anaesthesia in low-income and middle-income countries. Methods In this systematic review and meta-analysis, we searched major electronic databases from inception until Oct 1, 2015, for studies reporting risks of maternal death from anaesthesia in low-income and middle-income countries. Studies were included if they assessed maternal and perinatal outcomes in pregnant women exposed to anaesthesia for an obstetric procedure in countries categorised as low-income or middle-income by the World Bank. We excluded studies in high-income countries, those involving non-pregnant women, case reports, and studies published before 1990 to ensure that the estimates reflect the current burden of the condition. Two independent reviewers undertook quality assessment and data extraction. We computed odds ratios for risk factors and anaesthesia-related complications, and pooled them using a random effects model. This study is registered with PROSPERO, number CRD42015015805. Findings 44 studies (632 556 pregnancies) reported risks of death from anaesthesia in women who had an obstetric surgical procedure; 95 (32 149 636 pregnancies and 36 144 deaths) provided rates of anaesthesia-attributed deaths as a proportion of maternal deaths. The risk of death from anaesthesia in women undergoing obstetric procedures was 1·2 per 1000 women undergoing obstetric procedures (95% CI 0·8–1·7, I2=83%). Anaesthesia accounted for 2·8% (2·4–3·4, I2=75%) of all maternal deaths, 3·5% (2·9–4·3, I2=79%) of direct maternal deaths (ie, those that resulted from obstetric complications), and 13·8% (9·0–20·7, I2=84%) of deaths after caesarean section. Exposure to general anaesthesia increased the odds of maternal (odds ratio [OR] 3·3, 95% CI 1·2–9·0, I2=58%), and perinatal deaths (2·3, 1·2–4·1, I2=73%) compared with neuraxial anaesthesia. The rate of any maternal death was 9·8 per 1000 anaesthetics (5·2–15·7, I2=92%) when managed by non-physician anaesthetists compared with 5·2 per 1000 (0·9–12·6, I2=95%) when managed by physician anaesthetists. Interpretation The current international priority on strengthening health systems should address the risk factors such as general anaesthesia and rural setting for improving anaesthetic care in pregnant women

A randomised, controlled crossover comparison of the C-MAC videolaryngoscope with direct laryngoscopy in 150 patients during routine induction of anaesthesia

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>The C-MAC^®(Karl Storz, Tuttlingen, Germany) has recently been introduced as a new device for videolaryngoscopy guided intubation. The purpose of the present study was to compare for the first time the C-MAC with conventional direct laryngoscopy in 150 patients during routine induction of anaesthesia.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>After approval of the institutional review board and written informed consent, 150 patients (ASA I-III) with general anaesthesia were enrolled. Computer-based open crossover randomisation was used to determine the sequence of the three laryngoscopies: Conventional direct laryngoscopy (HEINE Macintosh classic, Herrsching, Germany; blade sizes 3 or 4; <it>DL </it>group), C-MAC size 3 (<it>C-MAC3 </it>group) and C-MAC size 4 (<it>C-MAC4 </it>group) videolaryngoscopy, respectively. After 50 patients, laryngoscopy technique in the C-MAC4 group was changed to the straight blade technique described by Miller (C-MAC4/SBT).</p> <p>Results</p> <p>Including all 150 patients (70 male, aged (median [range]) 53 [20-82] years, 80 [48-179] kg), there was no difference of glottic view between DL, C-MAC3, C-MAC4, and C-MAC4/SBT groups; however, worst glottic view (C/L 4) was only seen with DL, but not with C-MAC videolaryngoscopy. In the subgroup of patients that had suboptimal glottic view with DL (C/L≥2a; n = 24), glottic view was improved in the C-MAC4/SBT group; C/L class improved by three classes in 5 patients, by two classes in 2 patients, by one class in 8 patients, remained unchanged in 8 patients, or decreased by two classes in 1 patient. The median (range) time taken for tracheal intubation in the DL, C-MAC3, C-MAC4 and C-MAC4/SBT groups was 8 sec (2-91 sec; n = 44), 10 sec (2-60 sec; n = 37), 8 sec (5-80 sec; n = 18) and 12 sec (2-70 sec; n = 51), respectively.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>Combining the benefits of conventional direct laryngoscopy and videolaryngoscopy in one device, the C-MAC may serve as a standard intubation device for both routine airway management and educational purposes. However, in patients with suboptimal glottic view (C/L≥2a), the C-MAC size 4 with straight blade technique may reduce the number of C/L 3 or C/L 4 views, and therefore facilitate intubation. Further studies on patients with difficult airway should be performed to confirm these findings.</p

Modified mallampati classification as a clinical predictor of peroral esophagogastroduodenoscopy tolerance

<p>Abstract</p> <p>Background</p> <p>Unsedated esophagogastroduodenoscopy (EGD) is simpler and safer than sedated EGD; however, approximately 40% of patients cannot tolerate it. Early identification of patients likely to poorly tolerate unsedated EGD is valuable for improving compliance. The modified Mallampati classification (MMC) has been used to evaluate difficult tracheal intubation and laryngoscope insertion. We tried to assess the efficacy of MMC to predict the tolerance of EGD in unsedated patients.</p> <p>Methods</p> <p>Two hundred patients who underwent an unsedated diagnostic EGD were recruited. They were stratified according to the view of the oropharynx as either MMC class I + II (good view) or class III + IV (poor view). EGD tolerance was assessed in three ways: gag reflex by endoscopist assessment, patient satisfaction by interview, and the degree of change in vital signs.</p> <p>Results</p> <p>MMC was significantly correlated to gag reflex (<it>P </it>< 0.001), patient satisfaction (<it>P </it>= 0.028), and a change of vital signs (<it>P </it>= 0.024). Patients in the poor view group had a 3.87-fold increased risk of gag reflex (<it>P </it>< 0.001), a 1.78-fold increased risk of unsatisfaction (<it>P </it>= 0.067), and a 1.96-fold increased risk of a change in vital signs (<it>P </it>= 0.025) compared to those in the good view group.</p> <p>Conclusions</p> <p>MMC appears to be a clinically useful predictor of EGD tolerance. Patients with poor view of oropharynx by MMC criteria may be candidates for sedated or transnasal EGD.</p