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

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

Patient-controlled analgesia with remifentanil versus alternative parenteral methods for pain management during labor – a systematic review

Es stehen mehrere analgetische Strategien zur Schmerzlinderung während der Geburt zur Verfügung. Zunehmend wird Remifentanil, ein kurz wirksames Opioid, aufgrund seiner besonderen pharmakologischen Eigenschaften als alternatives Analgetikum verwendet. Ziel dieser Dissertation war die systematische Beurteilung der Wirksamkeit von Remifentanil, appliziert im Rahmen einer intravenösen patientenkontrollierten Analgesie (PCA) für Wehenschmerzen, zusammen mit der Analyse potentieller unerwünschter Ereignisse für die Mutter und das Neugeborene. Durch eine systematische Literatursuche verschiedener Datenbanken im Dezember 2015 wurden randomisierte kontrollierte Studien identifiziert, die Remifentanil (PCA) mit einem anderen Opioid (IV/IM), einem anderen Opioid (PCA), mit epiduraler Analgesie, mit Remifentanil (kontinuierlich IV) oder mit Remifentanil (PCA, anderes Schema) bei geplanter vaginaler Entbindung verglichen haben. Zwanzig Studien mit 3569 Frauen konnten eingeschlossen werden. Die methodologische Qualität der analysierten Studien war mäßig bis schlecht. Das Risiko für Bias hinsichtlich Verblindung und unvollständiger Berichterstattung von Daten wurde in 65% bzw. 45% der inkludierten Studien als hoch eingestuft. Insgesamt ergaben sich Hinweise darauf, dass Frauen in der Gruppe Remifentanil (PCA) zufriedener waren als Frauen in der Gruppe mit einem anderen Opioid (IV/IM), allerdings weniger zufrieden mit der Schmerzlinderung als Frauen, die eine epidurale Analgesie erhielten. Für den frühen Endpunkt führte die Anwendung einer Remifentanil (PCA) zu einer größeren Schmerzlinderung als die Administration eines anderen Opioids (IV/IM), wohingegen eine geringere Schmerzlinderung im Vergleich zur epiduralen Analgesie erzielt wurde. Die Datenlage in Bezug auf maternale und neonatale unerwünschte Ereignisse und Sicherheitsaspekte war limitiert. Es gab keinen Hinweis darauf, dass Remifentanil (PCA) im Vergleich zur epiduralen Analgesie mit niedrigeren Apgar Scores einherging. 156 Bei der Verwendung von Remifentanil (PCA) forderten weniger Frauen eine zusätzliche Analgesie verglichen mit der Verwendung von anderen Opioiden (IV/IM). Demgegenüber forderten mehr Frauen mit Remifentanil (PCA) eine zusätzliche Analgesie verglichen mit der epiduralen Analgesie. Die Evidenzlage zeigte keinen Unterschied hinsichtlich des Risikos einer Kaiserschnittentbindung zwischen Remifentanil (PCA) und anderen Opioide (IV/IM) sowie Remifentanil (PCA) und epiduraler Analgesie. Basierend auf den Ergebnissen dieser Dissertation lässt sich zusammenfassend sagen, dass es überwiegend wenig aussagekräftige Evidenz für die Praxis gibt und die zukünftige Forschung die aktuelle Datenlage ändern kann. Die Qualität der Evidenz ist hauptsächlich limitiert durch die schlechte Qualität der Studien, Inkonsistenz und fehlende Präzision. Weitere Studien, die insbesondere maternale und neonatale Sicherheit (mütterliche Apnoe und Atemdepression, Apgar Score) untersuchen, sind erforderlich, um die optimale Art und Weise der Applikation von Remifentanil bei höchster Wirksamkeit und vertretbaren unerwünschten Ereignissen für die Mutter und ihr Neugeborenes herauszufinden.There are several analgesic strategies for pain relief during labor. Increasingly, remifentanil, a short-acting opioid, is being used as an alternative analgesic because of its unique pharmacological properties. The aim of this dissertation was to systematically assess the efficacy of remifentanil administered as an intravenous patient-controlled analgesia (PCA) for labor pain, along with the analysis of potential adverse events for the mother and neonate. A systematic literature search of several databases in December 2015 identified randomized controlled trials comparing remifentanil (PCA) with another opioid (intravenous (IV)/intramuscular (IM)), another opioid (PCA), epidural analgesia, remifentanil (continuous IV) or remifentanil (PCA, different regime) in women with planned vaginal delivery. Twenty studies with 3569 data sets could be included. The methodological quality of the analyzed studies was moderate to poor. The risk of bias regarding blinding and incomplete data reporting was considered high in 65% and 45% of the included studies, respectively. Overall, there was some evidence that women in the remifentanil (PCA) group were more satisfied than women in the group with another opioid (IV/IM), but less satisfied with pain relief than women receiving epidural analgesia. For the early endpoint (30 minutes/1 hour), the use of remifentanil (PCA) resulted in greater pain relief than the administration of another opioid (IV/IM), whereas lower pain relief was achieved compared to epidural analgesia. The data on maternal and neonatal adverse events and safety aspects was limited. There was no evidence that remifentanil (PCA) was associated with lower Apgar scores compared to epidural analgesia. When using remifentanil (PCA), fewer women required additional analgesia compared to the use of other opioids (IV/IM). In contrast, more women with remifentanil (PCA) required additional analgesia compared to epidural analgesia. The evidence showed no difference in the risk of cesarean delivery between remifentanil (PCA) and other opioids (IV/IM), as well as remifentanil (PCA) and epidural analgesia. Based on the results of this dissertation, it can be summarized that there is predominantly little meaningful evidence for the practice and future research can change the current data situation. The quality of the evidence is mainly limited by the poor quality of the studies, inconsistency and lack of precision. Further studies, in particular those which investigate maternal and neonatal safety (maternal apnea and respiratory depression, Apgar score), are needed to find the optimal mode of administration of remifentanil with the highest efficacy and justifiable adverse events for the mother and her newborn

Drugs for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults after general anaesthesia: a network meta-analysis

This is a protocol for a Cochrane Review (Intervention). The objectives are as follows: 1. To compare the efficacy and safety of different prophylactic pharmacological interventions (antiemetic drugs) either against no treatment, placebo or against each other (as mono- or combination prophylaxis) for the prevention of postoperative nausea and vomiting in adults undergoing any type of surgery under general anaesthesia. 2. To explore the best dose or dose range of the antiemetic drugs in terms of efficacy and safety. 3. To generate a clinically useful ranking of antiemetic drugs (mono- and combination prophylaxis) according to efficacy and safety

Continuous intravenous perioperative lidocaine infusion for postoperative pain and recovery in adults

Background: The management of postoperative pain and recovery is still unsatisfactory in a number of cases in clinical practice. Opioids used for postoperative analgesia are frequently associated with adverse effects, including nausea and constipation, preventing smooth postoperative recovery. Not all patients are suitable for, and benefit from, epidural analgesia that is used to improve postoperative recovery. The non-opioid, lidocaine, was investigated in several studies for its use in multimodal management strategies to reduce postoperative pain and enhance recovery. This review was published in 2015 and updated in January 2017. Objectives: To assess the effects (benefits and risks) of perioperative intravenous (IV) lidocaine infusion compared to placebo/no treatment or compared to epidural analgesia on postoperative pain and recovery in adults undergoing various surgical procedures. Search methods: We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, CINAHL, and reference lists of articles in January 2017. We searched one trial registry contacted researchers in the field, and handsearched journals and congress proceedings. We updated this search in February 2018, but have not yet incorporated these results into the review. Selection criteria: We included randomized controlled trials comparing the effect of continuous perioperative IV lidocaine infusion either with placebo, or no treatment, or with thoracic epidural analgesia (TEA) in adults undergoing elective or urgent surgery under general anaesthesia. The IV lidocaine infusion must have been started intraoperatively, prior to incision, and continued at least until the end of surgery. Data collection and analysis: We used Cochrane's standard methodological procedures. Our primary outcomes were: pain score at rest; gastrointestinal recovery and adverse events. Secondary outcomes included: postoperative nausea and postoperative opioid consumption. We used GRADE to assess the quality of evidence for each outcome. Main results: We included 23 new trials in the update. In total, the review included 68 trials (4525 randomized participants). Two trials compared IV lidocaine with TEA. In all remaining trials, placebo or no treatment was used as a comparator. Trials involved participants undergoing open abdominal (22), laparoscopic abdominal (20), or various other surgical procedures (26). The application scheme of systemic lidocaine strongly varies between the studies related to both dose (1 mg/kg/h to 5 mg/kg/h) and termination of the infusion (from the end of surgery until several days after). The risk of bias was low with respect to selection bias (random sequence generation), performance bias, attrition bias, and detection bias in more than 50% of the included studies. For allocation concealment and selective reporting, the quality assessment yielded low risk of bias for only approximately 20% of the included studies. IV Lidocaine compared to placebo or no treatment We are uncertain whether IV lidocaine improves postoperative pain compared to placebo or no treatment at early time points (1 to 4 hours) (standardized mean difference (SMD) -0.50, 95% confidence interval (CI) -0.72 to -0.28; 29 studies, 1656 participants; very low-quality evidence) after surgery. Due to variation in the standard deviation (SD) in the studies, this would equate to an average pain reduction of between 0.37 cm and 2.48 cm on a 0 to 10 cm visual analogue scale. Assuming approximately 1 cm on a 0 to 10 cm pain scale is clinically meaningful, we ruled out a clinically relevant reduction in pain with lidocaine at intermediate (24 hours) (SMD -0.14, 95% CI -0.25 to -0.04; 33 studies, 1847 participants; moderate-quality evidence), and at late time points (48 hours) (SMD -0.11, 95% CI -0.25 to 0.04; 24 studies, 1404 participants; moderate-quality evidence). Due to variation in the SD in the studies, this would equate to an average pain reduction of between 0.10 cm to 0.48 cm at 24 hours and 0.08 cm to 0.42 cm at 48 hours. In contrast to the original review in 2015, we did not find any significant subgroup differences for different surgical procedures. We are uncertain whether lidocaine reduces the risk of ileus (risk ratio (RR) 0.37, 95% CI 0.15 to 0.87; 4 studies, 273 participants), time to first defaecation/bowel movement (mean difference (MD) -7.92 hours, 95% CI -12.71 to -3.13; 12 studies, 684 participants), risk of postoperative nausea (overall, i.e. 0 up to 72 hours) (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.67 to 0.91; 35 studies, 1903 participants), and opioid consumption (overall) (MD -4.52 mg morphine equivalents , 95% CI -6.25 to -2.79; 40 studies, 2201 participants); quality of evidence was very low for all these outcomes. The effect of IV lidocaine on adverse effects compared to placebo treatment is uncertain, as only a small number of studies systematically analysed the occurrence of adverse effects (very low-quality evidence). IV Lidocaine compared to TEA The effects of IV lidocaine compared with TEA are unclear (pain at 24 hours (MD 1.51, 95% CI -0.29 to 3.32; 2 studies, 102 participants), pain at 48 hours (MD 0.98, 95% CI -1.19 to 3.16; 2 studies, 102 participants), time to first bowel movement (MD -1.66, 95% CI -10.88 to 7.56; 2 studies, 102 participants); all very low-quality evidence). The risk for ileus and for postoperative nausea (overall) is also unclear, as only one small trial assessed these outcomes (very low-quality evidence). No trial assessed the outcomes, 'pain at early time points' and 'opioid consumption (overall)'. The effect of IV lidocaine on adverse effects compared to TEA is uncertain (very low-quality evidence). Authors' conclusions: We are uncertain whether IV perioperative lidocaine, when compared to placebo or no treatment, has a beneficial impact on pain scores in the early postoperative phase, and on gastrointestinal recovery, postoperative nausea, and opioid consumption. The quality of evidence was limited due to inconsistency, imprecision, and study quality. Lidocaine probably has no clinically relevant effect on pain scores later than 24 hours. Few studies have systematically assessed the incidence of adverse effects. There is a lack of evidence about the effects of IV lidocaine compared with epidural anaesthesia in terms of the optimal dose and timing (including the duration) of the administration. We identified three ongoing studies, and 18 studies are awaiting classification; the results of the review may change when these studies are published and included in the review

Geburtshilfliche Anästhesie: Altbewährtes, Kontroversen und neue Perspektiven – Teil 1

ZusammenfassungIn der „Whatʼs New in Obstetric Anesthesia“ Lecture, die jedem an der anästhesiologischen Kreißsaalversorgung Interessierten in abgedruckter Form sehr ans Herz gelegt werden kann, werden seit 1975 durch die Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology die im Rahmen des Annual Meeting als relevant für die klinische Versorgung erachteten Vorträge zusammengefasst. Nach dem Tode von Gerard W. Ostheimer, Professor of Anesthesiology im Brigham and Womenʼs Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, wurde sie zur Gerard W. Ostheimer „Whatʼs New in Obstetric Anesthesia“ Lecture umbenannt, um dessen Beiträge zur Regionalanästhesie und geburtshilflichen Anästhesie zu würdigen. Jedes Jahr gewährt die von ausgewählten Fachvertretern gehaltene Veranstaltung und ihr Abdruck in namhaften Anästhesie-Journalen Einblick in eine kritische Würdigung rezenter Literatur und die möglichen Konsequenzen für – aber nicht nur – die anästhesiologische Kreißsaalpraxis.Eine ähnliche Veranstaltung hat in Deutschland seit über 16 Jahren Tradition: Das Geburtshilfliche Anästhesiesymposium des Wissenschaftlichen Arbeitskreises Regionalanästhesie und Geburtshilfliche Anästhesie. Anders als in den von Einzelpersonen gehaltenen Vortragsveranstaltungen werden „Evergreens“ oder „Hot Topics“ der anästhesiologischen Kreißsaalversorgung in regelmäßigem Zyklus oder aus aktuellem Anlass aufgegriffen, präsentiert und vor allem diskutiert. In den Vortragsveranstaltungen offenbart sich oft wesentlich früher als in traditionellen Lehrbuchkapiteln der subtile Wandel in Hinblick auf die diskutierten Themen.Der 2-teilige Beitrag fasst das Symposium 2016 zusammen, stellt jedoch keine offizielle Meinungsbekundung seitens des Arbeitskreises dar. Teil 1 geht auf mütterliche Todesursachen während Schwangerschaft, Geburt und Stillzeit sowie strukturelle Voraussetzungen im Kreißsaal, Adipositas in der Schwangerschaft und Sepsis bei der Schwangeren und im Wochenbett ein. Teil 2 behandelt etablierte Standards und neue Perspektiven im Rahmen der geburtshilflichen Analgesie und Anästhesie bezüglich Epiduralanalgesie, postpunktionellem Kopfschmerz, Anästhesie und Analgesie während und nach Sectio, hämodynamischem Monitoring und postpartaler Blutung.</jats:p

Obstetric Anesthesia: Well-Tried, Controversies and New Perspectives - Part 2

ZusammenfassungIn der „Whatʼs New in Obstetric Anesthesia“ Lecture, die jedem an der anästhesiologischen Kreißsaalversorgung Interessierten in abgedruckter Form sehr ans Herz gelegt werden kann, werden seit 1975 durch die Society for Obstetric Anesthesia and Perinatology die im Rahmen des Annual Meeting als relevant für die klinische Versorgung erachteten Vorträge zusammengefasst. Nach dem Tode von Gerard W. Ostheimer, Professor of Anesthesiology im Brigham and Womenʼs Hospital in Boston, Massachusetts, wurde sie zur Gerard W. Ostheimer „Whatʼs New in Obstetric Anesthesia“ Lecture umbenannt, um dessen Beiträge zur Regionalanästhesie und geburtshilflichen Anästhesie zu würdigen. Jedes Jahr gewährt die von ausgewählten Fachvertretern gehaltene Veranstaltung und ihr Abdruck in namhaften Anästhesie-Journalen Einblick in eine kritische Würdigung rezenter Literatur und die möglichen Konsequenzen für – aber nicht nur – die anästhesiologische Kreißsaalpraxis.Eine ähnliche Veranstaltung hat in Deutschland seit über 16 Jahren Tradition: Das Geburtshilfliche Anästhesiesymposium des Wissenschaftlichen Arbeitskreises Regionalanästhesie und Geburtshilfliche Anästhesie. Anders als in den von Einzelpersonen gehaltenen Vortragsveranstaltungen werden „Evergreens“ oder „Hot Topics“ der anästhesiologischen Kreißsaalversorgung in regelmäßigem Zyklus oder aus aktuellem Anlass aufgegriffen, präsentiert und vor allem diskutiert. In den Vortragsveranstaltungen offenbart sich oft wesentlich früher als in traditionellen Lehrbuchkapiteln der subtile Wandel in Hinblick auf die diskutierten Themen.Der 2-teilige Beitrag fasst das Symposium 2016 zusammen, stellt jedoch keine offizielle Meinungsbekundung seitens des Arbeitskreises dar. Teil 1 geht auf mütterliche Todesursachen während Schwangerschaft, Geburt und Stillzeit sowie strukturelle Voraussetzungen im Kreißsaal, Adipositas in der Schwangerschaft und Sepsis bei der Schwangeren und im Wochenbett ein. Teil 2 behandelt etablierte Standards und neue Perspektiven im Rahmen der geburtshilflichen Analgesie und Anästhesie bezüglich Epiduralanalgesie, postpunktionellem Kopfschmerz, Anästhesie und Analgesie während und nach Sectio, hämodynamischem Monitoring und postpartaler Blutung.</jats:p

Improve hip fracture outcome in the elderly patient (iHOPE): a study protocol for a pragmatic, multicentre randomised controlled trial to test the efficacy of spinal versus general anaesthesia

Introduction Hip fracture surgery is associated with high in-hospital and 30-day mortality rates and serious adverse patient outcomes. Evidence from randomised controlled trials regarding effectiveness of spinal versus general anaesthesia on patient-centred outcomes after hip fracture surgery is sparse. Methods and analysis The iHOPE study is a pragmatic national, multicentre, randomised controlled, open-label clinical trial with a two-arm parallel group design. In total, 1032 patients with hip fracture (>65 years) will be randomised in an intended 1: 1 allocation ratio to receive spinal anaesthesia (n=516) or general anaesthesia (n=516). Outcome assessment will occur in a blinded manner after hospital discharge and inhospital. The primary endpoint will be assessed by telephone interview and comprises the time to the first occurring event of the binary composite outcome of all-cause mortality or new-onset serious cardiac and pulmonary complications within 30 postoperative days. In-hospital secondary endpoints, assessed via in-person interviews and medical record review, include mortality, perioperative adverse events, delirium, satisfaction, walking independently, length of hospital stay and discharge destination. Telephone interviews will be performed for long-term endpoints (all-cause mortality, independence in walking, chronic pain, ability to return home cognitive function and overall health and disability) at postoperative day 30 +/- 3, 180 +/- 45 and 365 +/- 60. Ethics and dissemination iHOPE has been approved by the leading Ethics Committee of the Medical Faculty of the RWTH Aachen University on 14 March 2018 (EK 022/18). Approval from all other involved local Ethical Committees was subsequently requested and obtained. Study started in April 2018 with a total recruitment period of 24 months. iHOPE will be disseminated via presentations at national and international scientific meetings or conferences and publication in peer-reviewed international scientific journals

Management practices for postdural puncture headache in obstetrics: a prospective, international, cohort study

© 2020 British Journal of AnaesthesiaBackground: Accidental dural puncture is an uncommon complication of epidural analgesia and can cause postdural puncture headache (PDPH). We aimed to describe management practices and outcomes after PDPH treated by epidural blood patch (EBP) or no EBP. Methods: Following ethics committee approval, patients who developed PDPH after accidental dural puncture were recruited from participating countries and divided into two groups, those receiving EBP or no EBP. Data registered included patient and procedure characteristics, headache symptoms and intensity, management practices, and complications. Follow-up was at 3 months. Results: A total of 1001 patients from 24 countries were included, of which 647 (64.6%) received an EBP and 354 (35.4%) did not receive an EBP (no-EBP). Higher initial headache intensity was associated with greater use of EBP, odds ratio 1.29 (95% confidence interval 1.19–1.41) per pain intensity unit increase. Headache intensity declined sharply at 4 h after EBP and 127 (19.3%) patients received a second EBP. On average, no or mild headache (numeric rating score≤3) was observed 7 days after diagnosis. Intracranial bleeding was diagnosed in three patients (0.46%), and backache, headache, and analgesic use were more common at 3 months in the EBP group. Conclusions: Management practices vary between countries, but EBP was more often used in patients with greater initial headache intensity. EBP reduced headache intensity quickly, but about 20% of patients needed a second EBP. After 7 days, most patients had no or mild headache. Backache, headache, and analgesic use were more common at 3 months in patients receiving an EBP