The dural puncture epidural technique is a modification of the combined spinal-epidural technique. Data comparing the two techniques are limited. We performed this randomised study to compare the quality of labour analgesia following initiation of analgesia with the dural puncture epidural vs. the combined spinal-epidural technique.
Term parturients requesting labour epidural analgesia were allocated randomly to receive either dural puncture epidural or combined spinal-epidural. Analgesia was initiated with 2 mg intrathecal bupivacaine and 10 μg fentanyl in parturients allocated to the combined spinal-epidural group and with 20 ml ropivacaine 0.1% with 2 μg.ml-1 fentanyl in parturients allocated to the dural puncture epidural group. Analgesia was maintained using patient-controlled epidural analgesia with programmed intermittent epidural boluses. The primary outcome of the study was the quality of labour analgesia, which was defined by a composite of five components: asymmetric block after 30 min of initiation (difference in sensory level of more than two dermatomes); epidural top-up interventions; catheter adjustment; catheter replacement; and failed conversion to neuraxial anaesthesia for caesarean delivery, requiring general anaesthesia or replacement of the neuraxial block.
One hundred parturients were included in the analysis (48 combined spinal-epidural, 52 dural puncture epidural). There were no significant differences between the two groups in the primary composite outcome of quality of analgesia (33% in the combined spinal-epidural group vs. 25% in the dural puncture epidural group), risk ratio (95%CI) 0.75 (0.40–1.39); p = 0.486. Median (IQR [range]) pain scores at 15 min were significantly lower in patients allocated to the combined spinal-epidural group compared with the dural puncture epidural group (0 (0–1[0–8]) vs. 1 (0–4 [0–10]); p = 0.018).
There were no significant differences in the quality of labour analgesia following initiation of a combined spinal-epidural compared with a dural puncture epidural technique.
Sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors are a novel class of antihyperglycaemic drugs used in the management of type 2 diabetes, that improve glycaemic control, cardiovascular outcomes and promote weight loss. They are also approved for the treatment of heart failure and chronic kidney disease in patients with or without diabetes. This narrative review discusses the peri-operative effects and implications of sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors and gives an overview of current evidence and existing peri-operative guidelines.
We conducted a literature review to identify peer-reviewed English language articles published since 2000, with further articles identified by reviewing the references of key papers.
Peri-operative sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor use carries a risk of euglycaemic ketoacidosis. Although clinically significant diabetic ketoacidosis remains a rare event, sodium-glucose co-transporter 2 inhibitors inhibitor-associated diabetic ketoacidosis has been observed across almost all surgical specialities. Ketoacidosis may present with any blood glucose level. Existing guidelines are inconsistent and may be a source of clinical confusion.
Based on the half-life of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitors, we recommend withholding treatment for 72 h before elective surgery (5 half-lives), with additional multidisciplinary input for specific procedures with dietary alterations and in patients with poorly controlled diabetes of cardiac/renal disease. In the event of emergency surgery or any surgery within 72 h of sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor administration, we recommend pre-, intra- and postoperative blood ketone monitoring (6 hourly for 24 h post-surgery and until full oral diet is resumed). Sodium-glucose cotransporter 2 inhibitor treatment should only be resumed after resumption of full oral diet in the absence of ketosis.
Anaesthetic training has always had patient safety as part of the curriculum. However, there is limited emphasis on what happens when things do not go to plan. Our aims were to understand the impact of involvement in patient safety incidents on anaesthetic trainees in our region, to describe the range of support currently offered and put forward suggestions for improvement.
An initial electronic survey was sent to all anaesthetic trainees in a single UK healthcare region to capture qualitative and quantitative information on patient safety incidents. After completing the questionnaire, participants were asked to consent to involvement in a semi-structured interview to provide a more detailed understanding of the impact of safety incidents. Data were analysed from the questionnaires and interview transcripts using descriptive statistics and thematic analysis.
Thirty-four completed questionnaires were analysed revealing 27 trainees had been involved in a patient safety incident. Ten semi-structured interviews were conducted and six themes were identified: team dynamics (including adequacy of staffing and supportive departmental culture); context of the event; reflex immediate support post-event; working environment pending completion of the investigation; personal impact (including physical and mental health); and suggestions for future support.
This study has shown the significant impact of safety incidents on anaesthetic trainees in one training region in the UK and highlights the importance of implementing early, tailored debriefs led by trained facilitators, the value of a supportive work environment and the need to raise awareness of system-based approaches to learning from incident investigations. Further research should guide the format and delivery of support for trainees to provide more helpful and timely interventions after patient safety incidents and reduce the risk of future harm to both patients and trainees.
In the UK, approximately 70% of surgical procedures are undertaken as day-cases. Little information exists about recovery from day-case surgery, yet international data highlights patients are at risk of developing significant longer-term health problems including chronic post-surgical pain and persistent postoperative opioid use. The Patient-reported Outcomes, Postoperative Pain and pain relief after daY case surgery (POPPY) study was a national prospective multicentre observational study, measuring short- and longer-term patient-reported outcomes, postoperative pain and pain relief after day-case surgery.
This was a collaborative project led by resident anaesthetists under the Research and Audit Federation of Trainees umbrella. Adult day-case surgical patients were recruited on the day of surgery. Baseline data including patient characteristics; procedure details; pre-operative analgesic use; pre-existing pain; and quality of life scores were recorded. Patients were followed up through automated short message service messages. Short-term (postoperative days 1, 3 and 7) outcomes included: quality of recovery; pain severity; impact of pain on function; and analgesic use. Longer-term outcomes (postoperative day 97) included: quality of life; analgesic use; incidence of chronic post-surgical pain; and incidence persistent postoperative opioid use. Additional outcomes were completed by those patients with chronic post-surgical pain and persistent postoperative opioid use, with 30 patients recruited to a qualitative semi-structured interview study exploring postoperative expectations, recovery, postoperative pain and opioid use.
An embedded pilot study at four sites recruited 129 patients. Responses to the automated short message service were gained from 129 patients (100%) at day 1; 116 (89.9%) at day 3; 108 (83.7%) at day 7; and 77 (59.7%) at day 97 postoperatively. The pilot enabled refinement of the methods and processes before the national roll out.
This paper outlines the methods for the POPPY study, the largest UK multicentre prospective observational study considering short- and longer-term outcomes following day-case surgery.
Different sedation regimens have been used to facilitate awake tracheal intubation, but the evidence has not been synthesised robustly, particularly with respect to clinically important outcomes. We conducted a systematic review and network meta-analysis to determine the sedation techniques most likely to be associated with successful tracheal intubation, a shorter time to successful intubation and a lower risk of arterial oxygen desaturation.
We searched for randomised controlled trials of patients undergoing awake tracheal intubation for any indication and reporting: overall tracheal intubation success rate; tracheal intubation time; incidence of arterial oxygen desaturation; and other related outcomes. We performed a frequentist network meta-analysis for these outcomes if two or more sedation regimens were compared between included trials. We also performed a sensitivity analysis excluding trials with a high risk of bias.
In total, 48 studies with 2837 patients comparing 33 different regimens were included. Comparing overall awake tracheal intubation success rates (38 studies, 2139 patients), there was no evidence suggesting that any individual sedation regimen was superior. Comparing times to successful tracheal intubation (1745 patients, 24 studies), any sedation strategy was superior to placebo. When we excluded trials with a high risk of bias, we found no evidence of a difference between any interventions for time to successful tracheal intubation. Thirty-one studies (1753 patients) suggested that dexmedetomidine and magnesium sulphate were associated with a reduced risk of arterial oxygen desaturation compared with other interventions, but excluding trials with a high risk of bias suggested no relevant differences between interventions. The quality of evidence for each of our outcomes was low.
To maximise effective and safe awake tracheal intubation, optimising oxygenation, topical airway anaesthesia and procedural performance may have more impact than any given sedation regimen.
京公网安备 11010802042870号
京ICP备2023020795号-1
扫码关注我们
求助内容：
应助结果提醒方式：