Revista espanola de anestesiologia y reanimacion最新文献

Introduction: Hemostasis tests are traditionally requested for all patients requiring any surgical act or invasive diagnostic-therapeutic procedure to prevent hemorrhagic complications. The aim of this study is to assess the necessity of requesting standard pre-procedure hemostasis tests.

Methodology: A narrative literature review was conducted using the PubMed data-base. Search terms included «Hemostasis» or «Blood coagulation» in combination with «Preoperative care», «Preoperative period», or «Preoperative procedure». Additionally, a targeted search was performed to find recommendations from international societies related to the topic.

Results: A total of 233 articles were found, 17 were pre-selected, and after full-text evaluation, 14 relevant articles were identified. The targeted search yielded an additional 12 articles. The request for tests should be individualized according to the clinical history. Standardized screening questionnaires for hemostasis disorders are useful and complement the aforementioned approach. Factors such as age, ASA classification, bleeding potential-complexity of the procedure, and anesthetic technique may influence their request.

Discussion: The incidence of hemostasis disorders in the general population is very low, and these can mostly be detected through clinical history. Thus, it is the clinical history that should guide the need for laboratory test requests.

Conclusions: Preoperative hemostasis tests should not be indiscriminately requested for all patients needing an intervention or invasive diagnostic-therapeutic procedure, but rather when there are doubts about their hemostatic competence or as advised by the nature of the procedure they are undergoing.

Introduction: A national survey was conducted among maternity hospitals nationwide to understand the variability in clinical practice for obstetric analgesia and to reach a consensus on optimal care in the future in Spain.

Materials and methods: Spanish experts in obstetric anesthesiology designed a survey on the practice of obstetric analgesia during childbirth, following a Delphi process. The survey was sent to 195 Spanish maternity hospitals between April and September 2022 using Google Forms. A descriptive study of the results was performed.

Results: Responses were obtained from 108 centres (55.4%), of which 88 (83.8%) were public hospitals. The most commonly used technique was epidural analgesia in 97 (92.4%) centres. Nine (8.6%) centres used the combined spinal-epidural (CSE) technique, 5 (4.8%) used spinal analgesia, and 3 (2.9%) used dural puncture epidural (DPE) analgesia. The most commonly used local anaesthetic was levobupivacaine 0.1-0.25% in 82 (78.1%) centres. Fentanyl or sufentanil were added to the local anaesthetic in 96 (91.4%) centres. Epidural maintenance was performed with continuous epidural infusion (CEI) + patient-controlled epidural analgesia (PCEA) or programmed intermittent epidural bolus (PIEB) + PCEA in 64 (60.9%) and 33 (30.5%) centres, respectively. Fifteen (14.3%) centres lacked alternative techniques to epidural analgesia and 25 (23.8%) did not follow obstetric analgesia protocols.

Conclusion: Despite the variability in clinical practice for obstetric analgesia in Spain, the vast majority of centres follow recommendations in this field. There is room for improvement, which should be considered a fundamental strategy for progressing towards excellence.

Background: This study aimed to assess the efficacy of estimated preoperative aortic pulse wave velocity (AoPWV) to discriminate between low and high 6 min walk test (6MWT) distance in patients awaiting major non-cardiac surgery.

Methods: Prospective observational study in 133 patients undergoing non cardiac surgery. AoPWV and the distance walked during a 6MWT were assessed. Receiver operating characteristic (ROC) curve analysis was used to determine two different AoPWV cut-points for predicting a distance of 427 m in the 6MWT. We also calculated lower and upper AoPWV cut-points (probability ≥ 0.75) for predicting a distance of < 427 m, ≥427 m, and also 563 m in the 6MWT.

Results: The ROC curve analysis for the < 427 m distance revealed an area under the curve (AUC) of 0.68 (95% confidence interval 0.56-0.79) and an AUC of 0.72 (95% confidence interval 0.61-0.83) for >563 m. Patients with AoPWV > 10.97 m/s should be considered high risk, while those with <9.42 m/s can be considered low risk.

Conclusions: AoPWV is a simple, non-invasive, useful clinical tool for identifying and stratifying patients awaiting major non-cardiac surgery. In situations of clinical uncertainty, additional measures should be taken to assess the risk.

Objective: To evaluate the clinical impact of optimizing stroke volume (SV) through fluid administration as part of goal-directed hemodynamic therapy (GDHT) in adult patients undergoing elective major abdominal surgery.

Methods: This systematic review and meta-analysis was conducted in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and was registered in the PROSPERO database in January 2024. The intervention was defined as intraoperative GDHT based on the optimization or maximization of SV through fluid challenges, or by using dynamic indices of fluid responsiveness, including stroke volume variation, pulse pressure variation, and plethysmography variation index compared to usual fluid management. The primary outcome was postoperative complications. Secondary outcome variables included postoperative acute kidney injury (AKI), length of stay (LOS), intraoperative fluid administration, and 30-day mortality.

Results: A total of 29 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) met the inclusion criteria. There were no significant differences in the incidence of postoperative complications (RR 0.89; 95% CI, 0.78-1.00), postoperative AKI (OR 0.97; (95% IC, 0.55-1.70), and mortality (OR 0.80; 95% CI, 0.50-1.29). GDHT was associated with a reduced LOS compared to usual care (SMD: -0.17 [-0.32; -0.03]). The subgroup in which hydroxyethyl starch was used for hemodynamic optimization was associated with fewer complications (RR 0.79; 95% CI, 0.65-0.94), whereas the subgroup of patients in whom crystalloids were used was associated with an increased risk of postoperative complications (RR 1.08; 95% CI, 1.04-1.12).

Conclusions: In adults undergoing major surgery, goal-directed hemodynamic therapy focused on fluid-based stroke volume optimization did not reduce postoperative morbidity and mortality.

The main objectives of the pre-anaesthesia consultation are to establish the patient's anaesthesia and surgical risk, evaluate and optimize their health status, provide the patient with information and preoperative recommendations, and fulfil the legally established bureaucratic obligations. The incorporation of information technologies - e-Health - has maximised the efficiency of pre-anaesthesia assessments and provided patients with an added benefit. The SEDAR Task Force has developed a digital framework as an alternative to the conventional pre-anaesthesia assessment process, and has put forward a series of policies and technical recommendations for the incorporation of different types of pre-anaesthesia teleconsultation services in hospital anaesthesiology departments. We also put forward an evaluation tool that includes several quality indicators on which to base continuous improvements in healthcare.

The administration of intravenous fluids is the most common intervention in hospitalised patients in the perioperative setting and critical care units. The aim of this narrative review is to provide an overview of balanced solutions for fluid therapy in the perioperative period in adult patients, and to review new trends and solutions in fluid therapy. The evidence was grouped into 3 areas: intraoperative fluid administration, fluid administration in critically ill patients, and the importance / benefit of balanced crystalloid solutions. Although a number of high-quality studies have been published in recent years, the scientific evidence regarding the type of fluid, the dose, and rate of administration is still limited. The choice of fluid therapy during the perioperative period must be tailored to patient-specific factors, the nature of the surgery, expected fluid loss, and other relevant factors. Finally, more robust clinical evidence and physician training is of the utmost importance.