Design of the multicenter Australian study of epidural anesthesia and analgesia in major surgery: The MASTER Trial

The Multicenter Australian Study of Epidural Anesthesia and Analgesia in Major Surgery (The MASTER Trial) was designed to evaluate the possible benefit of epidural block in improving outcome in high-risk patients. The trial began in 1995 and is scheduled to reach the planned sample size of 900 during 2001. This paper describes the trial design and presents data comparing 455 patients randomized in 21 institutions in Australia, Hong Kong, and Malaysia, with 237 patients from the same hospitals who were eligible but not randomized. Nine categories of high-risk patients were defined as entry criteria for the trial. Protocols for ethical review, informed consent, randomization, clinical anesthesia and analgesia, and perioperative management were determined following extensive consultation with anesthesiologists throughout Australia. Clinical and research information was collected in participating hospitals by research staff who may not have been blind to allocation. Decisions about the presence or absence of endpoints were made primarily by a computer algorithm, supplemented by blinded clinical experts. Without unblinding the trial, comparison of eligibility criteria and incidence of endpoints between randomized and nonrandomized patients showed only small differences. We conclude that there is no strong evidence of important demographic or clinical differences between randomized and nonrandomized patients eligible for the MASTER Trial. Thus, the trial results are likely to be broadly generalizable. Control Clin Trials 2000;21:244-256 (C) Elsevier Science Inc. 2000.

Anesthesia alarms in context: An observational study

This paper surveys current work on the design of alarms for anesthesia environments and notes some of the problems arising from the need to interpret alarms in context. Anesthetists' responses to audible alarms in the operating room were observed across four types of surgical procedure (laparoscopic, arthroscopic, cardiac, and intracranial) and across three phases of a procedure (induction, maintenance, and emergence). Alarms were classified as (a) requiring a corrective response, (b) being the intended result of a decision, (c) being ignored as a nuisance alarm, or (d) functioning as a reminder. Results revealed strong effects of the type of procedure and phase of procedure on the number and rate of audible alarms. Some alarms were relatively confined to specific phases; others were seen across phases, and responses differed according to phase. These results were interpreted in light of their significance for the development of effective alarm systems. Actual or potential applications of this research include the design of alarm systems that are more informative and more sensitive to operative context than are current systems.

Response to The quality of epidural Anesthesia is crucial in the assessment of periciperative outcome

In their letter, Gogarten et al. question the effectiveness of the epidural regimens across the trial centers. In our original publication (1), we clearly demonstrated that patients in the epidural group had a working epidural block intraoperatively (evidenced by significantly more hypotension) and postoperatively (evidenced by significantly improved pain scores for 3 days).

Anesthesia of captive African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) using a medetomidine-ketamine-atropine combination

Seven captive male African wild dogs (Lycaon pictus) weighing 25-32 kg each, were anesthetized by i.m. injection via hand syringe with a combination of 1.5 mg/kg ketamine, 40 mu g/kg medetomidine, and 0.05 mg/kg atropine. Following endotracheal intubation, each animal was connected to a bain closed-circuit system that delivered 1.5% isoflurane and 2 L/min oxygen. Atipamezole (0.1 mg/kg i.v.; 0.1 mg/kg i.m.) was given at the end of each procedure (60 min following injection of medetomidine/ketamine/atropine). Time to sternal recumbency was 5-8 min. Times to standing after atipamezole administration were 8-20 min. This anesthetic regimen was repeated on three separate occasions (September 2000, February 2002, and October 2002) on all males to perform electroejaculation procedures. Each procedure was < 80 min from injection to standing. Dogs showed excellent muscle relaxation during the procedures. Arterial blood samples were collected at 10-min intervals for blood gases in one procedure (September 2000). Separate venous samples were taken from each dog during each procedure for hematology and biochemistry. These values were within the normal range for this species. Arterial hemoglobin oxygen saturation (SpO2) and heart rate (HR) were monitored continuously in addition to other anesthesia monitoring procedures (body temperature, respiratory rate [RR], capillary refill time, blink response, pupil position, deep pain perception reflex). All dogs maintained relatively stable SpO2 profiles during monitoring, with a mean (+/- SD) SpO2 of 92% +/- 5.4%. All other physiological variables (HR, RR, body temperature, blood pressure) were within normal limits. Following each procedure, normal behavior was noted in all dogs. All the dogs were reunited into the pack at completion of their anesthetic procedures. An injectable medetomidine-ketamine-atropine combination with maintenance by gaseous isoflurane and oxygen provides an inexpensive, reliable anesthetic for captive African wild dogs.

The prevalence and impact of overweight and obesity in an Australian obstetric population

Objective: To assess the prevalence and impact of overweight and obesity in an Australian obstetric population. Design, setting and participants: The Mater Mother's Hospital (MMH), South Brisbane, is an urban tertiary referral maternity hospital. We reviewed data for the 18401 women who were booked for antenatal care at the MMH, delivered between January 1998 and December 2002, and had a singleton pregnancy. Of those women, 14 230 had an estimated pre-pregnancy body mass index (BMI) noted in their record; 2978 women with BMI 40 kg/m(2)). Main outcome measures: Prevalence of overweight and obesity in an obstetric population; maternal, peripartum and neonatal outcomes associated with raised BMI. Results: Of the 14230 women, 6443 (45%) were of normal weight, and 4809 (34%) were overweight, obese or morbidly obese. Overweight, obese and morbidly obese women were at increased risk of adverse outcomes (figures represent adjusted odds ratio [AOR] [95% Cl]): hypertensive disorders of pregnancy (overweight 1.74 [1.45-2.15], obese 3.00 [2.40-3.74], morbidly obese 4.87 [3.27-7.24]); gestational diabetes (overweight 1.78 [1.25-2.52], obese 2.95 [2.05-4.25], morbidly obese 7.44 [4.42-12.54]); hospital admission longer than 5 days (overweight 1.36 [1.13-1.63], obese 1.49 [1.21-1.86], morbidly obese 3.18 [2.19-4.61]); and caesarean section (overweight 1.50 [1.36-1.66], obese 2.02 [1.79-2.29], morbidly obese 2.54 [1.94-3.321). Neonates born to obese and morbidly obese women had an increased risk of birth defects (obese 1.58 (1.02-2.46], morbidly obese 3.41 [1.67-6.94]); and hypoglycaemia (obese 2.57 [1.39-4.78], morbidly obese 7.14 [3.04-16.74]). Neonates born to morbidly obese women were at increased risk of admission to intensive care (2.77 [1.81-4.25]); premature delivery (< 34 weeks' gestation) (2.13 [1.13-4.01]); and jaundice (1.44 [1.09-1.89]). Conclusions: Overweight and obesity are common in pregnant women. Increasing BMI is associated with maternal and neonatal outcomes that may increase the costs of obstetric care. To assist in planning health service delivery, we believe that BMI should be routinely recorded on perinatal data collection sheets

Improving the evidence base for anaesthesia

This paper is a brief report of the symposium, Improving the Evidence Base for Anaesthesia and Intensive Care, organized by the MASTER Anaesthesia Trial Study Group at the Annual Scientific Meeting of the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, Newcastle, N.S.W. on Tuesday, May 5, 1998.

Epidural anaesthesia and analgesia and outcome of major surgery: a randomised trial

Background Epidural block is widely used to manage major abdominal surgery and postoperative analgesia, but its risks. and benefits are uncertain. We compared adverse outcomes in high-risk patients managed for major surgery with epidural block or alternative analgesic regimens with general anaesthesia in a multicentre randomised trial. Methods 915 patients undergoing major abdominal surgery with one of nine defined comorbid states to identify high-risk status were randomly assigned intraoperative epidural anaesthesia and postoperative epidural analgesia for 72 h with general anaesthesia (site of epidural selected to provide optimum block) or control. The primary endpoint was death at 30 days or major postsurgical morbidity. Analysis by intention to treat involved 447 patients assigned epidural and 441 control. Findings 255 patients (57.1%) in the epidural group and 268 (60.7%) in the control group had at least one morbidity endpoint or died (p=0.29). Mortality at 30 days was low in both groups (epidural 23 [5.1%], control 19 [4.3%], p=0.67). Only one of eight categories of morbid endpoints in individual systems (respiratory failure) occurred less frequently in patients managed with epidural techniques (23% vs 30%, p=0.02). Postoperative epidural analgesia was associated with lower pain scores during the first 3 postoperative days. There were no major adverse consequences of epidural-catheter insertion. Interpretation Most adverse morbid outcomes in high-risk patients undergoing major abdominal surgery are not reduced by use of combined epidural and general anaesthesia and postoperative epidural analgesia. However, the improvement in analgesia, reduction in respiratory failure, and the low risk of serious adverse consequences suggest that many high-risk patients undergoing major intra-abdominal surgery will receive substantial benefit from combined general and epidural anaesthesia intraoperatively with continuing postoperative epidural analgesia.

Perioperative epidural analgesia and outcome after major abdominal surgery in high-risk patients

In a primary analysis of a large recently completed randomized trial in 915 high-risk patients undergoing major abdominal surgery, we found no difference in outcome between patients receiving perioperative epidural analgesia and those receiving IV opioids, apart from the incidence of respiratory failure. Therefore, we performed a selected number of predetermined subgroup analyses to identify specific types of patients who may have derived benefit from epidural analgesia. We found no difference in outcome between epidural and control groups in subgroups at increased risk of respiratory or cardiac complications or undergoing aortic surgery, nor in a subgroup with failed epidural block (all P > 0.05). There was a small reduction in the duration of postoperative ventilation (geometric mean [SD]: control group, 0.3 [6.5] h, versus epidural group, 0.2 [4.8] h, P = 0.048). No differences were found in length of stay in intensive care or in the hospital. There was no relationship between frequency of use of epidural analgesia in routine practice outside the trial and benefit from epidural analgesia in the trial. We found no evidence that perioperative epidural analgesia significantly influences major morbidity or mortality after major abdominal surgery.