Perioperative anaesthetic management of mediastinal mass in adults

Mediastinal mass syndrome remains an anaesthetic challenge that cannot be underestimated. Depending on the localization and the size of the mediastinal tumour, the clinical presentation is variable ranging from a complete lack of symptoms to severe cardiorespiratory problems. The administration of general anaesthesia can be associated with acute intraoperative or postoperative cardiorespiratory decompensation that may result in death due to tumour-related compression syndromes. The role of the anaesthesiologist, as a part of the interdisciplinary treatment team, is to ensure a safe perioperative period. However, there is still no structured protocol available for perioperative anaesthesiological procedure. The aim of this article is to summarize the genesis of and the diagnostic options for mediastinal mass syndrome and to provide a solid detailed methodology for its safe perioperative management based on a review of the latest literature and our own clinical experiences. Proper anaesthetic management of patients with mediastinal mass syndrome begins with an assessment of the preoperative status, directed foremost at establishing the localization of the tumour and on the basis of the clinical and radiological findings, discerning whether any vital mediastinal structures are affected. We have found it helpful to assign 'severity grade' (using a three-grade clinical classification scale: 'safe', 'uncertain', 'unsafe'), whereby each stage triggers appropriate action in terms of staffing and apparatus, such as the provision of alternatives for airway management, cardiopulmonary bypass and additional specialists. During the preoperative period, we are guided by a 12-point plan that also takes into account the special features of transportation into the operating theatre and patient monitoring. Tumour compression on the airways or the great vessels may create a critical respiratory and/or haemodynamic situation, and therefore the standard of intraoperative management includes induction of anaesthesia in the operating theatre on an adjustable surgical table, the use of short-acting anaesthetics, avoidance of muscle relaxants and maintenance of spontaneous respiration. In the case of severe clinical symptoms and large mediastinal tumours, we consider it absolutely essential to cannulate the femoral vessels preoperatively under local anaesthesia and to provide for the availability of cardiopulmonary bypass in the operating theatre, should extracorporeal circulation become necessary. The benefits of establishing vascular access under local anaesthesia clearly outweigh any associated degree of patient discomfort. In the case of patients classified as 'safe' or 'uncertain', a preoperative consensus with the surgeons should be reached as to the anaesthetic approach and the management of possible complications.

Anesthesia or sedation for gastroenterologic endoscopies

PURPOSE OF REVIEW: Because propofol is the sedative preferred by gastroenterologists, we focus this review on gastroenterologist-directed propofol sedation, provide simulations of the respiratory depressant effect of different dosing protocols and give a perspective on future developments in computer-assisted sedation techniques. RECENT FINDINGS: Propofol use by nonanesthesiologists remains a contraindication in the package insert of propofol in most countries. Sedation guidelines produced by the American Society of Gastroenterology partially contradict those produced by the American Society of Anesthesiologists for sedation by nonanesthesiologists, whereas the German guidelines were developed with anesthesiologists involved. The use of fospropofol, recently approved by the US Food and Drug Administration for sedation, is considered an alternative to propofol by some gastroenterologists. Methodological errors in earlier pharmacological studies have to be solved before widespread use of fospropofol is justified, however. Our simulations show that dosing protocols with small boluses administered at reasonable intervals induce less respiratory depression than large boluses. Interindividual variability of propofol-induced respiratory depression is illustrated by different pharmacokinetic and dynamic parameter sets used in the simulation. Two computer-assisted propofol infusion systems are currently being investigated. They not only incorporate the target effect but also the side effects, which may limit respiratory depression. SUMMARY: Propofol use by gastroenterologists may be well tolerated if appropriate patient selection, staff training, monitoring and low-dose sedation protocols are applied.

Evaluation of physical and mental recovery status after elective liver resection

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE: This prospective, clinical pilot trial compared the Short Form 36 Health Survey (SF-36) and a nine-item quality of recovery [Quality of Recovery 9 (QoR-9)] survey to assess the 1-week outcome after liver resection and prediction of postoperative complications from baseline values before liver resection. METHODS: In 19 patients, the SF-36 was recorded preoperatively (baseline) and on postoperative day (POD) 7. SF-36 z-values (means +/- SD) for the physical component summary (PCS) and mental component summary (MCS) were calculated. QoR-9 (score 0-18) was performed at baseline, POD1, POD3, POD5 and POD7. Descriptive analysis and effect sizes (d) were calculated. RESULTS: From baseline to POD7, PCS decreased from -0.38 +/- 1.30 to -2.10 +/- 0.76 (P = 0.002, d = -1.57) and MCS from -0.71 +/- 1.50 to -1.33 +/- 1.11 (P = 0.061, d = -0.46). QoR-9 was significantly lower at POD1, POD3 and POD5 compared with baseline (P < 0.050, d < -2.0), but not at POD7 (P = 0.060, d = -1.08). Baseline PCS was significantly lower with a high effect size in patients with complications (n = 12) compared with patients without complications (n = 7) (-0.76 +/- 1.46 vs. 0.27 +/- 0.56; P = 0.044, d = -0.84) but not baseline MCS (P = 0.831, d = -0.10) or baseline QoR-9 (P = 0.384, d = -0.44). CONCLUSIONS: The SF-36 indicates that liver resection surgery has a higher impact on physical health than on mental health. QoR-9 determines the feasible time course of recovery with a 1-week return to baseline. Preoperative impaired physical health might predict postoperative complications.

Etomidate for critically ill patients. Con: do you really want to weaken the frail?

Etomidate is an imidazole-derived hypnotic agent preferentially used for rapid sequence induction of anaesthesia because of its favourable haemodynamic profile. However, 11β-hydroxylase inhibition causes adrenal insufficiency with potentially fatal consequences in specific populations. We review the arguments against the liberal administration of etomidate in critically ill, and especially septic, patients. This review considered only high-quality and prospective studies with a low risk of bias. Three major effects have been observed with the clinical use of a single dose of etomidate. First, independent of the clinical setting, etomidate causes adrenal dysfunction via 11β-hydroxylase inhibition ranging from 12 to 48 h, making the drug unsuitable for use in elective interventions. Second, in a systematic review with meta-analyses, including 3715 septic patients, the relative risk of death with etomidate was 1.22 (95% confidence interval 1.11 to 1.35). Based on this statistically significant and clinically relevant increase in mortality, a single dose of etomidate has to be avoided in patients with septic shock. Third, in small randomised controlled trials, a single dose of etomidate in trauma patients was associated with an increased incidence of pneumonia (56.7 vs. 25.9% in controls), prolonged intensive care stay (6.3 vs. 1.5 days) and prolonged hospital stay (11.6 vs. 6.4 days). Based on these randomised controlled trials, the use of etomidate should be avoided in unstable trauma patients. Midazolam and ketamine are two valid alternatives with similar intubation and haemodynamic conditions as etomidate but without its adverse effects. Therefore, for safety reasons, etomidate should be avoided in the critical conditions of sepsis and trauma

Do different anesthesia regimes affect hippocampal apoptosis and neurologic deficits in a rodent cardiac arrest model?

Background Different anesthesia regimes are commonly used in experimental models of cardiac arrest, but the effects of various anesthetics on clinical outcome parameters are unknown. We conducted a study in which we subjected rats to cardiac arrest under medetomidine/ketamine or sevoflurane/fentanyl anesthesia. Methods Asystolic cardiac arrest for 8 minutes was induced in 73 rats with a mixture of potassium chloride and esmolol. Daily behavioral and neurological examination included the open field test (OFT), the tape removal test (TRT) and a neurodeficit score (NDS). Animals were randomized for sacrifice on day 2 or day 5 and brains were harvested for histology in the hippocampus cornus ammonis segment CA1. The inflammatory markers IL-6, TNF-α, MCP-1 and MIP-1α were assessed in cerebrospinal fluid (CSF). Proportions of survival were tested with the Fisher’s exact test, repeated measurements were assessed with the Friedman’s test; the baseline values were tested using Mann–Whitney U test and the difference of results of repeated measures were compared. Results In 31 animals that survived beyond 24 hours neither OFT, TRT nor NDS differed between the groups; histology was similar on day 2. On day 5, significantly more apoptosis in the CA1 segment of the hippocampus was found in the sevoflurane/fentanyl group. MCP-1 was higher on day 5 in the sevoflurane/fentanyl group (p = 0.04). All other cyto- and chemokines were below detection threshold. Conclusion In our cardiac arrest model neurological function was not influenced by different anesthetic regimes; in contrast, anesthesia with sevoflurane/fentanyl results in increased CSF inflammation and histologic damage at day 5 post cardiac arrest.

Blind intubation of anaesthetised children with supraglottic airway devices AmbuAura-i and Air-Q cannot be recommended: A randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND Paediatric supraglottic airway devices AmbuAura-i and Air-Q were designed as conduits for tracheal intubation. Although fibreoptic-guided intubation has proved successful, blind intubation as a rescue technique has never been evaluated. OBJECTIVE Evaluation of blind intubation through AmbuAura-i and Air-Q. On the basis of fibreoptic view data, we hypothesised that the success rate with the AmbuAura-i would be higher than with the Air-Q. DESIGN A prospective, randomised controlled trial with institutional review board (IRB) approval and written informed consent. SETTING University Childrens' Hospital; September 2012 to July 2014. PATIENTS Eighty children, American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) class I to III, weight 5 to 50 kg. INTERVENTIONS Tracheal intubation was performed through the randomised device with the tip of a fibrescope placed inside and proximal to the tip of the tracheal tube. This permitted sight of tube advancement, but without fibreoptic guidance (visualised blind intubation). MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Primary outcome was successfully visualised blind intubation; secondary outcomes included supraglottic airway device success, insertion times, airway leak pressure, fibreoptic view and adverse events. RESULTS Personal data did not differ between groups. In contrast to our hypothesis, blind intubation was possible in 15% with the Air-Q and in 3% with the AmbuAura-i [95% confidence interval (95% CI) 6 to 31 vs. 0 to 13%; P = 0.057]. First attempt supraglottic airway device insertion success rates were 95% (Air-Q) and 100% (AmbuAura-i; 95% CI 83 to 99 vs. 91 to 100; P = 0.49). Median leak pressures were 18 cmH2O (Air-Q) and 17 cmH2O [AmbuAura-i; interquartile range (IQR) 14 to 18 vs. 14 to 19 cmH2O; P = 0.66]. Air-Q insertion was slower (27 vs. 19 s, P < 0.001). There was no difference in fibreoptic view, or adverse events (P > 0.05). In one child (Air-Q size 1.5, tube size 3.5), the tube dislocated during device removal. CONCLUSION Ventilation with both devices is reliable, but success of blind intubation is unacceptably low and cannot be recommended for elective or rescue purposes. If intubation through a paediatric supraglottic airway device is desired, we suggest that fibreoptic guidance is used. TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01692522.

Ethical procedures and patient consent differ in Europe.

BACKGROUND Research ethics approvals, procedures and requirements for institutional research ethics committees vary considerably by country and by type of organisation. OBJECTIVE To evaluate the requirements and procedures of research ethics committees, details of patient information and informed consent based on a multicentre European trial. DESIGN Survey of European hospitals participating in the prospective observational study on chronic postsurgical pain (euCPSP) using electronic questionnaires. SETTING Twenty-four hospitals in 11 European countries. PARTICIPANTS From the 24 hospitals, 23 local investigators responded; 23 answers were analysed. OUTCOME MEASURES Comparison of research ethics procedures and committee requirements from the perspective of clinical researchers. Comparison of the institutions' procedures regarding patient information and consent. Description of further details such as costs and the duration of the approval process. RESULTS The approval process lasted from less than 2 weeks up to more than 2 months with financial fees varying between 0 and 575 &OV0556;. In 20 hospitals, a patient information sheet of variable length (half page up to two pages) was provided. Requirements for patients' informed consent differed. Written informed consent was mandatory at 12, oral at 10 and no form of consent at one hospital. Details such as enough time for consideration, possibility for withdrawal and risks/benefits of participation were provided in 25 to 30% of the institutions. CONCLUSION There is a considerable variation in the administrative requirements for approval procedures by research ethics committees in Europe. This results in variation of the extent of information and consent procedures for the patients involved. TRIAL REGISTRATION euCPSP in Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01467102; PAIN-OUT in Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT02083835.

Chronic postsurgical pain in Europe: An observational study.

BACKGROUND Chronic postsurgical pain (CPSP) is an important clinical problem. Prospective studies of the incidence, characteristics and risk factors of CPSP are needed. OBJECTIVES The objective of this study is to evaluate the incidence and risk factors of CPSP. DESIGN A multicentre, prospective, observational trial. SETTING Twenty-one hospitals in 11 European countries. PATIENTS Three thousand one hundred and twenty patients undergoing surgery and enrolled in the European registry PAIN OUT. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Pain-related outcome was evaluated on the first postoperative day (D1) using a standardised pain outcome questionnaire. Review at 6 and 12 months via e-mail or telephonic interview used the Brief Pain Inventory (BPI) and the DN4 (Douleur Neuropathique four questions). Primary endpoint was the incidence of moderate to severe CPSP (numeric rating scale, NRS ≥3/10) at 12 months. RESULTS For 1044 and 889 patients, complete data were available at 6 and 12 months. At 12 months, the incidence of moderate to severe CPSP was 11.8% (95% CI 9.7 to 13.9) and of severe pain (NRS ≥6) 2.2% (95% CI 1.2 to 3.3). Signs of neuropathic pain were recorded in 35.4% (95% CI 23.9 to 48.3) and 57.1% (95% CI 30.7 to 83.4) of patients with moderate and severe CPSP, respectively. Functional impairment (BPI) at 6 and 12 months increased with the severity of CPSP (P < 0.01) and presence of neuropathic characteristics (P < 0.001). Multivariate analysis identified orthopaedic surgery, preoperative chronic pain and percentage of time in severe pain on D1 as risk factors. A 10% increase in percentage of time in severe pain was associated with a 30% increase of CPSP incidence at 12 months. CONCLUSION The collection of data on CPSP was feasible within the European registry PAIN OUT. The incidence of moderate to severe CPSP at 12 months was 11.8%. Functional impairment was associated with CPSP severity and neuropathic characteristics. Risk factors for CPSP in the present study were chronic preoperative pain, orthopaedic surgery and percentage of time in severe pain on D1. TRIAL REGISTRATION Clinicaltrials.gov identifier: NCT01467102.

Disclosing and reporting medical errors: Cross-sectional survey of Swiss anaesthesiologists.

BACKGROUND There is limited research on anaesthesiologists' attitudes and experiences regarding medical error communication, particularly concerning disclosing errors to patients. OBJECTIVE To characterise anaesthesiologists' attitudes and experiences regarding disclosing errors to patients and reporting errors within the hospital, and to examine factors influencing their willingness to disclose or report errors. DESIGN Cross-sectional survey. SETTING Switzerland's five university hospitals' departments of anaesthesia in 2012/2013. PARTICIPANTS Two hundred and eighty-one clinically active anaesthesiologists. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Anaesthesiologists' attitudes and experiences regarding medical error communication. RESULTS The overall response rate of the survey was 52% (281/542). Respondents broadly endorsed disclosing harmful errors to patients (100% serious, 77% minor errors, 19% near misses), but also reported factors that might make them less likely to actually disclose such errors. Only 12% of respondents had previously received training on how to disclose errors to patients, although 93% were interested in receiving training. Overall, 97% of respondents agreed that serious errors should be reported, but willingness to report minor errors (74%) and near misses (59%) was lower. Respondents were more likely to strongly agree that serious errors should be reported if they also thought that their hospital would implement systematic changes after errors were reported [(odds ratio, 2.097 (95% confidence interval, 1.16 to 3.81)]. Significant differences in attitudes between departments regarding error disclosure and reporting were noted. CONCLUSION Willingness to disclose or report errors varied widely between hospitals. Thus, heads of department and hospital chiefs need to be aware of the importance of local culture when it comes to error communication. Error disclosure training and improving feedback on how error reports are being used to improve patient safety may also be important steps in increasing anaesthesiologists' communication of errors.

A follow-up on Acute Pain Services in Germany compared to international survey data.

BACKGROUND After the introduction of instruments for benchmarking, certification and a national guideline for acute pain management, the aim of this study was to describe the current structure, processes and quality of German acute pain services (APS). METHODS All directors of German departments of anaesthesiology were invited to complete a postal questionnaire on structures und processes of acute pain management. The survey asked for staff, techniques and quality criteria, which enabled a comparison to previous data from 1999 and surveys from other countries. RESULTS Four hundred and eight (46%) questionnaires were returned. APS have increased considerably and are now available in 81% of the hospitals, mainly anaesthesia based. However, only 45% fulfilled the minimum quality criteria, such as the assignment of personnel, the organization of patient care during nights and weekends, written protocols for postoperative pain management, regular assessments and documenting pain scores. Staff resources varied considerably, but increased compared to 1999. Two daily rounds were performed in 71%, either by physicians and nurses (42%), by physicians only (25%) or by supervised nurses (31%). Most personnel assigned to the APS shared this work along with other duties. Only 53% of the hospitals had an integrated rotation for training their specialty trainees. CONCLUSIONS The availability of APS in Germany and other countries has increased over the last decade; however, the quality of nearly half of the APS is questionable. Against the disillusioning background of recently reported unfavourable pain-related patient outcomes, the structures, organization and quality of APS should be revisited.