Search

Many health care systems around the world continue to struggle with large numbers of SARS-CoV-2-infected patients, while others have diminishing numbers of cases following an initial surge. There will most likely be significant oscillations in numbers of cases for the foreseeable future, based on the regional epidemiology of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). Less affected hospitals and facilities will attempt to progressively resume elective procedures and surgery. Ramping up elective care in hospitals that deliberately curtailed elective care to focus on SARS-CoV-2-infected patients will present unique and serious challenges. Among the challenges will be protecting patients and providers from recurrent outbreaks of disease while increasing procedure throughput. Anesthesia providers will inevitably be exposed to SARS-CoV-2 by patients who have not been diagnosed with infection. This is particularly concerning in consideration that aerosols produced during airway management may be infective. In this article, we recommend an approach to routine anesthesia care in the setting of persistent but variable prevalence of SARS-CoV-2 infection. We make specific recommendations for personal protective equipment and for the conduct of anesthesia procedures and workflow based on evidence and expert opinion. We propose practical, relatively inexpensive precautions that can be applied to all patients undergoing anesthesia. Because the SARS-CoV-2 virus is spread primarily by respiratory droplets and aerosols, effective masking of anesthesia providers is of paramount importance. Hospitals should follow the recommendations of the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for universal masking of all providers and patients within their facilities. Anesthesia providers should perform anesthetic care in respirator masks (such as N-95 and FFP-2) whenever possible, even when the SARS-CoV-2 test status of patients is negative. Attempting to screen patients for infection with SARS-CoV-2, while valuable, is not a substitute for respiratory protection of providers, as false-negative tests are possible and infected persons can be asymptomatic or presymptomatic. Provision of adequate supplies of respirator masks and other respiratory protection equipment such as powered air purifying respirators (PAPRs) should be a high priority for health care facilities and for government agencies. Eye protection is also necessary because of the possibility of infection from virus coming into contact with the conjunctiva. Because SARS-CoV-2 persists on surfaces and may cause infection by contact with fomites, hand hygiene and surface cleaning are also of paramount importance.

BACKGROUND We implemented a previously described barcode-based drug safety system in all of our anesthetizing locations. Providers were instructed to scan the barcode on syringes using our Anesthesia Information Management System before drug administration, but the rate of provider adherence was low. We studied an implementation intervention intended to increase the rate of scanning. METHODS Using our Anesthesia Information Management System and Smart Anesthesia Manager software, we quantified syringe drug administrations by anesthesia providers with and without barcode scanning. We use an anesthesia team model in which an attending anesthesiologist is paired with a certified registered nurse anesthetist (CRNA) or a resident. Our system identified the pair of providers associated with a particular drug administration, but did not distinguish which providers actually administered the drug. Therefore, the rate of barcode scanning for a particular case was assigned to both providers equally. A baseline rate of scanning was established over a period of 17 months. An audit and feedback intervention was then performed that consisted of monthly performance reports sent by email to individual providers along with coffee gift card awards for top performers. The coffee gift cards were awarded in only the first 2 months of the intervention, while the email performance reports continued on a monthly basis. The coffee card awards were made public. The monthly emails reported the individual provider's rank order of performance relative to other providers, but was otherwise anonymous. The baseline rate of scanning was compared to the rate of scanning after the intervention for a period of 7 months. RESULTS From November 2014 to March 2017, we accumulated 60,197 cases performed by 88 attending anesthesiologists, 65 CRNAs, and 148 residents. The total number of syringe drug administrations was 653,355. Average scanning performance improved from 8.7% of syringe barcodes scanned during the baseline period from November 2014 to February 2016 to 64.4% scanned during the period September 2016 to March 2017 (P < .001). Variation in performance among individuals was marked, ranging from 0% to 100% of syringes scanned. The performance of some individuals showed marked oscillation over time. There was greater variation in performance attributable to residents than in performance attributable to CRNAs. CONCLUSIONS Feedback of individual provider performance data from the anesthesia information system to providers can be used in conjunction with other measures to improve performance. Despite improved average performance, there was marked variation in performance between individuals, and some individuals had marked oscillation of their performance over time.

Inadvertent arterial placement of a large-bore catheter during attempted placement of a central venous catheter (CVC) occurs at a rate of 0.1% to 1.0% and may result in hemorrhage, pseudoaneurysm, stroke, or death. Ultrasound guidance or observation of color and pulsatility of blood are not reliable methods for avoiding this serious complication. Measurement of pressure in the needle or short plastic catheter before insertion of the guidewire has been shown to be highly reliable; however, traditional pressure measurement methodology is cumbersome. Recently a compact, sterile, single-use pressure transducer with an integrated digital display has become available. In this study, we evaluated the performance of this new device (Compass® Vascular Access).In this prospective, observational study at 4 academic medical centers 298 CVCs were placed. Pressure was measured using the Compass transducer before and after guidewire insertion. Other details of the procedure were at the discretion of the clinician. Data describing the CVC placement and any complications were collected.Trainees placed 279 of 298 CVCs. Ultrasound guidance was used for 286 of 298 CVCs. Seven of the CVC placements occurred in the intensive care unit, with the balance occurring in the operating room. Ten of the CVCs were placed in a subclavian vein, with the balance being internal jugular vein. Two hundred seventy-four of 298 CVCs were placed on the right side. Venous pressure measured before and after guidewire insertion was 7.2 ± 4.3 (SD) and 6.5 ± 4.3 (SD) mm Hg respectively (P = 0.03). The satisfaction score recorded by the physician performing the procedure was 8.0 ± 2.1 (SD; visual analog scale 1-10, 10 being most satisfying). There were 5 inadvertent arterial punctures (1.7%). Ultrasound guidance was used in all 5 cases of arterial puncture. All of the arterial punctures were recognized before guidewire insertion by measurement of arterial pressure with the Compass transducer. No guidewires or CVC catheters were placed in arteries.The Compass pressure transducer for CVC placement performed as intended in 298 cases from 4 academic medical centers. There were 5 inadvertent arterial punctures despite the use of ultrasound guidance, all of which were correctly identified by pressure measurement using the Compass. The device was easily used by trainees, and users expressed a positive level of satisfaction.

Awareness with recall after general anesthesia is an infrequent, but well described, phenomenon that may result in posttraumatic stress disorder. There are no recent data on the incidence of this complication in the United States. We, therefore, undertook a prospective study to determine the incidence of awareness with recall during general anesthesia in the United States. This is a prospective, nonrandomized descriptive cohort study that was conducted at seven academic medical centers in the United States. Patients scheduled for surgery under general anesthesia were interviewed in the postoperative recovery room and at least a week after anesthesia and surgery by using a structured interview. Data from 19,575 patients are presented. A total of 25 awareness cases were identified (0.13% incidence). These occurred at a rate of 1-2 cases per 1000 patients at each site. Awareness was associated with increased ASA physical status (odds ratio, 2.41; 95% confidence interval, 1.04-5.60 for ASA status III-V compared with ASA status I-II). Age and sex did not influence the incidence of awareness. There were 46 additional cases (0.24%) of possible awareness and 1183 cases (6.04%) of possible intraoperative dreaming. The incidence of awareness during general anesthesia with recall in the United States is comparable to that described in other countries. Assuming that approximately 20 million anesthetics are administered in the United States annually, we can expect approximately 26,000 cases to occur each year.

Some patients experience disordered breathing during sleep and arterial oxygen desaturation after major inpatient surgery. We performed this study to determine whether similar events occur after ambulatory surgery. Forty-five ambulatory surgery patients received an unrestricted anesthetic. Continuous unattended nocturnal recordings of breathing pattern and oxygen saturation were made in the patients' homes before surgery and during the first and second postoperative nights. Nine patients had a respiratory disturbance index >10 and/or >1% of recording time with oxygen saturation

Despite the widespread use of methadone for the treatment of acute and chronic pain, the hemodynamic effects of methadone administered by IV bolus have not been studied. We compared the hemodynamic effects of an IV bolus of methadone 20 mg with those of fentanyl 10 microg/kg for the induction of anesthesia in combination with etomidate 0.3 mg/kg. Forty-three patients undergoing major surgery were randomized to one of the two treatments in a double-blinded fashion. Plasma concentrations of histamine were measured before and 2 min after opioid administration. Heart rate and arterial blood pressure were measured via an arterial line just before opioid administration, etomidate administration, and tracheal intubation; during intubation; and 1 min after intubation. There were no significant differences in mean heart rate between the methadone and fentanyl groups at any time point. Systolic and diastolic blood pressures were significantly lower (P0.05) in the fentanyl group just before intubation, during intubation, and 1 min after intubation. Mean plasma concentrations of histamine before and after the administration of methadone or fentanyl were 1.54 ng/mL (SD, 0.65 ng/mL) and 1.57 ng/mL (SD, 1.37 ng/mL) or 1.00 ng/mL (SD, 0.58 ng/mL) and 1.04 ng/mL (SD, 0.47 ng/mL), respectively. Despite the lack of a significant change in mean plasma concentrations of histamine, substantial increases in plasma histamine occurred in 2 of 23 patients who received methadone. There were no obvious hemodynamic effects associated with histamine concentrations up to 6.2 ng/mL. Methadone appears to have the potential for producing histamine release. Although methadone administration did not produce hemodynamic instability in this study, the possible hemodynamic side effects of histamine release should be considered when IV boluses of methadone are given.The same dose of IV methadone (20 mg) that is effective for postoperative pain is also suitable for the induction of anesthesia in combination with etomidate. The plasma histamine concentration was notably increased in two patients, without obvious hemodynamic sequelae. Therefore, methadone appears to have the potential for producing histamine release.

We compared (a) the perioperative complications; (b) times to eligibility for, and actual time of the following: extubation, less intense monitoring, intensive care unit (ICU), and hospital discharge; and (c) resource utilization of nursing ratio for patients receiving either a typical fentanyl/isof

UNLABELLED We compared a fentanyl/isoflurane/propofol regimen with a remifentanil/isoflurane/propofol regimen for fast-track cardiac anesthesia in a prospective, randomized, double-blinded study on patients undergoing elective coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Anesthesia was induced with a 1-min infusion of 0.5 mg/kg propofol followed by 10-mg boluses of propofol every 30 s until loss of consciousness. After 0.2 mg/kg cisatracurium, a blinded continuous infusion of remifentanil at 1 microg. kg(-1). min(-1) or the equivalent volume rate of normal saline was then started. In addition, a blinded bolus syringe of 1 microg/kg remifentanil or 10 microg/kg fentanyl, respectively, was given over 3 min. Blinded remifentanil, 1 microg. kg(-1). min(-1) (or the equivalent volume rate of normal saline), together with 0.5% isoflurane, were used to maintain anesthesia. Significantly more patients (P < 0.01) in the fentanyl regimen experienced hypertension during skin incision and maximum sternal spread compared with patients in the remifentanil regimen. There were no differences between the groups in time until extubation, discharge from the surgical intensive care unit, ST segment and other electrocardiogram changes, catecholamine levels, or cardiac enzymes. The remifentanil-based anesthetic (consisting of a bolus followed by a continuous infusion) resulted in significantly less response to surgical stimulation and less need for anesthetic interventions compared with the fentanyl regimen (consisting of an initial bolus, and followed by subsequent boluses only to treat hemodynamic responses) with both drug regimens allowing early extubation. IMPLICATIONS Both fentanyl and the newer opioid remifentanil, when each is combined with isoflurane and propofol, allowed for fast-track cardiac anesthesia. The remifentanil regimen used in this study resulted in significantly less hemodynamic response to surgical stimulation.

Remifentanil is a mu-opioid receptor agonist with a context sensitive half-time of 3 min and an elimination half-life < or = 10 min. This study sought to evaluate the efficacy of remifentanil and propofol total intravenous anesthesia (TIVA) in 161 patients undergoing inpatient surgery. Remifentanil 1 microgram/kg was given intravenously (i.v.) followed by one of two randomized infusion rates: small dose (0.5 micrograms.kg-1.min-1) or large dose (1 microgram.kg-1.min-1). Propofol (0.5-1.0 mg/kg i.v. bolus and 75 micrograms.kg-1.min-1 infusion) and vecuronium were also given. Remifentanil infusions were decreased by 50% after tracheal intubation. End points included responses (hypertension, tachycardia, and somatic responses) to tracheal intubation and surgery. More patients in the small-dose than in the large-dose group responded to tracheal intubation with hypertension and/or tachycardia (25% vs 6%; P = 0.003) but there were no other differences between groups in intraoperative responses. Recovery from anesthesia was within 3-7 min in both groups. The most frequent adverse events were hypotension (systolic blood pressure [BP] < 80 mm Hg or mean BP < 60 mm Hg) during anesthesia induction (10% small-dose versus 15% large-dose group; P = not significant [NS]) and hypotension (27% small-dose versus 30% large-dose group; P = NS), and bradycardia (7% small-dose versus 19% large-dose group; P = NS) during maintenance. In conclusion, when combined with propofol 75 micrograms.kg-1.min-1, remifentanil 1 microgram/kg i.v. as a bolus followed by an infusion of 1.0 microgram.kg-1.min-1 effectively controls responses to tracheal intubation. After tracheal intubation, remifentanil 0.25-4.0 micrograms.kg-1.min-1 effectively controlled intraoperative responses while allowing for rapid emergence from anesthesia.