Search

Background: International guidelines recommend preoperative multidisciplinary team (MDT) assessment for high-risk surgical patients. Preoperative MDT meetings can help to improve surgical care, but there is little evidence on whether they improve patient outcomes. Methods: This paper aims to share our experience of MDT meetings for high-risk surgical patients to underline their added value to the current standard of care. An observational study of a retrospective cohort of preoperative high-risk MDT meetings of a tertiary referral hospital between January 2015 and December 2020. For 249 patients the outcomes preoperative data, MDT decisions, and patient outcomes were collected from electronic health records. Main results: A total of 249 patients were discussed at high-risk MDT meetings. Most of the patients (97%) were assessed as having an American Society of Anesthesiology score ≥ 3, and 219 (88%) had a European Society of Cardiology and European Society of Anaesthesiology risk score of intermediate or high. After MDT assessment, 154 (62%) were directly approved for surgery, and 39 (16%) were considered ineligible for surgery. The remaining 56 (23%) patients underwent additional assessments before reconsideration at a high-risk MDT meeting. The main reason for patients being discussed at the high-risk MDT meeting was to assess the risk-benefit ratio of surgery. Ultimately, 184 (74%) patients underwent surgery. Of the operated patients, 122 (66%) did not have a major complication in the postoperative period, and 149 patients (81%) were alive after one year. Conclusions: This cohort study shows the vulnerability and complexity of high-risk patients but also shows that the use of an MDT assessment contributes too improved peri- and postoperative treatment strategies in high-risk patients. Most patients underwent surgery after careful risk assessment and, if deemed necessary, preoperative and perioperative treatment optimization to reduce their risk. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification is the most used system to assess patient health status before surgery, ranging from I to V levels. This study aims to explore the impact of different ASA risk classes (ASA II [mild risk] and ASA III [severe risk]) on clinical outcomes following hip fracture surgery, including all-cause mortality and postoperative complications. Methods: A retrospective analysis from 2019 to 2021 across three Jordanian centers was conducted. The study included patients aged 65 and above who underwent hip fracture repair surgeries. Preoperative measures, intraoperative management protocols, and postoperative care were collected. Clinical data were extracted from electronic medical records, including demographics, fracture type, intraoperative data, and postoperative outcomes. Results: The analysis included 1033 patients, with 501 (48.5%) in the mild anesthetic risk group (ASA I-II) and 532 (51.5%) in the severe anesthetic risk group (ASA III-V). The mean age was 73 years, with a higher prevalence of males in the severe risk group. Patients in the severe risk group had more comorbidities, higher ICU admissions (15.23% vs. 6.18%), longer hospital stays (median 7 vs. 6 days), and higher rates of postoperative thromboembolic complications (3.39% vs. 1.39%) compared to the mild risk group. Additionally, the severe risk group showed higher mortality rates both in-hospital mortality (3.38% vs. 1.39%) and all-cause mortality (16.92% vs. 10.36%). Multivariate analysis identified higher ASA score as independent risk factors for increased all-cause mortality (HR = 1.64 95%CI 1.51–2.34) and thromboembolic complications (OR = 2.85 95%CI 1.16-7). Length of hospital stay was significantly associated with higher ASA score (OR = 1.04 95%CI 0.96–1.11). Conclusion: The study underscores the significant impact of anesthetic risk on the outcomes of hip fracture surgeries. Patients with higher ASA scores associated with severe systemic diseases may have at increased risk of adverse outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The decision about which type of general anesthetic to administer is typically made by the clinical team without patient engagement. This study examined patients' preferences, experiences, attitudes, beliefs, perceptions, and perceived social norms about anesthesia and about engaging in the decision regarding general anesthetic choice with their clinician. Methods: We conducted a survey in the United States, sent to a panel of surgical patients through Qualtrics (Qualtrics, Provo, UT) from March 2022 through May 2022. Questions were developed based on the Theory of Planned Behavior and validated measures were used when available. A patient partner who had experienced both intravenous and inhaled anesthesia contributed to the development and refinement of the questions. Results: A total of 806 patients who received general anesthesia for an elective procedure in the last five years completed the survey. 43% of respondents preferred a patient-led decision making role and 28% preferred to share decision making with their clinical team, yet only 7.8% reported being engaged in full shared decision making about the anesthesia they received. Intraoperative awareness, pain, nausea, vomiting and quickly returning to work and usual household activities were important to respondents. Waking up in the middle of surgery was the most commonly reported concern, despite this experience being reported only 8% of the time. Most patients (65%) who searched for information about general anesthesia noted that it took a lot of effort to find the information, and 53% agreed to feeling frustrated during the search. Conclusions: Most patients prefer a patient-led or shared decision making process when it comes to their anesthetic care and want to be engaged in the decision. However, only a small percentage of patients reported being fully engaged in the decision. Further studies should inform future shared decision-making tools, informed consent materials, educational materials and framing of anesthetic choices for patients so that they are able to make a choice regarding the anesthetic they receive. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this review, we describe the major milestones in the development of organ transplantation with a specific focus on hepatic transplantation. For many years, the barriers preventing successful organ transplantation in humans seemed insurmountable. Although advances in surgical technique provided the technical ability to perform organ transplantation, limited understanding of immunology prevented successful organ transplantation. The breakthrough to success was the result of several significant discoveries between 1950 and 1980 involving improved surgical techniques, the development of effective preservative solutions, and the suppression of cellular immunity to prevent graft rejection. After that, technical innovations and laboratory and clinical research developed rapidly. However, these advances alone could not have led to improved transplant outcomes without parallel advances in anesthesia and critical care. With increasing organ demand, it proved necessary to expand the donor pool, which has been achieved with the use of living donors, split grafts, extended criteria organs, and organs obtained through donation after cardiac death. Given this increased access to organs and organ resources, the number of transplantations performed every year has increased dramatically. New regulatory organizations and transplant societies provide critical oversight to ensure equitable organ distribution and a high standard of care and also perform outcome analyses. Establishing dedicated transplant anesthesia teams results in improved organ transplantation outcomes and provides a foundation for developing new standards for other subspecialties in anesthesiology, critical care, and medicine overall. Through a century of discovery, the success we enjoy at the present time is the result of the work of well-organized multidisciplinary teams following standardized protocols and thereby saving thousands of lives worldwide each year. With continuing innovation, the future is bright. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The evidence base for the widely accepted standard regimen of succinylcholine for rapid sequence induction (1.0 mg kg− 1) remains unclear. Methods: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials comparing any succinylcholine regimen with the standard regimen (1.0 mg kg− 1) and reporting on intubating conditions and/or apnoea times. Results were expressed as absolute risk differences (ARD) for dichotomous data and mean differences (MD) for continuous data. Results: We retrieved six trials with relevant data of 864 patients (ASA 1 or 2, aged 18–65 years, body mass index < 30 kg m− 2). Four regimens (0.3, 0.4, 0.5, 0.6 mg kg− 1) were compared with 1.0 mg kg− 1 in at least three trials each, and three (0.8, 1.5, 2 mg kg− 1) in one each. With 0.3 to 0.5 mg kg− 1, the likelihood of excellent intubating conditions was significantly decreased (ARD − 22% to − 67%). With 0.3 and 0.4 mg kg− 1, but not with 0.5, 0.6, 0.8, 1.5 and 2.0 mg kg− 1, the likelihood of unacceptable intubating conditions was significantly increased (ARD + 22% and + 32%, respectively). With 2.0 mg kg− 1, but not with 0.8 or 1.5 mg kg− 1, the likelihood of excellent intubating conditions was significantly increased (ARD + 23%). Apnoea times were significantly shorter with regimens ≤0.8 mg kg− 1 (MD − 1.0 to − 3.4 min) but were not reported with 1.5 or 2.0 mg kg− 1. Conclusions: With succinylcholine regimens ≤0.5 mg kg− 1, excellent intubating conditions are less likely and apnoea times are shorter, compared with 1 mg kg− 1. With 0.3 and 0.4 mg kg− 1, unacceptable intubating conditions are more common. Succinylcholine 1.5 mg kg− 1 does not produce more often excellent conditions compared with 1 mg kg− 1, while 2.0 mg kg− 1 does, but the database with these regimens is weak and apnoea times remain unknown. Limited information size and strong statistical heterogeneity decrease the certainty of the evidence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Nonoperating room anesthesia during gastroenterological procedures is a growing field in anesthetic practice. While the numbers of patients with severe comorbidities are rising constantly, gastrointestinal endoscopic interventions are moving closer to minimally invasive endoscopic surgery. The LMA Gastro™ is a new supraglottic airway device, developed specifically for upper gastrointestinal endoscopy and interventions. The aim of this study was to evaluate the feasibility of LMA Gastro™ in patients with ASA physical status ≥3 undergoing advanced endoscopic procedures. Methods: We analyzed data from 214 patients retrospectively who received anesthesia for gastroenterological interventions. Inclusion criteria were upper gastrointestinal endoscopic interventions, airway management with LMA Gastro™ and ASA status ≥3. The primary outcome measure was successful use of LMA Gastro™ for airway management and endoscopic intervention. Results: Thirtyone patients with ASA physical status ≥3, undergoing complex and prolonged upper gastrointestinal endoscopic procedures were included. There were 7 endoscopic retrograde cholangiopancreatographies, 7 peroral endoscopic myotomies, 5 percutaneous endoscopic gastrostomies and 12 other complex procedures (e.g. endoscopic submucosal dissection, esophageal stent placement etc.). Of these, 27 patients were managed successfully using the LMA Gastro™. Placement of the LMA Gastro™ was reported as easy. Positive pressure ventilation was performed without difficulty. The feasibility of the LMA Gastro™ for endoscopic intervention was rated excellent by the endoscopists. In four patients, placement or ventilation with LMA Gastro™ was not possible. Conclusions: We demonstrated the feasibility of the LMA Gastro™ during general anesthesia for advanced endoscopic procedures in high-risk patients. Trial registration: German Clinical Trials Register (DRKS00017396) Date of registration: 23rd May 2019, retrospectively registered. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]