Search

Airway management is required during general anaesthesia and is essential for life-threatening conditions such as cardiopulmonary resuscitation. Evidence from recent trials indicates a high incidence of critical events during airway management, especially in neonates or infants. It is important to define the optimal techniques and strategies for airway management in these groups. In this joint European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care (ESAIC) and British Journal of Anaesthesia (BJA) guideline on airway management in neonates and infants, we present aggregated and evidence-based recommendations to assist clinicians in providing safe and effective medical care. We identified seven main areas of interest for airway management: i) preoperative assessment and preparation; ii) medications; iii) techniques and algorithms; iv) identification and treatment of difficult airways; v) confirmation of tracheal intubation; vi) tracheal extubation, and vii) human factors. Based on these areas, Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcomes (PICO) questions were derived that guided a structured literature search. GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) methodology was used to formulate the recommendations based on those studies included with consideration of their methodological quality (strong '1' or weak '2' recommendation with high 'A', medium 'B' or low 'C' quality of evidence). In summary, we recommend: 1. Use medical history and physical examination to predict difficult airway management (1C). 2. Ensure adequate level of sedation or general anaesthesia during airway management (1B). 3. Administer neuromuscular blocker before tracheal intubation when spontaneous breathing is not necessary (1C). 4. Use a videolaryngoscope with an age-adapted standard blade as first choice for tracheal intubation (1B). 5. Apply apnoeic oxygenation during tracheal intubation in neonates (1B). 6. Consider a supraglottic airway for rescue oxygenation and ventilation when tracheal intubation fails (1B). 7. Limit the number of tracheal intubation attempts (1C). 8. Use a stylet to reinforce and preshape tracheal tubes when hyperangulated videolaryngoscope blades are used and when the larynx is anatomically anterior (1C). 9. Verify intubation is successful with clinical assessment and end-tidal CO 2 waveform (1C). 10. Apply high-flow nasal oxygenation, continuous positive airway pressure or nasal intermittent positive pressure ventilation for postextubation respiratory support, when appropriate (1B)., (Copyright © 2023 British Journal of Anaesthesia, European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care. Published by Elsevier Ltd.. All rights reserved.)

Background: Improvement of postoperative pain and other perioperative outcomes remain a significant challenge and a matter of debate among perioperative clinicians. This systematic review aims to evaluate the effects of perioperative i.v. lidocaine infusion on postoperative pain and recovery in patients undergoing various surgical procedures., Methods: CENTRAL, MEDLINE, EMBASE, and CINAHL databases and ClinicalTrials.gov, and congress proceedings were searched for randomized controlled trials until May 2014, that compared patients who did or did not receive continuous perioperative i.v. lidocaine infusion., Results: Forty-five trials (2802 participants) were included. Meta-analysis suggested that lidocaine reduced postoperative pain (visual analogue scale, 0 to 10 cm) at 1-4 h (MD -0.84, 95% CI -1.10 to -0.59) and at 24 h (MD -0.34, 95% CI -0.57 to -0.11) after surgery, but not at 48 h (MD -0.22, 95% CI -0.47 to 0.03). Subgroup analysis and trial sequential analysis suggested pain reduction for patients undergoing laparoscopic abdominal surgery or open abdominal surgery, but not for patients undergoing other surgeries. There was limited evidence of positive effects of lidocaine on postoperative gastrointestinal recovery, opioid requirements, postoperative nausea and vomiting, and length of hospital stay. There were limited data available on the effect of systemic lidocaine on adverse effects or surgical complications. Quality of evidence was limited as a result of inconsistency (heterogeneity) and indirectness (small studies)., Conclusions: There is limited evidence suggesting that i.v. lidocaine may be a useful adjuvant during general anaesthesia because of its beneficial impact on several outcomes after surgery., (© The Author 2016. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Journal of Anaesthesia. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is common; ondansetron is often used as prophylaxis or for breakthrough episodes. Vestipitant is a neurokinin 1 (NK-1) receptor antagonist that is effective for prophylaxis, but its efficacy for treating established PONV is unknown. This study was performed to evaluate the efficacy and safety of vestipitant, compared with ondansetron for the treatment of breakthrough PONV in patients who had already received prophylactic ondansetron before surgery., Methods: A multicentre, randomized, single-blind (sponsor-open), parallel group study. Of 527 surgical patients, 130 (25%) had breakthrough PONV and were equally randomized to one of six i.v. doses of vestipitant (4-36 mg) or ondansetron 4 mg. The primary endpoint was the rate of patients exhibiting complete response, defined as no emesis and no further rescue medication from 10 min after infusion up to 24 h after surgery or hospital discharge., Results: All doses of vestipitant were non-inferior to ondansetron in treating PONV after failed prophylaxis with ondansetron. However, vestipitant was superior to ondansetron in decreasing episodes of postoperative emesis and retching. The complete response rate analysis using Bayesian model averaging indicated that no vestipitant dose was superior to ondansetron. Nausea numerical rating scale scores and the times-to-PONV or discharge were similar between the vestipitant and ondansetron treatment groups., Conclusions: Although overall efficacy was non-inferior between vestipitant and ondansetron, the rate of emesis was lower with vestipitant. These data suggest that vestipitant may be a useful agent for the management of PONV, similar to other NK-1 antagonists., Clinical Trial Registration: NCT01507194., (© The Author 2014. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the British Journal of Anaesthesia. All rights reserved. For Permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remain significant clinical problems for patients, especially nausea. The D2-antagonist droperidol was popular for prophylaxis until safety concerns limited its use. In early testing, APD421 (amisulpride for i.v. injection), a D2/D3-antagonist, has shown promising antiemetic efficacy at very low doses. We conducted a randomized, double-blind, dose-finding study to investigate APD421 in PONV prophylaxis., Methods: Adult surgical patients with ≥2 Apfel risk factors for PONV undergoing surgery expected to last ≥1 h and receiving standard inhalation anaesthesia were randomized to receive placebo or one of three doses of APD421 (1, 5, or 20 mg) as a single i.v. administration at anaesthesia induction. The primary endpoint was PONV (vomiting/retching or antiemetic rescue) in the 24 h period after surgery., Results: Two hundred and fifteen patients received study drug, 92% female and 60% with ≥3 risk factors. Groups were well balanced for baseline characteristics and risk factors. The PONV incidence was 37/54 [69%; 90% confidence interval (CI), 57-79%] in the placebo group; 28/58 (48%; 90% CI, 37-60%) with 1 mg APD421 (P=0.048); 20/50 (40%; 90% CI, 28-53%) with 5 mg (P=0.006); and 30/53 (57%; 90% CI, 44-68%) with 20 mg (P>0.1). APD421 at 5 mg also significantly improved vomiting, rescue medication use, and nausea rates. The safety profile of APD421 was similar to that of placebo at all doses, with no significant central nervous system (CNS) or cardiac side-effects., Conclusions: APD421 given i.v. before surgery is safe and effective at reducing PONV in moderate/high-risk adult surgical patients. The optimal dose tested was 5 mg.

Background: The aim of this quantitative systematic review was to assess the efficacy and adverse effects of ketamine added to caudal local anaesthetics in comparison with local anaesthetics alone in children undergoing urological, lower abdominal, or lower limb surgery., Methods: The systematic search, data extraction, critical appraisal, and pooled data analysis were performed according to the PRISMA statement. All randomized controlled trials (RCTs) were included in this meta-analysis and relative risk (RR), mean difference (MD), and the corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the Revman(®) statistical software for dichotomous and continuous outcomes., Results: Thirteen RCTs (published between 1991 and 2008) including 584 patients met the inclusion criteria. There was a significant longer time to first analgesic requirements in patients receiving ketamine in addition to a local anaesthetic compared with a local anaesthetic alone (MD: 5.60 h; 95% CI: 5.45-5.76; P<0.00001). There was a lower RR for the need of rescue analgesia in children receiving a caudal regional anaesthesia with ketamine in addition to local anaesthetics (RR: 0.71; 95% CI: 0.44-1.15; P=0.16)., Conclusions: Caudally administered ketamine, in addition to a local anaesthetic, provides prolonged postoperative analgesia with few adverse effects compared with local anaesthetics alone. There is a clear benefit of caudal ketamine, but the uncertainties about neurotoxicity relating to the dose of ketamine, single vs repeated doses and the child's age, still need to be clarified for use in clinical practice.

Background: Thoracic paravertebral blocks (PVBs) are successfully performed for pain management after breast surgery. The aim of the present quantitative systematic review was to assess the efficacy and adverse events of PVB in women undergoing breast surgery., Methods: The systematic search, data extraction, critical appraisal, and pooled analysis were performed according to the PRISMA statement. The relative risk (RR), mean difference (MD), and their corresponding 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated using the RevMan statistical software for dichotomous and continuous outcomes, respectively. Pain scores were converted to a scale ranging from 0 (no pain) to 10 (worst pain)., Results: Fifteen randomized controlled trials (published between 1999 and 2009) including 877 patients met the inclusion criteria. There was a significant difference in worst postoperative pain scores between PVB and general anaesthesia (GA) at <2 h (MD: -2.68; 95% CI: -3.33 to -2.02; P<0.00001), 2-24 h (MD: -2.34; 95% CI: -2.42 to -1.12; P<0.00001), and 24-48 h (MD: -1.75; 95% CI: -3.19 to 0.31; P=0.02). Accordingly, lower pain scores were observed for combined PVB with GA compared with GA alone for <2 h (MD: -1.87; 95% CI: -2.53 to -1.21; P<0.00001), 2-24 h (MD: -2.21; 95% CI: -3.07 to -1.35; P<0.00001), and 24-48 h (MD: -1.80; 95% CI: -2.92 to 0.68; P=0.002). The RR for the reported adverse events (e.g. pneumothorax) was low., Conclusions: There is considerable evidence that PVB in addition to GA or alone provide a better postoperative pain control with little adverse effects compared with other analgesic treatment strategies.

Background: Droperidol is commonly noted to be more effective at preventing postoperative nausea (PON) than vomiting (POV) and it is assumed to have a short duration of action. This may be relevant for clinical decisions, especially for designing multiple-drug antiemetic regimens., Methods: We conducted a post hoc analysis of a large multicentre trial. Within this trial, 1734 patients underwent inhalation anaesthesia and were randomly stratified to receive several antiemetic interventions according to a factorial design, one of which was droperidol 1.25 mg vs placebo. We considered differences to be significant when: (i) point estimates of one outcome are not within the limits of the confidence interval (CI) of the other outcome; and (ii) differences in risk ratio (also known as relative risks, RR) are at least 20%., Results: Over 24 h, nausea was reduced from 42.9% in the control to 32.0% in the droperidol group, corresponding to a relative risk (RR) of 0.75 (95% CI from 0.66 to 0.84). Vomiting was reduced from 15.6% to 11.8%, and therefore associated with a similar RR of 0.76 (0.59-0.96). In the early postoperative period (0-2 h), droperidol prevented nausea and vomiting similarly, with an RR of 0.57 (0.46-0.69) for nausea and 0.56 (0.37-0.85) for vomiting. In the late postoperative period (2-24 h), the RR was again similar with 0.83 (0.72-0.96) for nausea compared with 0.89 (0.66-1.18) for vomiting but significantly less compared with the early postoperative period., Conclusions: We conclude that droperidol prevents PON and POV equally well, yet its duration of action is short-lived.

Background: Postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) is one of the most frequent complications after general anaesthesia. Single-dose antiemetic prophylaxis has limited efficacy in high-risk patients. Adding a simple potential antiemetic approach, such as increasing the inspired oxygen fraction, to the antiemetic portfolio would preserve pharmacological interventions for treatment of symptoms in the postoperative period. However, the antiemetic effect of a high inspired oxygen fraction is still discussed controversially. The aim of the study was to evaluate whether an inspired oxygen fraction of 0.8 decreases PONV in patients receiving the 5-HT3-antagonist dolasetron., Methods: In a randomized, placebo-controlled, double-blinded trial we studied 377 patients (ASA I-III) undergoing elective laparoscopic cholecystectomy. Induction of anaesthesia was standardized, including thiopental fentanyl and cis-atracurium. For all patients the individual risk for PONV was calculated using the Koivuranta score and all patients received 12.5 mg dolasetron i.v. before surgery. Patients were allocated randomly to one of three groups: Group A (n=125) received 80% oxygen in air, Group B (n=125) 40% oxygen in air and Group C (n=127) 40% oxygen in nitrous oxide. Postoperative nausea, postoperative vomiting (PV), or nausea, vomiting, or both (PONV) was assessed in the early (0-4 h) and overall postoperative period (0-24 h) by an anaesthesiologist unaware of patient allocation., Results: There was a significantly lower incidence of PONV and PV in Groups A (PONV: 11.2%; PV: 3.2%) and B (PONV: 10.4%; PV: 3.2%) compared with Group C (PONV: 26.7%; PV: 13.3%), but there were no significant differences between Groups A and B., Conclusions: An inspired oxygen fraction of 0.8 does not further decrease PONV or vomiting in dolasetron-treated patients undergoing laparoscopic cholecystectomy. The lower incidence of PONV in Groups A and B compared with Group C is most likely caused by the omission of nitrous oxide.

Background: Despite intensive research, the main causes of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV) remain unclear. We sought to quantify the relative importance of operative, anaesthetic and patient-specific risk factors to the development of PONV., Methods: We conducted a randomized controlled trial of 1180 children and adults at high risk for PONV scheduled for elective surgery. Using a five-way factorial design, we randomly assigned subjects by gender who were undergoing specific operative procedures, to receive various combinations of anaesthetics, opioids, and prophylactic antiemetics., Results: Of the 1180 patients, 355 (30.1% 95% CI (27.5-32.7%)) had at least one episode of postoperative vomiting (PV) within 24 h post-anaesthesia. In the early postoperative period (0-2 h), the leading risk factor for vomiting was the use of volatile anaesthetics, with similar odds ratios (OR (95% CI)) being found for isoflurane (19.8 (7.7-51.2)), enflurane (16.1 (6.2-41.8)) and sevoflurane (14.5 (5.6-37.4)). A dose-response relationship was present for the use of volatile anaesthetics. In contrast, no dose response existed for propofol anaesthesia. In the delayed postoperative period (2-24 h), the main predictors were being a child (5.7 (3.0-10.9)), PONV in the early period (3.4 (2.4-4.7)) and the use of postoperative opioids (2.5 (1.7-3.7)). The influence of the antiemetics was considerably smaller and did not interact with anaesthetic or surgical variables., Conclusion: Volatile anaesthetics were the leading cause of early postoperative vomiting. The pro-emetic effect was larger than other risk factors. In patients at high risk for PONV, it would therefore make better sense to avoid inhalational anaesthesia rather than simply to add an antiemetic, which may still be needed to prevent or treat delayed vomiting.

Background: In order to identify patients who would benefit from prophylactic amtiemetics, six predictive models have been described for the risk assessment of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). This study compared the validity and practicability of these models in patients undergoing general anaesthesia., Methods: Data were analysed from 1566 patients who underwent balanced anaesthesia without prophylactic antiemetic treatment for various types of surgery. A systematic literature search identified six predictive models for PONV. These models were compared with respect to validity (discriminating power and calibration characteristics) and practicability. Discriminating power was measured by the area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and calibration was assessed by weighted linear regression analysis between predicted and actual incidences of PONV. Practicability was assessed according to the number of factors to be considered for the model (the fewer factors the better), and whether the score could be used in combination with a previously applied cost-effective concept., Results: The incidence of PONV was 600/1566 (38.1%). The discriminating power (AUC) obtained by the models (named according to the first author) using the risk classes from the recommended prophylactic concept were as follows: Apfel, 0.68; Koivuranta, 0.66; Sinclair, 0.66; Palazzo, 0.63; Gan, 0.61; Scholz, 0.61. For four models, the following calibration curves (expressed as the slope and the offset) were plotted: Apfel, y=0.82x+0.01, r2=0.995; Koivuranta, y=1.13x-0.10, r2=0.999; Sinclair, y=0.49x+0.29, r2=0.789; Palazzo, y=0.30x+0.30, r2=0.763. The numbers of parameters to be considered were as follows: Apfel, 4; Koivuranta, 5; Palazzo, 5; Scholz, 9; Sinclair, 12; Gan, 14., Conclusion: The simplified risk scores provided better discrimination and calibration properties compared with the more complex risk scores. Therefore, simplified risk scores can be recommended for antiemetic strategies in clinical practice as well as for group comparisons in randomized controlled antiemetic trials.

Several risk scores have been developed to calculate the probability of postoperative nausea and vomiting (PONV). However, the power to discriminate which individual will suffer from PONV is still limited. Thus, we wondered how the number of predictors in a score affects the discriminating power and how the characteristics of a population--which is needed to measure the power of a score--may affect the results. For ethical reasons and to be independent from centre specific populations, we developed a computer model to simulate virtual populations. Four populations were created according to number, frequency, and odds ratio of predictors. Population I: parameters were derived from a previously published paper to verify whether calculated and reported values are in accordance. Population II: a gynaecological population was created to investigate the impact of the study setting. Populations III and IV: to meet ideal assumptions a model with up to seven predictors with an odds ratio of 2 and 3 was tested, respectively. The discriminating power of a risk score was measured by the area under a receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC) and an increase of more than 0.025 per predictor was considered to be clinically relevant. The AUC of population I was similar to those reported in clinical investigations (0.72). The study setting had a considerable impact on the discriminating power since the AUC decreased to 0.65 in a gynaecological setting. The AUC with the 'idealized' populations III and IV was at best in the range of 0.7-0.8. The inclusion of more than five predictors did not lead to a clinically relevant improvement. The currently available simplified risk scores (with four or five predictors) are useful both as a method to estimate individual risk of PONV and as a method for comparing groups of patients for antiemetic trials. They are also superior to single predictor models which are just using the patients' history of PONV or female gender alone. However, our analysis suggests that the power to discriminate which indvidual will suffer from PONV will remain imperfect, even when more predictors are considered.