Search

BackgroundPediatric anesthesiology has been greatly impacted by COVID-19 in the delivery of care to patients and to the individual providers. With this study, we sought to survey pediatric centers and highlight the variations in care related to perioperative medicine during the COVID-19 pandemic, including the availability of protective equipment, the practice of pediatric anesthesia, and economic impact.AimThe aim of the survey was to determine how COVID-19 directly impacted pediatric anesthesia practices during the study period.MethodsA survey concerning four major domains (testing, safety, clinical management/policy, economics) was developed. It was pilot tested for clarity and content by members of the Pediatric Anesthesia COVID-19 Collaborative. The survey was administered by email to all Pediatric Anesthesia COVID-19 Collaborative members on September 1, 2020. Respondents had six weeks to complete the survey and were instructed to answer the questions based on their institution's practice during September 1 - October 13, 2020.ResultsSixty-three institutions (100% response rate) participated in the COVID-19 Pediatric Anesthesia Survey. Forty-one hospitals (65%) were from the United States, and 35% included other countries. N95 masks were available to anesthesia teams at 91% of institutions (n = 57) (95% CI: 80%-96%). COVID-19 testing criteria of anesthesia staff and guidelines to return to work varied by institution. Structured simulation training aimed at improving COVID-19 safety and patient care occurred at 62% of institutions (n = 39). Pediatric anesthesiologists were economically affected by a reduction in their employer benefits and restriction of travel due to employer imposed quarantine regulations.ConclusionOur data indicate that the COVID-19 pandemic has impacted the testing, safety, clinical management, and economics of pediatric anesthesia practice. Further investigation into the long-term consequences for the specialty is indicated.

A retrospective case-control study published in the journal Pediatric Anesthesia examined the impact of hyperammonemia, or elevated blood ammonia levels, on anesthetic requirements in children. The study analyzed processed electroencephalogram (EEG) data as a measure of anesthetic depth in hyperammonemic pediatric patients compared to healthy controls. The results showed that children with hyperammonemia exhibited greater anesthetic depth at lower anesthetic concentrations compared to age-matched controls without hyperammonemia. The study suggests that the presence of hyperammonemia is associated with enhanced sensitivity to anesthetics in pediatric patients. However, further research is needed to confirm these findings and understand the underlying mechanisms. [Extracted from the article]

Summary: Introduction: Randomized trials are important for generating high‐quality evidence, but are perceived as difficult to perform in the pediatric population. Thus far there has been poor characterization of the barriers to conducting trials involving children, and the variation in these barriers between countries remains undescribed. The General Anesthesia compared to Spinal anesthesia (GAS) trial, conducted in seven countries between 2007 and 2013, provides an opportunity to explore these issues. Methods: We undertook a descriptive analysis to evaluate the reasons for variation in enrollment between countries in the GAS trial, looking specifically at the number of potential subjects screened, and the subsequent application of four exclusion criteria that were applied in a hierarchical order. Results: A total of 4023 patients were screened by 28 centers in seven countries. Australia and the USA screened the most subjects, accounting for 84% of all potential trial participants. The percentage of subjects eliminated from the screened pool by each exclusion criterion varied between countries. Exclusion due to a predefined condition (H1) eliminated only 5% of potential subjects in Italy and the UK, but 37% in Canada. Exclusions due to a contraindication or a physician's refusal most impacted enrollment in Australia and the USA. The patient being "too large for spinal anesthesia" was the most commonly cited by anesthetists who refused to enroll a patient (64% of anesthetist refusals). The majority of surgeon refusals came from the USA, where surgeons preferred the patient to receive a general anesthetic. The percentage of approached parents refusing to consent ranged from a low of 3% in Italy to a high of 70% in the USA and Netherlands. The most frequently cited reason for parent refusal in all countries was a preference for general anesthesia (median: 43%, range: 32%‐67%). However, a sizeable proportion of parents in all countries had a contrasting preference for spinal anesthesia (median: 25%, range: 13%‐31%), and 23% of U.S. parents expressed concern about randomization. Conclusion: The GAS trial highlights enrollment challenges that can occur when conducting multicenter, international, pediatric studies. Investigators planning future trials should be aware of potential differences in screening processes across countries, and that exclusions by anesthetists and surgeons may vary in reason, in frequency, and by country. Furthermore, investigators should be aware that the U.S. centers encountered particularly high surgeon and parental refusal rates and that U.S. parents were uniquely concerned about randomization. Planning trials that address these difficulties should increase the likelihood of successfully recruiting subjects in pediatric trials. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]