Search

The novel coronavirus has caused a pandemic around the world. Management of patients with suspected or confirmed coronavirus infection who have to undergo thoracic surgery will be a challenge for the anesthesiologists. The thoracic subspecialty committee of European Association of Cardiothoracic Anaesthesiology (EACTA) has conducted a survey of opinion in order to create recommendations for the anesthetic approach to these challenging patients. It should be emphasized that both the management of the infected patient with COVID-19 and the self-protection of the anesthesia team constitute a complicated challenge. The text focuses therefore on both important topics., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Although endotracheal intubation, surgical crossfield intubation, and jet ventilation are standard techniques for airway management in tracheal resections, there are also reports of new approaches, ranging from regional anesthesia to extracorporeal support. The objective was to outline the entire spectrum of new airway techniques., Design: The literature databases PubMed/Medline and the Cochrane Library were searched systematically for prospective and retrospective trials as well as case reports on tracheal resections., Setting: No restrictions applied to hospital types or settings., Participants: Adult patients undergoing surgical resections of noncongenital tracheal stenoses with end-to-end anastomoses., Interventions: Airway management techniques were divided into conventional and new approaches and analyzed regarding their potential risks and benefits., Measurements and Main Results: A total of 59 publications (n = 797 patients) were included. The majority of publications (71.2%) describe conventional airway techniques. Endotracheal tube placement after induction of general anesthesia and surgical crossfield intubation after incision of the trachea were used most frequently without major complications. A total of 7 new approaches were identified, including 4 different regional anesthetic techniques (25 cases), supraglottic airways (4 cases), and new forms of extracorporeal support (25 cases). Overall failure rates of new techniques were low (1.8%). Details on patient selection and procedural specifics are provided., Conclusions: New approaches have several theoretical benefits, yet further research is required to establish criteria for patient selection and evaluate procedural safety. Given the low level of evidence, it currently is impossible to compare methods of airway management regarding outcome-related risks and benefits., (Copyright © 2017 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Abstract Background The objective of this study was to evaluate a modern combined video laryngoscopy and flexible fiberoptic bronchoscope approach to placement of a double lumen endobronchial tube and further characterize potential strengths and weaknesses of this approach. Methods Retrospective chart review was conducted at our single institution, academic medical center, tertiary-care hospital. Patients aged 18 years of age or older were evaluated who underwent thoracic surgery and one-lung ventilation with placement of a double lumen endobronchial tube using a novel combined video laryngoscopy and flexible fiberoptic bronchoscope approach. No interventions were performed. Results Demographics and induction and intubation documentation were reviewed for 21 patients who underwent thoracic surgery and one-lung ventilation with placement of a double lumen endobronchial tube using a novel combined video laryngoscopy and flexible fiberoptic bronchoscope approach. First pass success using the combined approach was 86% (18/21). The five patients with an anticipated difficult airway had successful double lumen endobronchial tube placement on the first attempt. There were no instances of desaturation during double lumen endobronchial tube placement. No airway complications related to double lumen endobronchial tube placement were recorded. Conclusion Use of a combined approach employing video laryngoscopy and a flexible fiberoptic bronchoscope may represent a reliable alternative approach to placement of double lumen endobronchial tubes.

Background: The objective of this study was to evaluate a modern combined video laryngoscopy and flexible fiberoptic bronchoscope approach to placement of a double lumen endobronchial tube and further characterize potential strengths and weaknesses of this approach. Methods: Retrospective chart review was conducted at our single institution, academic medical center, tertiary-care hospital. Patients aged 18 years of age or older were evaluated who underwent thoracic surgery and one-lung ventilation with placement of a double lumen endobronchial tube using a novel combined video laryngoscopy and flexible fiberoptic bronchoscope approach. No interventions were performed. Results: Demographics and induction and intubation documentation were reviewed for 21 patients who underwent thoracic surgery and one-lung ventilation with placement of a double lumen endobronchial tube using a novel combined video laryngoscopy and flexible fiberoptic bronchoscope approach. First pass success using the combined approach was 86% (18/21). The five patients with an anticipated difficult airway had successful double lumen endobronchial tube placement on the first attempt. There were no instances of desaturation during double lumen endobronchial tube placement. No airway complications related to double lumen endobronchial tube placement were recorded. Conclusion: Use of a combined approach employing video laryngoscopy and a flexible fiberoptic bronchoscope may represent a reliable alternative approach to placement of double lumen endobronchial tubes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Failure to provide one-lung ventilation can prohibit minimally invasive thoracic surgeries. Strategies for one-lung ventilation include double-lumen endotracheal tubes or endobronchial blockers, but rarely both. Inability to provide lung isolation after double-lumen endotracheal tube placement requires troubleshooting and sometimes the use of extra equipment. This case describes using a unique Y-shaped endobronchial blocker placed through a left-sided double-lumen endotracheal tube after failure to achieve lung isolation with a double-lumen endotracheal tube alone. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Anthropometric measurements like height and gender have been frequently found to be inaccurate in prediction of size of double lumen tube (DLT). A tracheal ultrasonography (TUS) is a technique that can be used to predict the size of DLT and its correct placement for lung isolation. We aim to check the accuracy of ultrasound over clinical methods. This prospective study included 68 patients undergoing elective thoracic surgery requiring one-lung ventilation (OLV) with DLT. The groups were assessed for the size of DLT by either anthropometric measurement using height and gender (Group C) or ultrasound method (Group U). Further, the accuracy of placement of DLT was assessed through, either lung auscultation in group C or various ultrasonographic and ventilatory parameters such as lung isolation in the first attempt (lung sliding and lung pulse sign), oxygenation status and peak airway pressure, in group U. Surgeon satisfaction score was also compared in both the groups. The accuracy of predicted DLT size between Group C and Group U was statistically significant (p=0.044). In Group C, 56% of patients showed a mismatch between the predicted DLT size and the actual size required, while in Group U, the mismatch was only 32.4%. The accuracy of DLT placement through group C was 41% as compared to 79% in Group U. Surgeon satisfaction score was also significantly higher in Group U as compared to Group C (p=0.0028). Thus, our study suggests that tracheal and chest ultrasonography for DLT size selection and placement for lung isolation is superior to clinical methods.

Background: While many hospitals in Germany perform thoracic surgery, anesthetic techniques and methods that are actually used are usually only known for individual departments. This study describes the general anesthetic management of three typical thoracic surgical procedures across multiple institutions. Material and methods: The German Thoracic Registry recorded 4614 patients in 5 institutions between 2016 and 2019. Hospitals with a minimum number of more than 50 thoracic procedures per year are eligible for inclusion in the registry. To analyze the anesthetic management, a matching process yielded three comparable patient groups (n = 1506) that differed solely in the surgical procedure. Three surgical procedures with varying degrees of invasiveness were selected: Group A = video-assisted thoracoscopic surgery (VATS) with wedge resection, group B = VATS with lobectomy, group C = open thoracotomy. Statistical analysis was performed descriptively using relative and absolute frequencies. Dichotomous variables were compared using the χ2-test. Results: The study enrolled patients with a median age of 65.6 years. The mean value of the American Society of Anesthesiologists (ASA) classification was 2.8. One lung ventilation was most commonly performed (group A = 98.2%, group B = 99.4%, group C = 98.0%) with double lumen tubes (DLT). Bronchial blockers (group A = 0.2%, group B = 0.4%, group C = 0%) were rarely used. Primary bronchoscopy was used to control double lumen tubes after insertion in the majority of cases (group A = 77.5%, group B = 73.1%, group C= 79.7%). Continuous positive airway pressure (CPAP, group A = 1.2%, group B = 1.4%, group C = 5.1%) and jet ventilation (group A = 1.6%, group B = 1.6%, group C = 1.4%) were rarely used intraoperatively. In group C, the administration of a vasopressor was also more frequently required (group A = 59.9%, group B = 77.8%, group C = 86%). A central venous catheter was established in 30.1% of all patients in group A, 39.8% in group B and 73.3% in group C. Patients in group A received an arterial catheter less frequently (71.7%) when compared to groups B (96.4%) and C (95.2%). Total intravenous anesthesia with propofol was used in most patients (group A = 67.7%, group B 61.6%, group C 75.7%). Propofol supplemented by volatile anesthetics was used less frequently (group A = 28.5%, group B = 35.5%, group C = 23.7%). With increasing invasiveness of the surgical procedure, placement of an epidural catheter was preferred (group A = 18.9%, group B = 29.5%, group C = 64.1%). Paravertebral catheters (group A = 7.6%, group B = 4.4%, group C = 4.8%) or a single infiltration of the paravertebral space were performed less frequently (group A = 7.8%, group B = 17.7%, group C = 11.6%). Postoperatively, some patients (3.4–25.7%) were transferred to the general ward. The largest proportion of patients transferred to a general ward underwent less invasive thoracic procedures (group A). When the extent of resection was greater (group B and group C) patients were mostly transferred to an intermediate care unit (IMC) or an intensive care unit (ICU). The insertion of invasive catheters was neither associated with the patients' ASA classification nor preoperative pathologic pulmonary function. Conclusion: Our data indicate that less invasive thoracic operations are associated with a reduction of invasive anesthetic procedures. As the presented data are descriptive, further studies are required to determine the impact of invasive anesthetic procedures on patient-related outcomes. This evaluation of the anesthetic management in experienced thoracic anesthesiology departments represents the next step towards establishing national quality standards and promoting structural quality in thoracic anesthesia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Abstract Background There is a major paradigm shift for intraoperative mechanical ventilator support by the introduction of lung protective ventilation strategies to reduce postoperative pulmonary complications and improve overall clinical outcomes in non-thoracic surgeries. However, there is currently a lack of standardized practice guideline for lung protection during thoracic surgeries that require one-lung ventilation (OLV). This study aimed to collect the expert opinions of the thoracic anesthesiologists in perioperative care for OLV surgery in Taiwan. Methods This prospective cross-sectional study was undertaken in 16 tertiary hospitals in Taiwan from January to February 2019. A structured survey form was distributed across the participating hospitals and the thoracic anesthesiologists were invited to complete the form voluntarily. The survey form consisted of three parts, including the basic information of the institutional anesthesia care standards, ventilatory settings for a proposed patient receiving OLV surgery and expert opinions on OLV. Results A total of 71 thoracic anesthesiologists responded to the survey. Double-lumen tubes are the most commonly used (93.8%) airway devices for OLV. The most commonly recommended ventilator setting during OLV is a tidal volume of 6–7 ml/kg PBW (67.6%) and a PEEP level of 4–6 cmH2O (73.5%). Dual controlled ventilator modes are used by 44.1% of the anesthesiologists. During OLV, high oxygen fraction (FiO2 > 0.8) is more commonly supplemented to achieve an oxygen saturation higher than 94%. The consensus of anesthesiologists on the indices for lung protection in thoracic surgery is considerably low. Large majority of the anesthesiologists (91.5%) highly recommend that an international clinical practice guideline on the protective lung ventilation strategy for thoracic anesthesia should be established. Conclusions This study found that the thoracic anesthesiologists in Taiwan share certain common practices in ventilator support during OLV. However, they are concerned about the lack of fundamental clinical evidences to support the beneficial outcomes of the current lung protective strategies applicable to OLV. Large-scale trials are needed to form an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for thoracic anesthesia.

Surgical resection and tracheal reconstruction are the most effective treatment options for airway stenosis. Tracheal surgery is challenging and requires a multidisciplinary approach and a highly specialized team of anesthesiologists and thoracic surgeons that are “sharing the airways”. Several airway management tools, different devices, and various approaches can be required to ensure ventilation and gas exchange. We describe the case of a patient affected by tight tracheal stenosis, submitted to tracheal resection and reconstruction via combined cervicotomy and sternotomy surgical approach. Airway management was successfully performed by i-gel® (Intersurgical, UK) supraglottic device.

Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) has quickly spread globally, causing a real pandemic. In this critical scenario, lung cancer patients scheduled for surgical treatment need to continue to receive optimal care while protecting them from an eventual severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection. Adequate use of personal protective equipment (PPE) during aerosol-generating procedures (AGPs) and a COVID-19 specific intraoperative management are paramount in order to prevent cross infections. New suggestions or improvement of existing contagion control guidance are needed, even in case of non-symptomatic patients, possibly responsible for virus spread. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Surgical resection and tracheal reconstruction are the most effective treatment options for airway stenosis. Tracheal surgery is challenging and requires a multidisciplinary approach and a highly specialized team of anesthesiologists and thoracic surgeons that are "sharing the airways". Several airway management tools, different devices, and various approaches can be required to ensure ventilation and gas exchange. We describe the case of a patient affected by tight tracheal stenosis, submitted to tracheal resection and reconstruction via combined cervicotomy and sternotomy surgical approach. Airway management was successfully performed by i-gel® (Intersurgical, UK) supraglottic device. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Carinal pneumonectomy is a challenging procedure because of the difficulties in surgical technique, intraoperative airway management, and postoperative respiratory and anastomotic complications. However, information regarding the anesthetic and intraoperative respiratory management of this procedure is scarce. This report describes our routine anesthetic and respiratory management strategy in patients undergoing carinal pneumonectomy. Medical records of 13 patients who underwent carinal pneumonectomy under combined general and epidural anesthesia between 2008 and 2012 were analyzed retrospectively. Eleven patients underwent right carinal pneumonectomy and two underwent left carinal pneumonectomy. A left double-lumen tube was used in all but one case, in which endobronchial intubation was difficult because of intrabronchial invasion of the tumor. A 6.0-mm-long reinforced endobronchial tube was intubated into the main bronchus of the non-operative side from the surgical field during carinal resection. There were no episodes of severe hypoxemia or hypercapnia during surgery. Twelve patients were extubated immediately after surgery. No patient developed post-thoracotomy acute lung injury or required postoperative reintubation despite poor preoperative respiratory function. The 30-day mortality rate was 0 %. Our airway management protocol for carinal pneumonectomy enables positive surgical outcomes. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: The object of this study was to conduct and analyze the output of a survey involving a cohort of all Italian hospitals performing thoracic surgery to gather data on anesthetic management, one-lung ventilation (OLV) management, and post-thoracotomy pain relief in thoracic anesthesia. Design: Survey. Setting: Italy. Participants: An invitation to participate in the survey was e-mailed to all the members of the Italian Society of Anesthesia and Intensive Care Medicine. Intervention: None. Measurements and Main Results: A total of 62 responses were received from 47 centers. The key findings were: Double-lumen tube is still the first choice lung separation technique in current use; pressure-controlled ventilation and volume-controlled ventilation modes are homogenously distributed across the sample and, a tidal volumes (VT) of 4-6 mL/kg during OLV was preferred to all others; moderate or restrictive fluid management were the most used strategies of fluid administration in thoracic anesthesia; thoracic epidural analgesia represented the “gold standard” for post-thoracotomy pain relief in combination with intravenous analgesia. Conclusion: The results of this survey showed that Italian anesthesiologist follow the recommended standard of care for anesthetic management during OLV. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Background: There is a major paradigm shift for intraoperative mechanical ventilator support by the introduction of lung protective ventilation strategies to reduce postoperative pulmonary complications and improve overall clinical outcomes in non-thoracic surgeries. However, there is currently a lack of standardized practice guideline for lung protection during thoracic surgeries that require one-lung ventilation (OLV). This study aimed to collect the expert opinions of the thoracic anesthesiologists in perioperative care for OLV surgery in Taiwan. Methods: This prospective cross-sectional study was undertaken in 16 tertiary hospitals in Taiwan from January to February 2019. A structured survey form was distributed across the participating hospitals and the thoracic anesthesiologists were invited to complete the form voluntarily. The survey form consisted of three parts, including the basic information of the institutional anesthesia care standards, ventilatory settings for a proposed patient receiving OLV surgery and expert opinions on OLV. Results: A total of 71 thoracic anesthesiologists responded to the survey. Double-lumen tubes are the most commonly used (93.8%) airway devices for OLV. The most commonly recommended ventilator setting during OLV is a tidal volume of 6–7 ml/kg PBW (67.6%) and a PEEP level of 4–6 cmH2O (73.5%). Dual controlled ventilator modes are used by 44.1% of the anesthesiologists. During OLV, high oxygen fraction (FiO2 > 0.8) is more commonly supplemented to achieve an oxygen saturation higher than 94%. The consensus of anesthesiologists on the indices for lung protection in thoracic surgery is considerably low. Large majority of the anesthesiologists (91.5%) highly recommend that an international clinical practice guideline on the protective lung ventilation strategy for thoracic anesthesia should be established. Conclusions: This study found that the thoracic anesthesiologists in Taiwan share certain common practices in ventilator support during OLV. However, they are concerned about the lack of fundamental clinical evidences to support the beneficial outcomes of the current lung protective strategies applicable to OLV. Large-scale trials are needed to form an evidence-based clinical practice guideline for thoracic anesthesia. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]