Search

Copyright of Canadian Journal of Anaesthesia / Journal Canadien d'Anesthésie is the property of Springer Nature and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use. This abstract may be abridged. No warranty is given about the accuracy of the copy. Users should refer to the original published version of the material for the full abstract. (Copyright applies to all Abstracts.)

The administration of medications is central to anaesthetists’ care of patients. Errors are inevitable in any human endeavour, but should be distinguished from violations. The incidence of medication errors in anaesthesia has been estimated as 1 per 13 000 administrations, excluding errors in recording. Adverse medication events follow a proportion of these errors. Labelling is a key element of medication safety. There is a long-standing need for improvements in the labelling of ampoules and vials. An international standard exists for labelling syringes used during anaesthesia (ISO 26825). Australia has recently released national recommendations for labelling lines and injectable medications that complement this and other relevant standards. The provision of at least some medications in pre-filled syringes would reduce the number of steps involved in medication administration, increase the certainty that syringe labels are correct and probably reduce medication errors. Pre-printed, peel-off flag labels on ampoules and vials are a less expensive alternative to pre-filled syringes to facilitate correct labelling. The medication name on user-applied labels should be matched to that on the relevant ampoule or vial at the time of drawing up any medication. All lines and catheters should be labelled. Any medicine or fluid that cannot be identified (e.g., in an unlabelled syringe or other container) should be considered unsafe and discarded. Reducing adverse medication events will require the engagement of individual anaesthetists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: A previous study showed less postoperative neurocognitive impairment in open-chamber cardiac surgery patients given lidocaine for 48 hours after induction of anesthesia. In the present study, we aimed to test the benefit of a 12-hour infusion in a broader group of cardiac surgery patients, including those undergoing coronary artery bypass graft surgery. Methods: This was a randomized, double-blind, intention-to-treat trial. Before cardiac surgery, 158 patients completed 7 neurocognitive tests and a self-rating scale for memory. They received a 12-hour infusion of either lidocaine in a standard antiarrhythmic dose or placebo, beginning at induction of anesthesia. The cognitive tests and memory scale were repeated at postoperative weeks 10 and 25. A deficit in any cognitive test was defined as a decline in score by more than or equal to the preoperative group standard deviation. Results: All tests were completed by 118 and 107 patients at 10 and 25 weeks, respectively. The proportions of patients in the lidocaine and placebo groups exhibiting a deficit in one or more tests were as follows: 45.8% versus 40.7% at 10 weeks, and 35.2% versus 37.7% at 25 weeks (not significant). There were no significant differences between groups in self-ratings of memory function or length of intensive care unit or hospital stay. Conclusions: Lidocaine was not neuroprotective. The result of the previous trial may represent a type 1 error. Alternatively, benefit may be more likely for open-chamber surgery patients exposed to larger numbers of emboli or with a longer lidocaine infusion. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

Objective: Exposure to cerebral emboli is ubiquitous and may be harmful in cardiac surgery utilizing cardiopulmonary bypass. This was a prospective observational study aiming to compare emboli exposure in closed-chamber with open-chamber cardiac surgery, distinguish particulate from gaseous emboli and examine cerebral laterality in distribution. Methods: Forty patients underwent either closed-chamber procedures (n = 20) or open-chamber procedures (n = 20). Emboli (gaseous and solid) were detected using transcranial Doppler in both middle cerebral arteries in two monitoring phases: 1, initiation of bypass to the removal of the aortic cross-clamp; and 2, removal of aortic cross-clamp to 20 minutes after venous decannulation. Results: Total (median (interquartile range)) emboli counts (both phases) were 898 (499–1366) and 2617 (1007–5847) in closed-chamber and open-chamber surgeries, respectively. The vast majority were gaseous; median 794 (closed-chamber surgery) and 2240 (open-chamber surgery). When normalized for duration, there was no difference between emboli exposures in closed-chamber and open-chamber surgery in phase 1: 6.8 (3.6–15.2) versus 6.4 (2.0–18.1) emboli per minute, respectively. In phase 2, closed-chamber surgery cases were exposed to markedly fewer emboli than open-chamber surgery cases: 9.6 (5.1–14.9) versus 43.3 (19.7–60.3) emboli per minute, respectively. More emboli (total) passed into the right cerebral circulation: 985 (397–2422) right versus 376 (198–769) left. Conclusions: Patients undergoing open-chamber surgery are exposed to considerably higher numbers of cerebral arterial emboli after removal of the aortic cross-clamp than those undergoing closed-chamber surgery, and more emboli enter the right middle cerebral artery than the left. These results may help inform the evaluation of the pathophysiological impact of emboli exposure. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Safety checklists have improved safety in patients undergoing surgery. Checklists have been designed specifically for use in image-guided interventions. This systematic review aimed to identify checklists designed for use in radiological interventions and to evaluate their efficacy for improving patient safety. Secondary aims were to evaluate attitudes toward checklists and barriers to their use. OVID, MEDLINE, CENTRAL and CINAHL were searched using terms for "interventional radiology" and "checklist". Studies were included if they described pre-procedural checklist use in vascular/body interventional radiology (IR), paediatric IR or interventional neuro-radiology (INR). Data on checklist design, implementation and outcomes were extracted. Sixteen studies were included. Most studies (n = 14, 87.5%) focused on body IR. Two studies (12.5%) measured perioperative outcome after checklist implementation, but both had important limitations. Checklist use varied between 54 and 100% and completion of items on the checklists varied between 28 and 100%. Several barriers to checklist use were identified, including a lack of leadership and education and cultural challenges unique to radiology. We found few reports of the use of checklists in image-guided interventions. Approaches to checklist implementation varied, and several barriers to their use were identified. Evaluation has been limited. There seems to be considerable potential to improve the effective use of checklists in radiological procedures. There are few reports of the use of checklists in radiological interventions, those identified reported significant barriers to the effective use of checklists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Postoperative infection is a serious problem in New Zealand and internationally with considerable human and financial costs. Also, in New Zealand, certain factors that contribute to postoperative infection are more common in Māori and Pacific populations. To date, most efforts to reduce postoperative infection have focussed on surgical aspects of care and on antibiotic prophylaxis, but recent research shows that anaesthesia providers may also have an impact on infection transmission. These providers sometimes exhibit imperfect hand hygiene and frequently transfer the blood or saliva of their patients to their work environment. In addition, intravenous medications may become contaminated whilst being drawn up and administered to patients. Working with relevant practitioners and other experts, we have developed an evidence-informed bundle to improve key aseptic practices by anaesthetists with the aim of reducing postoperative infection. The key elements of the bundle are the filtering of compatible drugs, context-relevant hand hygiene practices and enhanced maintenance of clean work surfaces.Methods: We will seek support for implementation of the bundle from senior anaesthesia and hospital leadership and departmental "champions". Anaesthetic teams and recovery room staff will be educated about the bundle and its potential benefits through presentations, written material and illustrative videos. We will implement the bundle in operating rooms where hip or knee arthroplasty or cardiac surgery procedures are undertaken in a five-site, stepped wedge, cluster randomised, quality improvement design. We will compare outcomes between approximately 5000 cases before and 5000 cases after implementation of our bundle. Outcome data will be collected from existing national and hospital databases. Our primary outcome will be days alive and out of hospital to 90 days, which is expected to reflect all serious postoperative infections. Our secondary outcome will be the rate of surgical site infection. Aseptic practice will be observed in sampled cases in each cluster before and after implementation of the bundle.Discussion: If effective, our bundle may offer a practical clinical intervention to reduce postoperative infection and its associated substantial human and financial costs.Trial Registration: Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12618000407291 . Registered on 21 March 2018. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient-reported outcome (PRO) measures (PROMs) are increasingly used as endpoints in surgical trials. PROs need to be consistently measured and reported to accurately evaluate surgical care. Laparoscopic cholecystectomy (LC) is a commonly performed procedure which may be evaluated by PROs. We aimed to evaluate the frequency and consistency of PRO measurement and reporting after LC.Methods: MEDLINE, EMBASE, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials were searched for prospective studies reporting PROs of LC, between 2013 and 2016. Data on the measurement and reporting of PROs were extracted.Results: A total of 281 studies were evaluated. Forty-five unique multi-item questionnaires were identified, most of which were used in single studies (n = 35). One hundred and ten unique rating scales were used to assess 358 PROs. The visual analogue scale was used to assess 24 different PROs, 17 of which were only reported in single studies. Details about the type of rating scale used were not given for 72 scales. Three hundred and twenty-three PROs were reported in 162 studies without details given about the scale or questionnaire used to evaluate them.Conclusions: Considerable variation was identified in the choice of PROs reported after LC, and in how they were measured. PRO measurement for LC is focused on short-term outcomes, such as post-operative pain, rather than longer-term outcomes. Consideration should be given towards the development of a core outcome set for LC which incorporates PROs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]