Search

Abstract Background We investigated the influence of genotyping errors on the type I error rate and empirical power of two haplotype based association methods applied to candidate regions. We compared the performance of the Mantel Statistic Using Haplotype Sharing and the haplotype frequency based score test with that of the Armitage trend test. Our study is based on 1000 replication of simulated case-control data settings with 500 cases and 500 controls, respectively. One of the examined markers was set to be the disease locus with a simulated odds ratio of 3. Differential and non-differential genotyping errors were introduced following a misclassification model with varying mean error rates per locus in the range of 0.2% to 15.6%. Results We found that the type I error rate of all three test statistics hold the nominal significance level in the presence of nondifferential genotyping errors and low error rates. For high and differential error rates, the type I error rate of all three test statistics was inflated, even when genetic markers not in Hardy-Weinberg Equilibrium were removed. The empirical power of all three association test statistics remained high at around 89% to 94% when genotyping error rates were low, but decreased to 48% to 80% for high and nondifferential genotyping error rates. Conclusion Currently realistic genotyping error rates for candidate gene analysis (mean error rate per locus of 0.2%) pose no significant problem for the type I error rate as well as the power of all three investigated test statistics.

The Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists (ANZCA) recently reviewed and updated the guideline on equipment to manage a difficult airway. An ANZCA-established document development group, which included representatives from the Australasian College for Emergency Medicine and the College of Intensive Care Medicine of Australia and New Zealand, performed the review, which is based on expert consensus, an extensive literature review, and bi-nationwide consultation. The guideline (PG56(A) 2021, https://www.anzca.edu.au/getattachment/02fe1a4c-14f0-4ad1-8337-c281d26bfa17/PS56-Guideline-on-equipment-to-manage-difficult-airways) is accompanied by a detailed background paper (PG56(A)BP 2021, https://www.anzca.edu.au/getattachment/9ef4cd97-2f02-47fe-a63a-9f74fa7c68ac/PG56(A)BP-Guideline-on-equipment-to-manage-difficult-airways-Background-Paper), from which the current recommendations are reproduced on behalf of, and with the permission of, ANZCA. The updated 2021 guideline replaces the 2012 version and aims to provide an updated, objective, informed, transparent, and evidence-based review of equipment to manage difficult airways.

Airway Management is the key for anaesthetists dealing with patients undergoing diagnostic procedures and surgical interventions. The present coronavirus pandemic underpins even more how important safe airway management is. It also highlights the need to apply stringent precautions to avoid infection and ongoing transmission to patients, anaesthetists and other healthcare workers (HCWs). In light of this extraordinary global situation the aim of this article is to update the reader on the varied aspects of the ever-changing tasks anaesthetists are involved in and highlight the equipment, devices and techniques that have evolved in response to changing technology and unique patient and surgical requirements.

Published reports of uvular necrosis are uncommon and it is possibly an under-reported complication of oropharyngeal manipulation. Uvular necrosis is thought to develop due to ischaemia secondary to mechanical compression of the uvula from oropharyngeal devices. Patients typically present with symptoms of a sore throat within 48 hours postoperatively. It is unclear whether there are any preventable factors, or any specific management strategies that might reduce this complication. Treatment is most commonly conservative management, including observation and simple analgesia. We present 13 cases of uvular injury that were reported to a web-based anaesthesia incident reporting system (webAIRS), a voluntary de-identified anaesthesia incident reporting system in Australia and New Zealand. While the postoperative findings varied, sore throat was the most frequent symptom. Most of the cases resolved spontaneously; the remainder with supportive treatment only. The findings suggest that patients who sustain a uvular injury can be reassured, but they should be advised to seek review early if sore throat persists or any difficulty with breathing develops.

This audit of airway incidents was conducted over six months in 12 tertiary level hospitals across Australia and New Zealand. During that time, 131,233 patients had airway management and 111 reports were submitted (incidence 0.08%). The airway incidents included a combination of difficult airway management (83), oxygen desaturation (58), aspiration (19), regurgitation (14), laryngospasm (16), airway bleeding (10), bronchospasm (5) and dental injury (4), which gave a total of 209 events in 111 reports. Most incidents occurred during general anaesthesia (GA; 83.8%) and normal working hours (81.1%). Forty-three percent were associated with head and neck surgery and 12.6% with upper abdominal procedures. Of these patients, 52% required further medical treatment or additional procedures and 16.2% required unplanned admission to an intensive care unit or a high dependency unit. A total of 31.5% of patients suffered from temporary harm and 1.8% from permanent harm. There was one death. The factors associated with a high relative risk (RR) of an airway incident included American Society of Anesthesiologists Physical Status (ASA PS) (ASA PS 2 versus 1, RR 1.75; ASA PS 3 versus 1, RR 3.56; ASA PS 4 versus 1, RR 6.1), and emergency surgery (RR 2.16 compared with elective). Sedation and monitored anaesthesia care were associated with lower RRs (RR 0.49 and RR 0.73 versus GA, respectively). Inadequate airway assessment, poor judgement and poor planning appeared to be contributors to these events. Future teaching and research should focus on these areas to further improve airway management and patient safety.

Central venous catheter insertion is a routine procedure performed by anaesthetists in the peri-operative setting. Upper body central venous catheters are usually placed such that their tip lies within the superior vena cava or at the cavo-atrial junction. Positioning the tip 'too low' in the right atrium has long been argued against on the basis that it increases the risk of perforation, leading to cardiac tamponade. Positioning the tip 'too high' in the brachiocephalic vein or above can also be problematic in that proximal migration can result in extravascular placement of the proximal lumen. Such an incident occurred at our hospital in 2016, resulting in extravasation of a vesicant medication causing tissue necrosis. We undertook a quality improvement project involving a standardised bundle of care and a peri-operative central venous catheter insertion checklist with the aim of reducing the risk of such an incident re-occurring. We conducted a three-month pre-intervention audit (n = 84) in 2016 and a post-intervention audit (n = 84) in 2017. Compared with the pre-intervention audit, the post-intervention audit coincided with a lower rate of central venous catheter tip malpositioning (5.6% vs. 9.2%); and a higher rate of 'optimal' central venous catheter tip position in the distal superior vena cava or cavo-atrial junction (45.1% vs. 29.2%). The central venous catheter insertion checklist also substantially improved documentation of sterility measures, insertion depth and post-insertional documentation of tip position on chest radiograph., (© 2019 Association of Anaesthetists.)