Search

Purpose: Numerous guideline recommendations for airway and perioperative management during the COVID-19 pandemic have been published. We identified, synthesized, and compared guidelines intended for anesthesiologists., Source: Member society websites of the World Federation of Societies of Anesthesiologists and the European Society of Anesthesiologists were searched. Recommendations that focused on perioperative airway management of patients with proven or potential COVID-19 were included. Accelerated screening was used; data were extracted by one reviewer and verified by a second. Data were organized into themes based on perioperative phase of care., Principal Findings: Thirty unique sets of recommendations were identified. None reported methods for systematically searching or selecting evidence to be included. Four were updated following initial publication. For induction and airway management, most recommended minimizing personnel and having the most experienced anesthesiologist perform tracheal intubation. Significant congruence was observed among recommendations that discussed personal protective equipment. Of those that discussed tracheal intubation methods, most (96%) recommended videolaryngoscopy, while discordance existed regarding use of flexible bronchoscopy. Intraoperatively, 23% suggested specific anesthesia techniques and most (63%) recommended a specific operating room for patients with COVID-19. Postoperatively, a minority discussed extubation procedures (33%), or care in the recovery room (40%). Non-technical considerations were discussed in 27% and psychological support for healthcare providers in 10%., Conclusion: Recommendations for perioperative airway management of patients with COVID-19 overlap to a large extent but also show significant differences. Given the paucity of data early in the pandemic, it is not surprising that identified publications largely reflected expert opinion rather than empirical evidence. We suggest future efforts should promote coordinated responses and provide suggestions for studying and establishing best practices in perioperative patients., Study Registration: Open Science Framework ( https://osf.io/a2k4u/ ); date created, 26 March 2020., (© 2022. Canadian Anesthesiologists' Society.)

Background: Evidence suggests that there are substantial inconsistencies in the practice of anesthesia. There has not yet been a comprehensive summary of the anesthesia literature that can guide future knowledge translation interventions to move evidence into practice. As the first step toward identifying the most promising interventions for systematic implementation in anesthesia practice, this scoping review of multicentre RCTs aimed to explore and map the existing literature investigating perioperative anesthesia-related interventions and clinical patient outcomes., Methods: Multicenter randomized controlled trials were eligible for inclusion if they involved a tested anesthesia-related intervention administered to adult surgical patients (≥ 16 years old), with a control group receiving either another anesthesia intervention or no intervention at all. The electronic databases Embase (via OVID), MEDLINE, and MEDLINE in Process (via OVID), and Cochrane Central Register of Control Trials (CENTRAL) were searched from inception to February 26, 2021. Studies were screened and data were extracted by pairs of independent reviewers in duplicate with disagreements resolved through consensus or a third reviewer. Data were summarized narratively., Results: We included 638 multicentre randomized controlled trials (n patients = 615,907) that met the eligibility criteria. The most commonly identified anesthesia-related intervention theme across all studies was pharmacotherapy (n studies = 361 [56.6%]; n patients = 244,610 [39.7%]), followed by anesthetic technique (n studies = 80 [12.5%], n patients = 48,455 [7.9%]). Interventions were most often implemented intraoperatively (n studies = 233 [36.5%]; n patients = 175,974 [28.6%]). Studies typically involved multiple types of surgeries (n studies = 187 [29.2%]; n patients = 206 667 [33.5%]), followed by general surgery only (n studies = 115 [18.1%]; n patients = 201,028 [32.6%]) and orthopedic surgery only (n studies = 94 [14.7%]; n patients = 34,575 [5.6%]). Functional status was the most commonly investigated outcome (n studies = 272), followed by patient experience (n studies = 168), and mortality (n studies = 153)., Conclusions: This scoping review provides a map of multicenter RCTs in anesthesia which can be used to optimize future research endeavors in the field. Specifically, we have identified key knowledge gaps in anesthesia that require further systematic assessment, as well as areas where additional research would likely not add value. These findings provide the foundation for streamlining knowledge translation in anesthesia in order to reduce practice variation and enhance patient outcomes., (© 2021. The Author(s).)

The goal of this narrative review is to evaluate the efficacy of available questionnaires for assessing the outcomes of "continence difficulty" interventions and to assess the selected questionnaires concerning aspects of stigmatization. The literature was searched for research related to urinary incontinence, as well as questionnaires and rating scale outcome measurement tools. The following sources were searched: Cochrane Library, EMBASE, Medline, and PubMed. The following keywords were used separately or in combination: "Urinary incontinence," "therapy," "treatment outcome," "patient satisfaction," "quality of life," "systematic reviews," "aged 65+ years," and "questionnaire." The search yielded 194 references, of which 11 questionnaires fit the inclusion criteria; 6 of the 11 questionnaires did not have any stigma content and the content regarding stigma that was identified in the other five was very limited. A representative model of how stigma impacts continence difficulty interventions was proposed. While the 11 incontinence specific measurement tools that were assessed were well researched and designed specifically to measure the outcomes of incontinence interventions, they have not been used consistently or extensively and none of the measures thoroughly assess stigma. Further studies are required to examine how the stigma associated with continence difficulty impacts upon health care interventions., Competing Interests: The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.