Search

BackgroundSurgery for catecholamine-producing tumours can be complicated by intraoperative and postoperative haemodynamic instability. Several perioperative management strategies have emerged but none has been evaluated in randomized trials. To assess this issue, contemporary perioperative management and outcome data from 21 centres were collected.MethodsTwenty-one centres contributed outcome data from patients who had surgery for phaeochromocytoma and paraganglioma between 2000 and 2017. The data included the number of patients with and without α-receptor blockade, surgical and anaesthetic techniques, complications and perioperative mortality.ResultsAcross all centres, data were reported on 1860 patients with phaeochromocytoma or paraganglioma, of whom 343 underwent surgery without α-receptor blockade. The majority of operations (78·9 per cent) were performed using minimally invasive techniques, including 16·1 per cent adrenal cortex-sparing procedures. The cardiovascular complication rate was 5·0 per cent overall: 5·9 per cent (90 of 1517) in patients with preoperative α-receptor blockade and 0·9 per cent (3 of 343) among patients without α-receptor blockade. The mortality rate was 0·5 per cent overall (9 of 1860): 0·5 per cent (8 of 517) in pretreated and 0·3 per cent (1 of 343) in non-pretreated patients.ConclusionThere is substantial variability in the perioperative management of catecholamine-producing tumours, yet the overall complication rate is low. Further studies are needed to better define the optimal management approach, and reappraisal of international perioperative guidelines appears desirable.

Background: Lidocaine inhalation, in subjects with bronchial hyperreactivity, attenuates evoked bronchoconstriction but also irritates airways. Whether salbutamol pretreatment can mitigate airway irritation and whether combined treatment offers more protection than treatment with either drug alone is unknown. Therefore, we evaluated the effects of the inhalation of lidocaine, salbutamol, lidocaine and salbutamol combined, and placebo on an inhalational histamine challenge.Methods: Fifteen patients with mild asthma were selected by a screening procedure (ie, a provocative concentration of a substance [histamine aerosol of < 18 mg/mL] causing a 20% fall in FEV(1) [PC(20)]). On 4 different days after pretreatment with the inhalation of lidocaine (5 mg/kg), inhalation of salbutamol (1.5 mg), combined treatment, or placebo, the histamine challenge was repeated.Results: The baseline FEV(1) after lidocaine inhalation but prior to the histamine challenge decreased by > 5% in 7 of 15 volunteers, with a mean (+/- SD) decrease from 3.82 +/- 0.90 to 3.54 +/- 0.86 L (p = 0.0054). The baseline PC(20) for histamine was 6.4 +/- 4.3 mg/mL. Both lidocaine and salbutamol inhalation significantly increased PC(20) more than twofold (14.9 +/- 13.7 and 16.8 +/- 10.9 mg/mL, respectively; p = 0, 0007) at a lidocaine plasma concentration of 0.7 +/- 0.3 microg/mL. Combined treatment quadrupled the PC(20) to 29.7 +/- 20.3 mg/mL (vs lidocaine, p = 0.002; vs salbutamol, p = 0.003).Conclusions: Thus, histamine-evoked bronchoconstriction, as a model of reflex bronchoconstriction, can be significantly attenuated by salbutamol or lidocaine inhalation. However, lidocaine inhalation causes significant initial bronchoconstriction. The combined inhalation of salbutamol and lidocaine prevents the initial bronchoconstriction observed with lidocaine alone and offers even more protection to a histamine challenge than either lidocaine or salbutamol alone. Therefore, the combined inhalation of lidocaine and salbutamol can be recommended to mitigate bronchoconstriction when airway instrumentation is required. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Numerous indirect laryngoscopes have been introduced into clinical practice and their use for tracheal intubation under local anaesthesia has been described. However, a study comparing indirect laryngoscopic vs fibreoptic intubation under local anaesthesia and sedation appears lacking. Therefore, we evaluated both techniques in 100 patients with an anticipated difficult nasal intubation time for intubation the primary outcome. We also assessed success rate, glottic view, Ramsey score, and patients' and anaesthetists' satisfaction. The median (IQR [range]) time for intubation was significantly shorter with the videolaryngoscope with 38 (24-65 [11-420]) s vs 94 (48-323 [19-1020]) s (p < 0.0001). There was no difference in the success rate of intubation (96% for both techniques; p > 0.9999) and satisfaction of the anaesthetists and patients. We conclude that in anticipated difficult nasal intubation a videolaryngoscope represents an acceptable alternative to fibreoptic intubation. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]