Search

COVID-19, the respiratory disease caused by SARS-CoV-2, is thought to cause a milder illness in pregnancy with a greater proportion of asymptomatic carriers. This has important implications for the risk of patient-to-staff, staff-to-staff and staff-to-patient transmission among health professionals in maternity units. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of previously undiagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection in health professionals from two tertiary-level maternity units in London, UK, and to determine associations between healthcare workers' characteristics, reported symptoms and serological evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection. In total, 200 anaesthetists, midwives and obstetricians, with no previously confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19, were tested for immune seroconversion using laboratory IgG assays. Comprehensive symptom and medical histories were also collected. Five out of 40 (12.5%; 95%CI 4.2-26.8%) anaesthetists, 7/52 (13.5%; 95%CI 5.6-25.8%) obstetricians and 17/108 (15.7%; 95%CI 9.5-24.0%) midwives were seropositive, with an overall total of 29/200 (14.5%; 95%CI 9.9-20.1%) of maternity healthcare workers testing positive for IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Of those who had seroconverted, 10/29 (35.5%) were completely asymptomatic. Fever or cough were only present in 6/29 (21%) and 10/29 (35%) respectively. Anosmia was the most common symptom occurring in 15/29 (52%) seropositive participants and was the only symptom that was predictive of positive seroconversion (OR 18; 95%CI 6-55). Of those who were seropositive, 59% had not self-isolated at any point and continued to provide patient care in the hospital setting. This is the largest study of baseline immune seroconversion in maternity healthcare workers conducted to date and reveals that one out of six were seropositive, of whom one out of three were asymptomatic. This has significant implications for the risk of occupational transmission of SARS-CoV-2 for both staff and patients in maternity units. Regular testing of staff, including asymptomatic staff should be considered to reduce transmission risk.

Caesarean delivery is the most commonly performed inpatient surgical procedure globally. Pain after caesarean delivery is moderate to severe if not adequately treated, and is a primary anaesthetic concern for patients. Transversus abdominis plane and quadratus lumborum blocks are fascial plane blocks that have the potential to improve analgesia following caesarean delivery. Although proponents of the quadratus lumborum block suggest that this technique may provide better analgesia compared with transversus abdominis plane block, there are limited data directly comparing these two techniques. We, therefore, performed a systematic review and network meta-analysis to compare transversus abdominis plane and quadratus lumborum block approaches, seeking randomised controlled trials comparing both techniques to each other, or to control, with or without intrathecal morphine. In all, 31 trials with 2188 patients were included and our primary outcome, the cumulative intravenous morphine equivalent consumption at 24 h, was reported in 12 trials. In the absence of intrathecal morphine, transversus abdominis plane and quadratus lumborum blocks were equivalent, and both were superior to control (moderate-quality evidence). In the presence of intrathecal morphine, no differences were found between control, transversus abdominis plane and quadratus lumborum blocks (moderate-quality evidence). Similar results were found for resting and active pain scores at 4-6 h, 8-12 h, 24 h and 36 h, although quadratus lumborum block was associated with lower pain scores at 36 h when compared with transversus abdominis plane block (very low-quality evidence). However, transversus abdominis plane block was associated with a reduced incidence of postoperative nausea and vomiting (moderate-quality evidence) and sedation when compared with inactive control following intrathecal morphine administration (low-quality evidence). There are insufficient data to draw definitive conclusions, but transversus abdominis plane and quadratus lumborum block appear to be superior to control in the absence of intrathecal morphine, but provide limited additional benefit over inactive control when intrathecal morphine is also used.

Levobupivacaine is a long-acting amide local anaesthetic used in analgesia and anaesthesia. Like other local anaesthetic drugs, levobupivacaine exhibits effects on motor and sensory nerves by inhibiting the opening of voltage-gated sodium channels, and hence propagation of neuronal action potentials. Levobupivacaine is the S(-) stereoisomer of dextrobupivacaine, although both are used commercially in the racemic form bupivacaine. A favourable safety and drug effect profile for levobupivacaine has led to widespread use. Levobupivacaine is generally well tolerated but dose adjustment is important in populations such as paediatrics and the elderly. The pharmacokinetic properties of levobupivacaine are similar to that of bupivacaine; both extensively metabolised in the liver, and excreted in the urine and faeces. In vitro, animal model and human studies confirm a lower risk of cardiac and central nervous system toxicity with levobupivacaine compared with bupivacaine. Clinical trials of relative potency are impaired by the variability in chosen endpoints for sensory and motor function blockade, but clinically significant differences in potency are minor, with most clinical trials showing similar duration and quality of anaesthesia between levo- and racemic bupivacaine. In practice, levobupivacaine is most commonly used in regional anaesthesia, neuraxial anaesthesia and local infiltration analgesia. This review includes an appraisal of evidence from clinical trials of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of levobupivacaine.

Fascia iliaca compartment block (FICB) is an increasingly popular analgesic technique in elderly patients with hip fracture. Despite requiring large volumes of local anaesthetic, there are no plasma pharmacokinetic data on FICB in elderly patients. The objective of this study was to determine the pharmacokinetic profile of a levobupivacaine 75 mg (30 mL 0.25%) FICB dose in patients aged ≥ 80 years with fractured femur. This was a single-arm descriptive pilot study. Twelve adults aged ≥ 80 years with hip fracture received FICB performed under ultrasound guidance. Venous blood was sampled at 10, 20, 30, 45, 60, 75, 90, 105, 120 and 240 min after injection. Total plasma levobupivacaine concentration was measured by mass spectrometry. The main outcome measures were pharmacokinetic parameters, including maximum observed plasma concentration (Cmax), time to reach Cmax (tmax) and area under the plasma concentration–time curve. The median (interquartile range [IQR]) Cmax was 0.82 μg/mL (0.47–1.03). tmax was 45 min (41:20–60:00). No evidence of toxicity was identified. Plasma levobupivacaine concentrations were below the threshold associated with toxicity in younger, healthy patients (2.6 μg/mL). No association was found between individual patient Cmax and α1-acid glycoprotein, weight or body mass index, although the study was not powered for these outcomes. Absorption of levobupivacaine was slow and all patients had plasma concentrations below the toxic threshold. This pharmacokinetic analysis concludes that the technique appears to be well-tolerated and efficacious at reducing pain and is associated with systemic plasma concentrations unlikely to be associated with major adverse effects in elderly patients. ISRCTN27364035 (UK Clinical Trials Gateway).

The world is currently facing an unprecedented healthcare crisis caused by a pandemic novel beta coronavirus, severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2). The pathogen is spread by human-to-human transmission via droplets exposure and contact transfer, causing mild symptoms in the majority of cases, but critical illness, bilateral viral pneumonia, and acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) in a minority. Currently, controlling infection to prevent the spread of SARS-CoV-2 is the primary public healthcare intervention used. The pace of transmission and global scale of SARS-CoV-2 infections has implications for strategic oversight, resource management, and responsiveness in infection control. This article presents a summary of learning points in epidemiological infection control from the SARS epidemic, alongside a review of evidence connecting current understanding of the virologic and environmental contamination properties of SARS-CoV-2. We present suggestions for how personal protective equipment policies relate to the viral pandemic context and how the risk of transmission by and to anaesthetists, intensivists, and other healthcare workers can be minimised.

SummaryCOVID-19, the respiratory disease caused by the SARS-CoV-2, is thought to cause a milder illness in pregnancy with a greater proportion of asymptomatic carriers. This has important implications for the risk of patient-to-staff, staff-to-staff and staff-to patient transmission among health professionals in maternity. The aim of this study was to investigate the prevalence of previously undiagnosed SARS-CoV-2 infection in health professionals from two tertiary-level maternity units in London, UK and to determine associations between HCW characteristics, reported symptoms and serological evidence of prior SARS-CoV-2 infection.200 anaesthetists, midwives and obstetricians with no previously confirmed diagnosis of COVID-19 were tested for immune seroconversion using laboratory IgG assays. Comprehensive symptom and medical histories were also collected. 5/40 (12.5%; 95% CI: 4.2-26.8) anaesthetists, 7/52 (13.5%; 95% CI: 5.6-25.8%) obstetricians and 17/108 (15.7%; 95% CI: 9.5-24.0%) midwives were seropositive, with an overall total of 29/200 (14.5%; 95% CI: 9.9-20.1%) of maternity healthcare workers testing positive for IgG antibodies against SARS-CoV-2. Of those who had seroconverted, 10/29 (35.5%) were completely asymptomatic. Fever or cough were only present in 6/29 (20.7%) and (10/29 (34.5%) respectively. Anosmia was the most common symptom occurring in 15/29 (51.7%) seropositive participants and was the only symptom that was predictive of positive seroconversion (OR 18; 95% CI 6 – 55). 58.6% of those who were seropositive had not self-isolated at any point and continued to provide patient care in the hospital setting.This study was the largest study of baseline immune seroconversion in maternity healthcare workers conducted to date and reveals that 1 in 6 were seropositive, of whom 1 in 3 were asymptomatic. This has significant implications for the risk of occupational transmission of SARS-CoV-2 for both staff and patients in maternity and regular testing of staff, including asymptomatic staff should be considered to reduce transmission risk.

SARS-CoV-2 is a novel coronavirus causing a global pandemic of a severe respiratory illness known as COVID-19. To date, globally, over 30,000 people have died from this emerging disease. As clinicians and healthcare systems around the world are rapidly adapting to manage patients with COVID-19, limited data are emerging from different patient populations to support best-practice and improve outcomes. In this review, we present a summary of emerging data in the obstetric population and offer obstetric and anaesthetic clinicians around the world a set of evidence-driven, practice-based recommendations for the anaesthetic management of pregnant women with suspected or confirmed COVID-19.

ObjectiveTo identify, appraise, and synthesise the best available evidence on the efficacy of perioperative interventions to reduce postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs) in adult patients undergoing non-cardiac surgery.DesignSystematic review and meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.Data sourcesMedline, Embase, CINHAL, and CENTRAL from January 1990 to December 2017.Eligibility criteriaRandomised controlled trials investigating short term, protocolised medical interventions conducted before, during, or after non-cardiac surgery were included. Trials with clinical diagnostic criteria for PPC outcomes were included. Studies of surgical technique or physiological or biochemical outcomes were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisReviewers independently identified studies, extracted data, and assessed the quality of evidence. Meta-analyses were conducted to calculate risk ratios with 95% confidence intervals. Quality of evidence was summarised in accordance with GRADE methods. The primary outcome was the incidence of PPCs. Secondary outcomes were respiratory infection, atelectasis, length of hospital stay, and mortality. Trial sequential analysis was used to investigate the reliability and conclusiveness of available evidence. Adverse effects of interventions were not measured or compared.Results117 trials enrolled 21 940 participants, investigating 11 categories of intervention. 95 randomised controlled trials enrolling 18 062 participants were included in meta-analysis; 22 trials were excluded from meta-analysis because the interventions were not sufficiently similar to be pooled. No high quality evidence was found for interventions to reduce the primary outcome (incidence of PPCs). Seven interventions had low or moderate quality evidence with confidence intervals indicating a probable reduction in PPCs: enhanced recovery pathways (risk ratio 0.35, 95% confidence interval 0.21 to 0.58), prophylactic mucolytics (0.40, 0.23 to 0.67), postoperative continuous positive airway pressure ventilation (0.49, 0.24 to 0.99), lung protective intraoperative ventilation (0.52, 0.30 to 0.88), prophylactic respiratory physiotherapy (0.55, 0.32 to 0.93), epidural analgesia (0.77, 0.65 to 0.92), and goal directed haemodynamic therapy (0.87, 0.77 to 0.98). Moderate quality evidence showed no benefit for incentive spirometry in preventing PPCs. Trial sequential analysis adjustment confidently supported a relative risk reduction of 25% in PPCs for prophylactic respiratory physiotherapy, epidural analgesia, enhanced recovery pathways, and goal directed haemodynamic therapies. Insufficient data were available to support or refute equivalent relative risk reductions for other interventions.ConclusionsPredominantly low quality evidence favours multiple perioperative PPC reduction strategies. Clinicians may choose to reassess their perioperative care pathways, but the results indicate that new trials with a low risk of bias are needed to obtain conclusive evidence of efficacy for many of these interventions.Study registrationProspero CRD42016035662.

Levobupivacaine is a long-acting amide local anaesthetic used in analgesia and anaesthesia. Like other local anaesthetic drugs, levobupivacaine exhibits effects on motor and sensory nerves by inhibiting the opening of voltage-gated sodium channels, and hence propagation of neuronal action potentials. Levobupivacaine is the S(-) stereoisomer of dextrobupivacaine, although both are used commercially in the racemic form bupivacaine. A favourable safety and drug effect profile for levobupivacaine has led to widespread use. Levobupivacaine is generally well tolerated but dose adjustment is important in populations such as paediatrics and the elderly. The pharmacokinetic properties of levobupivacaine are similar to that of bupivacaine; both extensively metabolised in the liver, and excreted in the urine and faeces. In vitro, animal model and human studies confirm a lower risk of cardiac and central nervous system toxicity with levobupivacaine compared with bupivacaine. Clinical trials of relative potency are impaired by the variability in chosen endpoints for sensory and motor function blockade, but clinically significant differences in potency are minor, with most clinical trials showing similar duration and quality of anaesthesia between levo- and racemic bupivacaine. In practice, levobupivacaine is most commonly used in regional anaesthesia, neuraxial anaesthesia and local infiltration analgesia. This review includes an appraisal of evidence from clinical trials of the pharmacokinetic and pharmacodynamic properties of levobupivacaine.

Regional anaesthesia techniques are an important adjunct to perioperative care of breast surgery patients. This chapter focuses on the practical application, evidence base and advantages of peripheral nerve block regional anaesthesia in the anaesthetic management of patients undergoing breast surgery. Functional anatomy and fascial plane blocks are discussed alongside paravertebral and paraspinal techniques. Guidance on the performance the range of ultrasound-guided blocks is provided. The role that regional anaesthesia may have in reducing the risk of breast cancer recurrence following mastectomy surgery is explored.

Purpose of Review Cardiac output monitors can be assessed by a variety of techniques, but a common principle is quantifying agreement between a reference standard and new monitor. The current standard analysis technique is a Bland-Altman plot. The Bland-Altman plot evaluates bias between mean differences of cardiac output, from which an agreement interval is derived. These limits are, however, statistical limits of agreement and the clinical acceptability will depend upon context and application. This article provides suggestions for understanding and presenting the results of cardiac output validation, using standard metrology alongside proposals for criteria used to accept new techniques. Recent Findings Confusion about the appropriate way to report “precision” in method comparison studies stem from a lack of clarity on how single or repeated measurements should be interpreted. During serial measurements of cardiac output the true value changes, thus measurement should be considered as serial rather than repeated. Method agreement based upon precision achieved by cardiac output monitors needs to consider each method’s general variability around true values obtained and this data should be generated and presented as part of each study design. Summary Studies should report serial measurements from two techniques for cardiac output monitoring. Results of similar techniques from other studies may not always be transferred and compared. Bias and intervals of agreement should be presented as Bland-Altman plots with dynamic cardiac output trends in polar plots. Percentage error should be calculated to allow appropriate comparison of techniques for study populations with different expected cardiac output values.

Background Little is known about the economic impact of emergency laparotomy (EL) surgery in healthcare systems around the world. The aim of this systematic review is to describe the primary resource utilisation, healthcare economic and societal costs of EL in adults in different countries. Methods MEDLINE, EMBASE, ISI Web of Knowledge, Cochrane Central Register Controlled Trials, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews and CINAHL were searched for full and partial economic analyses of EL published between 1 January 1991 and 31 December 2015. Quality of studies was assessed using the Consensus on Health Economic Criteria (CHEC) checklist. Results Sixteen studies were included from a range of countries. One study was a full economic analysis. Fifteen studies were partial economic evaluations. These studies revealed that emergency abdominal surgery is expensive compared to similar elective surgery when comparing primary resource utilisation costs, with an important societal impact. Most contemporaneous studies indicate that in-hospital costs for EL are in excess of US$10,000 per patient episode, rising substantially when societal costs are considered. Discussion EL is a high-risk and costly procedure with a disproportionate financial burden for healthcare providers, relative to national funding provisions and wider societal cost impact. There is substantial heterogeneity in the methodologies and quality of published economic evaluations of EL; therefore, the true economic costs of EL are yet to be fully defined. Future research should focus on developing strategies to embed health economic evaluations within national programmes aiming to improve EL care, including developing the required measures and infrastructure. Conclusions Emergency laparotomy is expensive, with a significant cost burden to healthcare and systems and society worldwide. Novel strategies for reducing this econmic burden should urgently be explored if greater access to this type of surgery is to be pursued as a global health target. Trial registration PROSPERO registration no. 42015027210 .

Background Perioperative fluid strategies influence clinical outcomes following major surgery. Many intravenous fluid preparations are based on simple solutions, such as normal saline, that feature an electrolyte composition that differs from that of physiological plasma. Buffered fluids have a theoretical advantage of containing a substrate that acts to maintain the body’s acid-base status - typically a bicarbonate or a bicarbonate precursor such as maleate, gluconate, lactate, or acetate. Buffered fluids also provide additional electrolytes, including potassium, magnesium, and calcium, more closely matching the electrolyte balance of plasma. The putative benefits of buffered fluids have been compared with those of non-buffered fluids in the context of clinical studies conducted during the perioperative period. This review was published in 2012, and was updated in 2017. Objectives To review effects of perioperative intravenous administration of buffered versus non-buffered fluids for plasma volume expansion or maintenance, or both, on clinical outcomes in adults undergoing all types of surgery. Search methods We electronically searched the Clinicaltrials.gov major trials registry, the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials (CENTRAL; 2016, Issue 6) in the Cochrane Library, MEDLINE (1966 to June 2016), Embase (1980 to June 2016), and the Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature (CINAHL; 1982 to June 2016). We handsearched conference abstracts and, when possible, contacted leaders in the field. We reran the search in May 2017. We added one potential new study of interest to the list of ‘Studies awaiting classification' and will incorporate this trial into formal review findings when we prepare the review update. Selection criteria Only randomized controlled trials that compared buffered versus non-buffered intravenous fluids for surgical patients were eligible for inclusion. We excluded other forms of comparison such as crystalloids versus colloids and colloids versus different colloids. Data collection and analysis Two review authors screened references for eligibility, extracted data, and assessed risks of bias. We resolved disagreements by discussion and consensus, in collaboration with a third review author. We contacted trial authors to request additional information when appropriate. We presented pooled estimates for dichotomous outcomes as odds ratios (ORs) and for continuous outcomes as mean differences (MDs), with 95% confidence intervals (CIs). We analysed data via Review Manager 5.3 using fixed-effect models, and when heterogeneity was high (I² > 40%), we used random-effects models. Main results This review includes, in total, 19 publications of 18 randomized controlled trials with a total of 1096 participants. We incorporated five of those 19 studies (330 participants) after the June 2016 update. Outcome measures in the included studies were thematically similar, covering perioperative electrolyte status, renal function, and acid-base status; however, we found significant clinical and statistical heterogeneity among the included studies. We identified variable protocols for fluid administration and total volumes of fluid administered to patients intraoperatively. Trial authors variably reported outcome data at disparate time points and with heterogeneous patient groups. Consequently, many outcome measures are reported in small group sizes, reducing overall confidence in effect size, despite relatively low inherent bias in the included studies. Several studies reported orphan outcome measures. We did not include in the results of this review one large, ongoing study of saline versus Ringer's solution. We found insufficient evidence on effects of fluid therapies on mortality and postoperative organ dysfunction (defined as renal insufficiency leading to renal replacement therapy); confidence intervals were wide and included both clinically relevant benefit and harm: mortality (Peto OR 1.85, 95% CI 0.37 to 9.33; I² = 0%; 3 trials, 6 deaths, 276 participants; low-quality evidence); renal insufficiency (OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.34 to 1.98; I² = 0%; 4 trials, 22 events, 276 participants; low-quality evidence). We noted several metabolic differences, including a difference in postoperative pH measured at end of surgery of 0.05 units - lower in the non-buffered fluid group (12 studies with a total of 720 participants; 95% CI 0.04 to 0.07; I² = 61%). However, this difference was not maintained on postoperative day one. We rated the quality of evidence for this outcome as moderate. We observed a higher postoperative serum chloride level immediately after operation, with use of non-buffered fluids reported in 10 studies with a total of 530 participants (MD 6.77 mmol/L, 95% CI 3.38 to 10.17), and this difference persisted until day one postoperatively (five studies with a total of 258 participants; MD 8.48 mmol/L, 95% CI 1.08 to 15.88). We rated the quality of evidence for this outcome as moderate. Authors' conclusions Current evidence is insufficient to show effects of perioperative administration of buffered versus non-buffered crystalloid fluids on mortality and organ system function in adult patients following surgery. Benefits of buffered fluid were measurable in biochemical terms, particularly a significant reduction in postoperative hyperchloraemia and metabolic acidosis. Small effect sizes for biochemical outcomes and lack of correlated clinical follow-up data mean that robust conclusions on major morbidity and mortality associated with buffered versus non-buffered perioperative fluid choices are still lacking. Larger studies are needed to assess these relevant clinical outcomes.

Anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor encephalitis is a recently recognised autoimmune, paraneoplastic syndrome that typically presents with psychiatric disturbance, reduced conscious level and seizures. The disorder has been previously associated with ovarian teratomas. We present the case of a 35-year-old female, with a previous surgical history for resection of an ovarian teratoma, who later developed status epilepticus and anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor encephalitis requiring intensive care management. Her presentation, treatment and early follow-up are described, alongside an overview of anti-N-methyl-D-aspartate receptor encephalitis pathophysiology and intensive care management.

This randomised controlled trial investigated the efficacy of Epi-Fix(™) , LockIt Plus(®) and Tegaderm(™) as fixation devices for intrapartum epidural catheters. One hundred and sixty-five women requesting intrapartum epidural analgesia were randomised to receive different fixation devices to secure their epidural catheter. The amount of epidural catheter migration (measured to the nearest 0.5 cm) was analysed for three devices: Epi-Fix (n = 55); LockIt Plus (n = 54); and Tegaderm dressing (n = 51). Median (IQR [range]) catheter migration for Epi-Fix was 1.0 cm (0.0-2.0 [-2.0 to 9.5]), vs 0.0 cm (0.0-0.5 [-1.0 to 5.5]) for LockIt Plus and 0.5 cm (0.0-1.8 [-1.5 to 8.0]) for Tegaderm (p = 0.003). Thirty-eight (69.1%) epidural catheters secured with Epi-Fix migrated < 2.0 cm, compared with 49 (90.7%) with LockIt Plus and 40 (78.4%) with Tegaderm. Sixteen epidural catheters required resiting due to failure of analgesia of which 12 (75.0%) occurred in patients with epidural catheters that had migrated ≥ 2.0 cm. This study shows that intrapartum epidural catheters secured with the LockIt Plus device exhibit less catheter migration compared with fixation with Epi-Fix and Tegaderm.