RESUMO
Introduction: Teleconsultations for preoperative evaluation in anesthesiology proved to be feasible during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, widespread implementation of teleconsultations has not yet occurred. Besides time savings and economic benefits, teleconsultations in anesthesia may have the potential to reduce CO2 emissions. Methods: We conducted a life cycle assessment based on prospective surveys to assess the potential environmental benefits of preoperative anesthesia teleconsultations in comparison to the status-quo in-person consultations. Within 1 month, all patients presenting at the preoperative anesthesia clinic at RWTH Aachen University Hospital were asked about the distance traveled and mode of transportation to the hospital. The main outcome measure was the potential environmental benefit resulting from the implementation of teleconsultations. Results: In total, 821 out of 981 patients presenting at the anesthesia clinic participated in the survey. Most patients visited on an outpatient basis (62.9%) and traveled by car (81.7%). The median travel distance was 25 km [interquartile range 12-40]. If patients who came to the hospital solely for the anesthesia appointment had scheduled virtual appointments, the emissions of 3.03-ton CO2 equivalents (CO2-eq) could be avoided in the first month after implementation. The environmental impact associated with the production of teleconsultation equipment is outweighed by the reduction in patient travel. If all outpatient appointments were performed virtually, these savings would triple. Within 10 years, more than 1,300 tons CO2-eq could be avoided. Conclusion: Teleconsultations can mitigate the environmental impact of in-person anesthesia consultations. Further research is essential to leverage teleconsultations for preoperative evaluation also across other medical specialties.
Assuntos
COVID-19 , Consulta Remota , Humanos , Consulta Remota/estatística & dados numéricos , Consulta Remota/economia , COVID-19/epidemiologia , COVID-19/prevenção & controle , Estudos Prospectivos , Cuidados Pré-Operatórios/métodos , Feminino , Masculino , SARS-CoV-2 , Pandemias , Pessoa de Meia-IdadeRESUMO
PURPOSE OF REVIEW: The advent of direct oral anticoagulants (DOACs) marks a significant milestone in anticoagulant treatment. However, DOACs can exacerbate bleeding, which is challenging for the treating clinician, especially when combined with traumatic injury. RECENT FINDINGS: In major bleeding associated with DOACs, rapid reversal of the anticoagulant effects is crucial. Recent observational and nonrandomized interventional trials have demonstrated the effectiveness of the specific antidotes andexanet alfa and idarucizumab as well as the unspecific prothrombin complex concentrates (PCCs) to counteract the anticoagulant effects of DOACs. The European Society of Anaesthesiology and Intensive Care guideline for severe perioperative bleeding and the European trauma guideline propose divergent recommendations for the use of andexanet alfa and PCC to obtain hemostasis in Factor Xa inhibitor-related bleeding. The conflicting recommendations are due to limited evidence from clinical studies and the potential increased risk of thromboembolic complications after the administration of andexanet. Regarding dabigatran-associated major bleeding, both guidelines recommend the specific reversal agent idarucizumab as first-line therapy. SUMMARY: Current guidelines recommend specific antidots and PCCs in DOAC-related major bleeding. Prospective randomized trials comparing specific vs. nonspecific hemostatic agents in the perioperative setting are needed to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of the hemostatic agents.