Does an objective system-based approach improve assessment of perioperative risk in children? A preliminary evaluation of the 'NARCO'.

BACKGROUND: This study evaluated whether an objective tool would provide a more reliable and valid assessment of perioperative risk compared with the ASA-physical status (ASA-PS) in children. METHODS: A system-based risk assessment tool was developed using these categories: Neurological, Airway, Respiratory, Cardiovascular, and Other (NARCO) with a subcomponent grading surgical severity (SS). Anaesthesiologists reviewed the preoperative assessments and assigned NARCO, SS, and ASA-PS scores independently. Perioperative outcomes were recorded by trained observers. Validity and reliability of the tools were evaluated. RESULTS: NARCO correlated with ASA-PS (ρ=0.664; P<0.01) supporting its criterion validity. Inter-rater reliability of the measures was supported (intraclass correlation coefficients 0.71-0.96; κ 0.43-0.87) except for the Airway category. Measures of exact agreement were slightly better for NARCO compared with ASA-PS. NARCO, SS, and ASA-PS scores correlated significantly with perioperative escalation of care, adverse events (AE), hospital length of stay, and admission status. Correlations between NARCO and ASA-PS and outcomes improved when SS was factored into their coding. There were significant, but low, correlations between all measures and mortality. The odds of having escalation of care, AE, and mortality were 5-47 times greater among children with higher risk scores. CONCLUSIONS: Findings suggest that all measures of outcome have acceptable to excellent reliability with a slight improvement in agreement for the NARCO compared with the ASA-PS. This study supports the validity of both the NARCO and the ASA-PS in predicting perioperative risk in children with a slight improvement in correlations when combined with the SS score.

Preoxygenation with tidal volume and deep breathing techniques: the impact of duration of breathing and fresh gas flow.

UNLABELLED: Various techniques of "preoxygenation" before anesthetic induction have been advocated, including tidal volume breathing (TVB) for 3-5 min, four deep breaths (DB) in 0.5 min, and eight DB in 1 min. However, no study has compared the effectiveness of these techniques, assessed extending deep breathing beyond 1 min, or investigated the influence of fresh gas flow (FGF) in the same subjects using a circle absorber system. In 24 healthy adult volunteers breathing oxygen from a circle absorber system by tight-fitting mask, we compared TVB/5 min and deep breathing at a rate of 4 DB/0.5 min for 2 min at 5, 7, and 10 L/min FGF. Inspired and end-tidal respiratory gases were measured at 0.5-min intervals. During TVB, end-tidal oxygen (ETO2) increased rapidly and plateaued by 2.5 min at 86%, 88%, and 88% with 5, 7 and 10 L/min FGF, respectively. ETO2 values of > or =90% were attained between 3 and 4 min. Four DB/0.5 min increased ETO2 to 75%, 77%, and 80% at 5, 7, and 10 L/min FGF. Eight DB/min resulted in ETO2 values of 82% and 87% at 7 and 10 L/min, respectively. Extending deep breathing to 1.5 and 2 min with 10 L/min FGF increased ETO2 by > or =90%, although a decrease in ETCo(2) was noted. We concluded that TVB/3-5 min was effective in achieving maximal "preoxygenation" whereas 4 DB/0.5 min resulted in submaximal "preoxygenation," and thus should be used only when time is limited. Increasing FGF from 5 to 10 L/min does not enhance "preoxygenation" with either TVB or 4 DB/0.5 min. Deep breathing yields maximal "preoxygenation" when extended to 1.5 or 2 min, and only when high (10 L/min) FGF is used. IMPLICATIONS: Using a circle absorber system, normal breathing of oxygen for 3-5 min achieves optimal oxygenation of the lungs; whereas 4 deep breaths in 30 s does not. However, extending deep breathing to 1.5-2 min and using a high flow of oxygen improves oxygenation of the lungs to the same degree as normal breathing for 3-5 min. This may have important implications for patient safety.