Incidence of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia in obstetrics: a multicentre, prospective cohort study.

General anaesthesia for obstetric surgery has distinct characteristics that may contribute towards a higher risk of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia. The primary aim of this study was to investigate the incidence, experience and psychological implications of unintended conscious awareness during general anaesthesia in obstetric patients. From May 2017 to August 2018, 3115 consenting patients receiving general anaesthesia for obstetric surgery in 72 hospitals in England were recruited to the study. Patients received three repetitions of standardised questioning over 30 days, with responses indicating memories during general anaesthesia that were verified using interviews and record interrogation. A total of 12 patients had certain/probable or possible awareness, an incidence of 1 in 256 (95%CI 149-500) for all obstetric surgery. The incidence was 1 in 212 (95%CI 122-417) for caesarean section surgery. Distressing experiences were reported by seven (58.3%) patients, paralysis by five (41.7%) and paralysis with pain by two (16.7%). Accidental awareness occurred during induction and emergence in nine (75%) of the patients who reported awareness. Factors associated with accidental awareness during general anaesthesia were: high BMI (25-30 kg.m-2 ); low BMI (<18.5 kg.m-2 ); out-of-hours surgery; and use of ketamine or thiopental for induction. Standardised psychological impact scores at 30 days were significantly higher in awareness patients (median (IQR [range]) 15 (2.7-52.0 [2-56]) than in patients without awareness 3 (1-9 [0-64]), p = 0.010. Four patients had a provisional diagnosis of post-traumatic stress disorder. We conclude that direct postoperative questioning reveals high rates of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia for obstetric surgery, which has implications for anaesthetic practice, consent and follow-up.

General anaesthetic and airway management practice for obstetric surgery in England: a prospective, multicentre observational study.

There are no current descriptions of general anaesthesia characteristics for obstetric surgery, despite recent changes to patient baseline characteristics and airway management guidelines. This analysis of data from the direct reporting of awareness in maternity patients' (DREAMY) study of accidental awareness during obstetric anaesthesia aimed to describe practice for obstetric general anaesthesia in England and compare with earlier surveys and best-practice recommendations. Consenting patients who received general anaesthesia for obstetric surgery in 72 hospitals from May 2017 to August 2018 were included. Baseline characteristics, airway management, anaesthetic techniques and major complications were collected. Descriptive analysis, binary logistic regression modelling and comparisons with earlier data were conducted. Data were collected from 3117 procedures, including 2554 (81.9%) caesarean deliveries. Thiopental was the induction drug in 1649 (52.9%) patients, compared with propofol in 1419 (45.5%). Suxamethonium was the neuromuscular blocking drug for tracheal intubation in 2631 (86.1%), compared with rocuronium in 367 (11.8%). Difficult tracheal intubation was reported in 1 in 19 (95%CI 1 in 16-22) and failed intubation in 1 in 312 (95%CI 1 in 169-667). Obese patients were over-represented compared with national baselines and associated with difficult, but not failed intubation. There was more evidence of change in practice for induction drugs (increased use of propofol) than neuromuscular blocking drugs (suxamethonium remains the most popular). There was evidence of improvement in practice, with increased monitoring and reversal of neuromuscular blockade (although this remains suboptimal). Despite a high risk of difficult intubation in this population, videolaryngoscopy was rarely used (1.9%).

Quadratus lumborum block vs. transversus abdominis plane block for caesarean delivery: a systematic review and network meta-analysis.

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.

A cross-sectional study of immune seroconversion to SARS-CoV-2 in frontline maternity health professionals.

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.

Adoption of Lung Protective ventilation IN patients undergoing Emergency laparotomy: the ALPINE study. A prospective multicentre observational study.

BACKGROUND: Emergency abdominal surgery is associated with a high risk of postoperative pulmonary complications (PPCs). The primary aim of this study was to determine whether patients undergoing emergency laparotomy are ventilated using a lung-protective ventilation strategy employing tidal volume ≤8 ml kg-1 ideal body weight-1, PEEP >5 cm H2O, and recruitment manoeuvres. The secondary aim was to investigate the association between ventilation factors (lung-protective ventilation strategy, intraoperative FiO2, and peak inspiratory pressure) and the occurrence of PPCs. METHODS: Data were collected prospectively in 28 hospitals across London as part of routine National Emergency Laparotomy Audit (NELA). Patients were followed for 7 days. Complications were defined according to the European Perioperative Clinical Outcome definition. RESULTS: Data were collected from 568 patients. The median [inter-quartile range (IQR)] tidal volume observed was 500 ml (450-540 ml), corresponding to a median tidal volume of 8 ml kg-1 ideal body weight-1 (IQR: 7.2-9.1 ml). A lung-protective ventilation strategy was employed in 4.9% (28/568) of patients, and was not protective against the occurrence of PPCs in the multivariable analysis (hazard ratio=1.06; P=0.69). Peak inspiratory pressure of <30 cm H2O was protective against development of PPCs (hazard ratio=0.46; confidence interval: 0.30-0.72; P=0.001). Median FiO2 was 0.5 (IQR: 0.44-0.53), and an increase in FiO2 by 5% increased the risk of developing a PPC by 8% (2.6-14.1%; P=0.008). CONCLUSIONS: Both intraoperative peak inspiratory pressure and FiO2 are independent factors significantly associated with development of a postoperative pulmonary complication in emergency laparotomy patients. Further studies are required to identify causality and to demonstrate if their manipulation could lead to better clinical outcomes.

Intrapartum epidural fixation methods: a randomised controlled trial of three different epidural catheter securement devices.

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.

Novel coronavirus SARS-CoV-2 and COVID-19. Practice recommendations for obstetric anaesthesia: what we have learned thus far.

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.

Protocol for direct reporting of awareness in maternity patients (DREAMY): a prospective, multicentre cohort study of accidental awareness during general anaesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Accidental awareness during general anaesthesia (AAGA) is a complex and rare outcome to investigate in surgical patient populations, particularly obstetric patients. We report the protocol of the Direct Reporting of Awareness in Maternity patients (DREAMY) study, illustrating how the research was designed to address practical and methodological challenges for investigating AAGA in an obstetric cohort. METHODS: This is the trial protocol of a prospective, multicentre cohort study of patients undergoing obstetric surgery under general anaesthesia. Accidental awareness during general anaesthesia will be detected using three repetitions of standardised direct questioning over 30 days, with responses indicating memories during general anaesthesia verified using structured interviews. Reports will be adjudicated, then classified, in accordance with pre-defined and pre-validated structures, including the Michigan Awareness Classification tool. Quantitative data will be collected on general anaesthesia conduct for all participants. This descriptive study is being conducted in England and aims to recruit a minimum of 2015 patients. RESULTS: The DREAMY study was prospectively registered (ClinicalTrials.gov Identifier: NCT03100396) and ethical approval granted. Participant recruitment began in May 2017 and one year follow up concluded in August 2019. Publication of the results is anticipated in 2020. CONCLUSIONS: The DREAMY study will provide data on incidence, experience and implications of AAGA for obstetric patients, using a robust methodology that will reliably detect and translate subjective AAGA reports into objective outcomes. In addition, the study is expected to improve vigilance for AAGA in participating hospitals and encourage adoption of recommendations for support of patients experiencing AAGA.