Short-term outcomes in infants following general anesthesia with low-dose sevoflurane/dexmedetomidine/remifentanil versus standard dose sevoflurane (The TREX trial).

BACKGROUND: The TREX (Trial Remifentanil DEXmedetomidine) trial aimed to determine if, in children < 2 years old, low-dose sevoflurane/dexmedetomidine/remifentanil anesthesia (LD-SEVO) is superior to standard dose sevoflurane (STD-SEVO) anesthesia in terms of global cognitive function at 3 years of age. The aim of the present secondary analyses was to compare incidence of intraoperative hypotension and bradycardia, postoperative pain, time to recovery, need for treatment of intraoperative hypotension and bradycardia, incidence of light anesthesia and need for treatment, need for postoperative pain medications, and morbidity and mortality outcomes at 5 days between the two arms. METHODS: This Phase III randomized active controlled, parallel group, assessor blinded, multicenter, superiority trial was performed in 20 centers in Australia, Italy, and the United States. Four hundred and fifty-five infants <2 years of age expected to undergo general anesthesia for at least 2 hours were enrolled. They were randomized between LD-SEVO and STD-SEVO. The short-term perioperative outcomes noted above were compared between these two groups. RESULTS: There was less hypotension (risk difference -11.6%, 95% confidence interval (CI) -18.9% to -4.3%) and more bradycardia (risk difference 18.2%, 95% CI 8.8% to 27.7%) in the LD-SEVO compared to the STD-SEVO arm. There were more patients with episodes of light anesthesia (89 vs. 4), and protocol abandonments (1 vs. 0) in the LD-SEVO arm. Time from eye-opening to Post Anesthesia Care Unit (PACU) discharge was similar in both arms, as were morbidity and mortality. One patient in each arm suffered a life-threatening event but neither suffered long-term sequelae. CONCLUSIONS: These early postoperative results suggest that in children less than 2 years of age receiving greater than 2 hours of general anesthesia, the low-dose sevoflurane/dexmedetomidine/remifentanil anesthesia technique and the standard sevoflurane anesthesia technique are broadly clinically similar, with no clear evidence to support choosing one technique over the other.

Isopropyl alcohol inhalation versus 5-HT3 antagonists for treatment of nausea: a meta-analysis of randomised controlled trials.

PURPOSE: Nausea is a common and unpleasant sensation for which current therapies such as serotonin (5-HT3) antagonists are often ineffective, while also conferring a risk of potential adverse events. Isopropyl alcohol (IPA) has been proposed as a treatment for nausea. We aimed to compare IPA with 5-HT3 antagonists for the treatment of nausea across all clinical settings. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, PubMed, CENTRAL and CINAHL were searched from inception to 17 July 2023 for randomised controlled trials (RCTs) comparing inhaled IPA and a 5-HT3 antagonist for treatment of nausea. Severity and duration of nausea, rescue antiemetic use, adverse events and patient satisfaction were the outcomes sought. Risk of bias (RoB) was assessed using Cochrane RoB 2. Random-effects model was used for meta-analysis. Combination of meta-analyses and narrative review was used to synthesise findings. The evidence was appraised using GRADE. RESULTS: From 1242 records, 4 RCTs were included with 382 participants. Participants receiving IPA had a significantly lower mean time to 50% reduction in nausea (MD - 20.06; 95% CI - 26.26, - 13.85). Nausea score reduction at 30 min was significantly greater in the IPA group (MD 21.47; 95% CI 15.47, 27.47). IPA led to significantly reduced requirement for rescue antiemetics (OR 0.60; 95% CI 0.37, 0.95; p = 0.03). IPA led to no significant difference in patient satisfaction when compared with a 5-HT3 antagonist. The overall GRADE assessment of evidence quality ranged from very low to low. CONCLUSION: IPA may provide rapid, effective relief of nausea when compared with 5-HT3 antagonists.

Perioperative management of infant inguinal hernia surgery; a review of the recent literature.

Inguinal hernia surgery is one of the most common electively performed surgeries in infants. The common nature of inguinal hernia combined with the high-risk population involving a predominance of preterm infants makes this a particular area of interest for those concerned with their perioperative care. Despite a large volume of literature in the area of infant inguinal hernia surgery, there remains much debate amongst anesthetists, surgeons and neonatologists regarding the optimal perioperative management of these patients. The questions asked by clinicians include; when should the surgery occur, how should the surgery be performed (open or laparoscopic), how should the anesthesia be conducted, including regional versus general anesthesia and airway devices used, and what impact does anesthesia choice have on the developing brain? There is a paucity of evidence in the literature on the concerns, priorities or goals of the parents or caregivers but clearly their opinions do and should matter. In this article we review the current clinical surgical and anesthesia practice and evidence for infants undergoing inguinal hernia surgery to help clinicians answer these questions.

Consumer research priorities for pediatric anesthesia and perioperative medicine.

BACKGROUND: Consumer-driven research is increasingly being prioritized. AIM: Our aim was to partner with consumers to identify the top 10 research priorities for pediatric anesthesia and perioperative medicine. The ACORN (Anesthesia Consumer Research Network) was formed to collaborate with children and families across Australia. METHODS: A prospective online survey was developed to generate research ideas from consumers. The survey was developed in Qualtrics, a survey research platform. Consumers were invited to participate through poster advertising, social media posts, via consumer networks at participating hospitals and in addition 35 national consumer/patient representative organizations were approached. We also conducted a similar idea generating survey for clinicians through email invitation and via Twitter. A second round of surveys was conducted to prioritize the long list of research questions and a shortlist of priorities developed. A single consensus meeting was held, and a final consensus list of top 10 priorities emerged. RESULTS: A total of 281 research ideas were submitted between 356 consumers in the idea generating survey and from four consumer/patient representative groups. Seventy-five clinicians responded to the clinician idea generation survey. This was consolidated into 20 research ideas/themes for the second survey for each group. 566 responses were received to the consumer prioritization top 10 survey and 525 responses to the clinician survey. The consensus meeting produced the final 10 consumer research priorities. CONCLUSION: This study has given Australian consumers the opportunity to shape the anesthesia and perioperative medicine research agenda for pediatric patients both nationally and internationally.

Infant peripherally inserted central catheter insertion without general anesthesia.

BACKGROUND: Avoiding anesthesia for infant peripherally inserted central catheter insertion beyond the neonatal period has been the subject of very little research despite this being a high-risk age group. In our institution, we introduced a "Fast, Feed, and Wrap" technique, previously described for magnetic resonance imaging scans, for infants up to 6 months and weighing under 5.5 kg undergoing peripherally inserted central catheter insertion. AIMS: The aim was to report our experience using "Fast, Feed, and Wrap," in particular the success rate and proportion of qualifying infants who were managed this way. METHODS: A retrospective study was undertaken using electronic records and case notes to determine patient age, weight, indication for procedure, anesthetic technique (general anesthesia or "Fast, Feed, and Wrap"), peripherally inserted central catheter details (site of insertion, gauge, and number of lumens), and length of procedure. RESULTS: Fifty-one infants qualified for "Fast, Feed, and Wrap" over a 42-month period, 43 were attempted this way and 40 were successful. All infants were greater than 40 weeks postconceptual age at the time of peripherally inserted central catheter insertion under "Fast, Feed, and Wrap," though 26% were preterm. The average age of babies undergoing "Fast, Feed, and Wrap" was 35 days (IQR 18-55), and the median weight was 3.78 kg (IQR 3.48-4.77). CONCLUSIONS: Infants younger than 6 months and under 5.5 kg can be managed without general anesthesia for peripherally inserted central catheter insertion using a Fast, Feed, and Wrap technique.

High-flow nasal oxygen for children's airway surgery to reduce hypoxaemic events: a randomised controlled trial.

BACKGROUND: Tubeless upper airway surgery in children is a complex procedure in which surgeons and anaesthetists share the same operating field. These procedures are often interrupted for rescue oxygen therapy. The efficacy of nasal high-flow oxygen to decrease the frequency of rescue interruptions in children undergoing upper airway surgery is unknown. METHODS: In this multicentre randomised trial conducted in five tertiary hospitals in Australia, children aged 0-16 years who required tubeless upper airway surgery were randomised (1:1) by a web-based randomisation tool to either nasal high-flow oxygen delivery or standard oxygen therapy (oxygen flows of up to 6 L/min). Randomisation was stratified by site and age (<1 year, 1-4 years, and 5-16 years). Subsequent tubeless upper airway surgery procedures in the same child could be included if there were more than 2 weeks between the procedures, and repeat surgical procedures meeting this condition were considered to be independent events. The oxygen therapy could not be masked, but the investigators remained blinded until outcome data were locked. The primary outcome was successful anaesthesia without interruption of the surgical procedure for rescue oxygenation. A rescue oxygenation event was defined as an interruption of the surgical procedure to deliver positive pressure ventilation using either bag mask technique, insertion of an endotracheal tube, or laryngeal mask to improve oxygenation. There were ten secondary outcomes, including the proportion of procedures with a hypoxaemic event (SpO2 <90%). Analyses were done on an intention-to-treat (ITT) basis. Safety was assessed in all enrolled participants. This trial is registered in the Australian New Zealand Clinical Trials Registry, ACTRN12618000949280, and is completed. FINDINGS: From Sept 4, 2018, to April 12, 2021, 581 procedures in 487 children were randomly assigned to high-flow oxygen (297 procedures) or standard care (284 procedures); after exclusions, 528 procedures (267 assigned to high-flow oxygen and 261 assigned to standard care) in 483 children (293 male and 190 female) were included in the ITT analysis. The primary outcome of successful anaesthesia without interruption for tubeless airway surgery was achieved in 236 (88%) of 267 procedures on high-flow oxygen and in 229 (88%) of 261 procedures on standard care (adjusted risk ratio [RR] 1·02, 95% CI 0·96-1·08, p=0·82). There were 51 (19%) procedures with a hypoxaemic event in the high-flow oxygen group and 57 (22%) in the standard care group (RR 0·86, 95% CI 0·58-1·24). Of the other prespecified secondary outcomes, none showed a significant difference between groups. Adverse events of epistaxis, laryngospasm, bronchospasm, hypoxaemia, bradycardia, cardiac arrest, hypotension, or death were similar in both study groups. INTERPRETATION: Nasal high-flow oxygen during tubeless upper airway surgery did not reduce the proportion of interruptions of the procedures for rescue oxygenation compared with standard care. There were no differences in adverse events between the intervention groups. These results suggest that both approaches, nasal high-flow or standard oxygen, are suitable alternatives to maintain oxygenation in children undergoing upper airway surgery. FUNDING: Thrasher Research Fund, the Australian and New Zealand College of Anaesthetists, the Society for Paediatric Anaesthesia in New Zealand and Australia.

High-flow oxygen for children's airway surgery: randomised controlled trial protocol (HAMSTER).

INTRODUCTION: Hypoxaemia during anaesthesia for tubeless upper airway surgery in children with abnormal airways is common due to the complexity of balancing adequate depth of anaesthesia with maintenance of spontaneous breathing and providing an uninterrupted field of view of the upper airway for the surgeon. High-flow nasal oxygenation (HIGH-FLOW) can prolong safe apnoea time and be used in children with abnormal airways but to date has not been compared with the alternative technique of low-flow nasal oxygenation (LOW-FLOW). The aim is to investigate if use of HIGH-FLOW can reduce the number of hypoxaemic events requiring rescue oxygenation compared with LOW-FLOW. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: High-flow oxygen for children's airway surgery: randomised controlled trial (HAMSTER) is a multicentre, unmasked, randomised controlled, parallel group, superiority trial comparing two oxygenation techniques during anaesthesia. Children (n=530) aged >37 weeks to 16 years presenting for elective tubeless upper airway surgery who fulfil inclusion but not exclusion criteria will be randomised prior to surgery to HIGH-FLOW or LOW-FLOW post induction of anaesthesia. Maintenance of anaesthesia with HIGH-FLOW requires Total IntraVenous Anaesthesia (TIVA) and with LOW-FLOW, either inhalational or TIVA at discretion of anaesthetist. The primary outcome is the incidence of hypoxaemic events requiring interruption of procedure for rescue oxygenation by positive pressure ventilation and the secondary outcome includes total hypoxaemia time, adverse cardiorespiratory events and unexpected paediatric intensive care admission admission. Hypoxaemia is defined as Sp02 <90%. Analysis will be conducted on an intention-to-treat basis. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval has been obtained by Children's Health Queensland Human Research Ethics Committee (HREC/18/QRCH/130). The trial commenced recruitment in 2018. The primary manuscript will be submitted for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. TRIAL REGISTRATION NUMBER: The HAMSTER is registered with the Australia and New Zealand Clinical TrialsRegistry: ACTRN12618000949280.