Association between known or strongly suspected malignant hyperthermia susceptibility and postoperative outcomes: an observational population-based study.

PURPOSE: Whether current standards of care management for malignant hyperthermia (MH)-susceptible patients result in acceptable postoperative clinical outcomes at a population level is not known. Our objective was to determine if patients with susceptibility to MH experienced similar outcomes as patients without MH susceptibility after surgery under general anesthesia. METHODS: This was a retrospective, population-based cohort study from 1 April 2009 until 31 March 2016 in the Canadian province of Ontario. Participants were adults who underwent common in- or outpatient surgeries under general anesthesia. The exposure studied was either known or strongly suspected MH susceptibility as determined by usage of a specific physician billing code. The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death, hospital readmission, or major postoperative complications, all within 30 postoperative days. Separate analyses were employed, based on whether a patient had in- or outpatient surgery. Inverse probability of exposure weighting based on the propensity score was used to estimate adjusted exposure effects. RESULTS: The cohort included 957,876 patients (583,254 in- and 374,622 outpatients). There were 2,900 (0.3%) patients with a known or strong suspicion of MH susceptibility. For inpatients, the primary outcome occurred in 146,192 (25.1%) of the non-MH-susceptible group and in 337 (20.1%) of the MH-susceptible group (unadjusted risk difference [RD], -5.0%; 95% confidence interval [CI], -6.9 to -3.1%; P < 0.001). In outpatients, the primary outcome occurred in 9,146 (2.4%) of the non-MH-susceptible group and in 32 (2.6%) of the MH-susceptible group (RD, 0.2%; 95% CI, -0.7 to 1.1%; P = 0.72). After adjustment, MH susceptibility was not associated with the primary outcome in either the inpatients (adjusted risk difference [aRD], 1.2%; 95% CI, -1.3 to 3.6%; P = 0.35) or outpatients (aRD, -0.1%; 95% CI -1.0 to 0.9%; P = 0.90). CONCLUSIONS: Among adults in Ontario who underwent common surgeries under general anesthesia from 2009 to 2016, known or strongly suspected MH was not associated with a higher risk of adverse postoperative outcomes. These findings support the current standard of care management for MH-susceptible patients.

RéSUMé: OBJECTIF: Nous ignorons si les normes actuelles de gestion des soins de patients susceptibles d'hyperthermie maligne (HM) aboutissent à des résultats cliniques postopératoires acceptables à l'échelle d'une population. Notre objectif a été de déterminer si des patients présentant une susceptibilité à l'HM présentaient une évolution comparable à celle des patients non connus susceptibles après chirurgie sous anesthésie générale. MéTHODES: Il s'agissait d'une étude de cohorte rétrospective, basée sur une population de la province canadienne de l'Ontario allant du 1er avril 2009 au 31 mars 2016. Les participants étaient des adultes, hospitalisés ou ambulatoires, ayant subi des interventions sous anesthésie générale. L'exposition étudiée était une susceptibilité à l'HM connue ou fortement suspectée, déterminée par l'utilisation d'un code de facturation spécifique des médecins. Le critère d'évaluation principal était un critère composite incluant les décès toutes causes confondues, les réadmissions hospitalières ou les complications postopératoires majeures qui étaient survenus dans un délai de 30 jours postopératoires. Des analyses séparées ont été utilisées, selon que les patients avaient été hospitalisés ou opérés en chirurgie d'un jour. La probabilité inverse de la pondération de l'exposition basée sur le score pour la propension a servi à estimer les effets ajustés de l'exposition. RéSULTATS: La cohorte a inclus 957 876 patients (583 254 patients hospitalisés et 374 622 patients ambulatoires). Parmi eux, 2 900 patients (0,3 %) avaient une susceptibilité à l'HM connue ou fortement suspectée. Pour les patients hospitalisés, le critère d'évaluation principal est survenu chez 146 192 (25,1 %) des patients du groupe non susceptible d'HM et chez 337 (20,1 %) patients du groupe susceptible d'HM (différence de risques [DR] non ajustée : −5,0 %; intervalle de confiance [IC] à 95 % : −6,9 % à −3,1 %; P < 0,001). Pour les patients ambulatoires, le critère d'évaluation principal est survenu chez 9 146 (2,4 %) des patients du groupe non susceptible d'HM et chez 32 (2,6 %) patients du groupe susceptible d'HM (différence de risques [DR] non ajustée : 0,2 %; IC à 95 % : −0,7 % à 1,1 %; P = 0,72). Après ajustement, la susceptibilité à l'HM ne s'est pas avérée associée au critère d'évaluation principal dans le groupe de patients hospitalisés (différence de risques ajustée [DRa], 1,2 %; IC à 95 % : −1,3 % à 3,6 %; P = 0,35) ou dans le groupe de patients ambulatoires (DRa : −0,1 %; IC à 95 % : −1,0 % à 0,9 %; P = 0,90). CONCLUSIONS: Parmi les adultes de la province de l'Ontario ayant subi des interventions chirurgicales usuelles sous anesthésie générale entre 2009 et 2016, l'HM connue ou fortement suspectée n'a pas été associée à un plus grand risque d'évolution postopératoire défavorable. Ces constatations sont en faveur du maintien des normes des soins actuels pour la gestion des patients susceptibles d'HM.

Association Between Handover of Anesthesia Care and Adverse Postoperative Outcomes Among Patients Undergoing Major Surgery.

Importance: Handing over the care of a patient from one anesthesiologist to another occurs during some surgeries and might increase the risk of adverse outcomes. Objective: To assess whether complete handover of intraoperative anesthesia care is associated with higher likelihood of mortality or major complications compared with no handover of care. Design, Setting, and Participants: A retrospective population-based cohort study (April 1, 2009-March 31, 2015 set in the Canadian province of Ontario) of adult patients aged 18 years and older undergoing major surgeries expected to last at least 2 hours and requiring a hospital stay of at least 1 night. Exposure: Complete intraoperative handover of anesthesia care from one physician anesthesiologist to another compared with no handover of anesthesia care. Main Outcomes and Measures: The primary outcome was a composite of all-cause death, hospital readmission, or major postoperative complications, all within 30 postoperative days. Secondary outcomes were the individual components of the primary outcome. Inverse probability of exposure weighting based on the propensity score was used to estimate adjusted exposure effects. Results: Of the 313 066 patients in the cohort, 56% were women; the mean (SD) age was 60 (16) years; 49% of surgeries were performed in academic centers; 72% of surgeries were elective; and the median duration of surgery was 182 minutes (interquartile [IQR] range, 124-255). A total of 5941 (1.9%) patients underwent surgery with complete handover of anesthesia care. The percentage of patients undergoing surgery with a handover of anesthesiology care progressively increased each year of the study, reaching 2.9% in 2015. In the unweighted sample, the primary outcome occurred in 44% of the complete handover group compared with 29% of the no handover group. After adjustment, complete handovers were statistically significantly associated with an increased risk of the primary outcome (adjusted risk difference [aRD], 6.8% [95% CI, 4.5% to 9.1%]; P < .001), all-cause death (aRD, 1.2% [95% CI, 0.5% to 2%]; P = .002), and major complications (aRD, 5.8% [95% CI, 3.6% to 7.9%]; P < .001), but not with hospital readmission within 30 days of surgery (aRD, 1.2% [95% CI, -0.3% to 2.7%]; P = .11). Conclusions and Relevance: Among adults undergoing major surgery, complete handover of intraoperative anesthesia care compared with no handover was associated with a higher risk of adverse postoperative outcomes. These findings may support limiting complete anesthesia handovers.

A comparison of glidescope videolaryngoscopy to direct laryngoscopy for nasotracheal intubation.

BACKGROUND: In this study, we compared the effectiveness of direct laryngoscopy (DL) and the GlideScope videolaryngoscope (GVL) for nasotracheal intubation, as judged by the time to intubation (TTI-the primary outcome) and the ease of intubation. METHODS: Seventy patients requiring nasotracheal intubation for elective surgery were randomly allocated to intubation with the GVL or DL. TTI was assessed by a blinded observer. Operators were blinded until the start of laryngoscopy. A Visual Analog Scale assessed the ease of intubation. The number of intubation attempts, number of failures, glottic grades, amount of bleeding, usage of Magill forceps, and the severity of postoperative sore throat were recorded. RESULTS: The median TTI was 23.2 s faster with the GVL (43.5 s, interquartile range [IQR]: 39.8-67.3) than with DL (66.7 s, IQR: 53.8-89.9), P = 0.0023. Nasotracheal intubation was easier with the GVL than with DL (Visual Analog Scale 10 mm, IQR: 5.5-18, vs 20 mm, IQR: 10-32, P = 0.0041). The incidence of postoperative moderate or severe sore throat was significantly reduced in the GVL group (9% vs 34%, P = 0.018). Glottic exposure was significantly better with the GVL. Magill forceps were not used in the GVL group, but were used 49% of the time in the DL group, P < 0.0001. The incidence and severity of bleeding were similar between groups. CONCLUSIONS: Compared with DL, the GVL has superior performance characteristics when used for nasotracheal intubation and demonstrates an important reduction of postoperative sore throat. The GVL has a clear role in routine nasotracheal intubation.

The GlideScope-specific rigid stylet and standard malleable stylet are equally effective for GlideScope use.

PURPOSE: The GlideScope videolaryngoscope usually provides excellent glottic visualization, but directing an endotracheal tube (ETT) through the vocal cords can be challenging. The goal of the study was to compare the dedicated GlideScope-specific rigid stylet to the standard malleable stylet, assessed by time to intubation (TTI). METHODS: Eighty patients requiring orotracheal intubation for elective surgery were randomly allocated to either the GlideScope rigid stylet (GRS) or a standard malleable stylet to facilitate intubation using the GlideScope. Time to intubation was recorded by blinded assessors; operators were blinded until after laryngoscopy. The operator assessed the ease of intubation using a visual analogue scale (VAS). The number of intubation attempts, number of failures, glottic grades, and use of external laryngeal manipulation were documented. RESULTS: The median TTI was 42.7 sec (inter-quartile range (IQR) 38.9-56.7) for the GRS group compared to 39.9 sec (IQR 34.1-48.2) for the control group (P=0.07). The median VAS score for ease of intubation was 20 (IQR 12.0-33.0) for the GRS group compared to 18 (IQR 9.5-29.5) for the control group (P=0.21). There was no significant difference in TTI or VAS between stylets. The overall incidence of a Cormack-Lehane grade I or II glottic view was 98%. CONCLUSIONS: In a group of experienced operators using the GlideScope, the dedicated GRS and the standard malleable ETT stylet are equally effective in facilitating endotracheal intubation.

Effect of stylet angulation and endotracheal tube camber on time to intubation with the GlideScope.

PURPOSE: The GlideScope videolaryngoscope usually provides excellent glottic visualization, but directing an endotracheal tube (ETT) through the vocal cords is sometimes difficult. The goal of the study was to determine which of two ETT angles (60 degrees vs 90 degrees ) and cambers (forward vs reverse) was better, as determined by time to intubation (TTI). METHODS: Two hundred patients requiring orotracheal intubation for elective surgery were randomly allocated to one of four groups: A) 90 degrees angle, forward camber; B) 90 degrees angle, reverse camber; C) 60 degrees angle, forward camber; D) 60 degrees angle, reverse camber. Time to intubation was assessed by a blinded observer. Operators were blinded until the point of intubation. A visual analogue scale (VAS) assessed the ease of intubation. The number of intubation attempts, number of failures, glottic grades, and use of external laryngeal manipulation were recorded. RESULTS: The angle of the ETT had an impact on TTI but camber did not. The 90 degrees angle demonstrated a 13% faster TTI than the 60 degrees angle (47.1 +/- 21.2 sec vs 54.4 +/- 28.2 sec, P=0.042), and it resulted in easier intubation (VAS 16.4 +/- 14.2 mm vs 27.3 +/- 23.5 mm, P=0.0001). The overall incidence of a grade 1 or 2 Cormack-Lehane glottic view was 99%. CONCLUSIONS: In a heterogeneous group of operators and patients intubated with the GlideScope, a 90 degrees ETT angle provided the best result and should be the initial configuration. The camber of the ETT does not affect the time to intubation.

Brachial plexus anesthesia compared to general anesthesia when a block room is available.

PURPOSE: Regional anesthesia is often felt to be beneficial to patient care but detrimental to operating room (OR) efficiency. In this report we compare how a block room (BR) affects OR time (ORT) utilization for brachial plexus anesthesia (BPA) in a busy upper limb practice. We also compare how anesthetic technique, BPA or general anesthesia (GA), impacts on the time to recovery and discharge in patients having outpatient upper limb surgery. METHODS: With the Ethics Committee's approval, a prospective study using hospital databases was undertaken. All patients presenting for surgery on the upper limb between November 1999 and April 2000 were eligible for analysis. A comparison was made of the various time intervals that comprise a patient's hospital stay for either GA or BPA. Demographic data (ASA, age, outpatient status), and location of BPA were analyzed. RESULTS: Use of the BR for BPA significantly reduced the pre-procedure anesthesia ORT when compared to BPA done in the OR (11.4 vs 32.9 min, P < 0.05; GA pre-procedure time was 17.8 min). In the ambulatory patient, BPA alone reduced post procedure anesthesia ORT, postanesthetic care unit, surgical day care unit, and total hospital times when compared to those receiving GA. On average those receiving a BPA spent 1.5 hr less in hospital (P < 0.01). Additionally, fewer admissions (2.4 vs 5.4%) occurred in the BPA group. CONCLUSION: The use of a BR reduces the anesthesia ORT associated with BPA. Secondly, BPA improves the recovery time phase of outpatients undergoing surgery on the upper limb.