Teleconsultation for Preoperative Anesthesia Evaluation: Identifying Environmental Potentials by Life Cycle Assessment.

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.

Antidote vs. unspecific hemostatic agents for the management of direct oral anticoagulant-related bleeding in trauma.

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.

[Teleconsultation for preoperative evaluation and informed consent-Are we ready for a paradigm shift?] / Anästhesiologische Risikoevaluation und rechtssichere Aufklärung per Telemedizin ­ Sind wir bereit für einen Paradigmenwechsel?

In Germany, approximately 17 million anaesthesiological procedures and, consequently, roughly the same number of preoperative consultations are conducted each year. So far, these have predominantly taken place in person. However, recent developments in technology, medical-legal aspects, and politics, combined with the catalyzing effect of the pandemic situation, have led to a significant boost in telemedicine. In the field of anaesthesia, there are new approaches to implementing telemedicine in the pre- and postoperative setting. This article focuses on the preoperative setting and presents general requirements for a teleconsultation as preoperative evaluation, the current state of technology, and medical-legal aspects.

Teleconsultation for preoperative evaluation during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic: A technical and medical feasibility study.

BACKGROUND: During the surge in coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) infections in early 2020, many medical organisations began developing strategies for implementing teleconsultation to maintain medical services during lockdown and to limit physical contact. Therefore, we developed a teleconsultation preoperative evaluation platform to replace on-site preoperative meetings. OBJECTIVE: This study assessed the feasibility of a teleconsultation for preoperative evaluation and procedure-associated adverse events. DESIGN: Implementation study. SETTING: A tertiary care university hospital in Germany from April 2020 to October 2020. PATIENTS: One hundred and eleven patients scheduled for elective surgery. INTERVENTION: Patients were assigned to receive teleconsultation for preoperative evaluation and to complete a subsequent survey. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Primary endpoints were medical and technical feasibility, user satisfaction and time savings. RESULTS: For 100 out of 111 patients, telepreoperative consultations allowed for adequate perioperative risk assessment, patient education and also for effective collection of legal signatures. For six patients (5.4%), consultations could not be started because of technical issues, whereas for five patients (4.8%), clearance for surgery could not be granted because of medical reasons. A clear majority of anaesthetists (93.7%) rated the telepreoperative evaluations as equivalent to on-site meetings. The majority of the patients considered teleconsultation for preoperative evaluation as convenient as an on-site meeting (98.2%) and would choose a teleconsultation again (97.9%). Median travel time saved by patients was 60 min (Q1 40, Q3 80). We registered one adverse event: we detected atrial fibrillation in one patient only immediately prior to surgery. CONCLUSION: Telepreoperative evaluations are medically and technically feasible, yielding high satisfaction rates on both sides. However, regarding patient safety, not every patient is equally well suited. Overall, implementation of teleconsultation for preoperative evaluation into clinical routine could help maintain medical care during the COVID-19 pandemic. TRIAL REGISTRATION: NCT04518514, ClinicalTrials.gov.