Impact of simulation-based training on bougie-assisted cricothyrotomy technique: a quasi-experimental study.

BACKGROUND: Cricothyrotomy is a lifesaving surgical technique in critical airway events. However, a large proportion of anesthesiologists have little experience with cricothyrotomy due to its low incidence. This study aimed to develop a multisensory, readily available training curriculum for learning cricothyrotomy and evaluate its training effectiveness. METHODS: Seventy board-certificated anesthesiologists were recruited into the study. Participants first viewed an instructional video and observed an expert performing the bougie-assisted cricothyrotomy on a self-made simulator. They were tested before and after a one-hour practice on their cricothyrotomy skills and evaluated by a checklist and a global rating scale (GRS). Additionally, a questionnaire survey regarding participants' confidence in performing cricothyrotomy was conducted during the training session. RESULTS: The duration to complete cricothyrotomy was decreased from the pretest (median = 85.0 s, IQR = 72.5-103.0 s) to the posttest (median = 59.0 s, IQR = 49.0-69.0 s). Furthermore, the median checklist score was increased significantly from the pretest (median = 30.0, IQR = 27.0-33.5) to the posttest (median = 37.0, IQR = 35.5-39.0), as well as the GRS score (pretest median = 22.5, IQR = 18.0-25.0, posttest median = 32.0, IQR = 31.0-33.5). Participants' confidence levels in performing cricothyrotomy also improved after the curriculum. CONCLUSION: The simulation-based training with a self-made simulator is effective for teaching anesthesiologists to perform cricothyrotomy.

Scalpel cricothyrotomy versus punctured cricothyrotomy in the context of the CICO crisis. A systematic review and Meta-analysis.

IMPORTANCE: The preferential use of a scalpel (SCT) or puncture techniques (PCT) for cricothyrotomy remains a controversial topic. OBJECTIVE: We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis comparing puncture cricothyrotomy with scalpel cricothyrotomy using overall success rate, first-time success rate, and time taken to perform the procedure as the primary outcome together with complications as a secondary outcome. EVIDENCE REVIEW: Pubmed databases, EMBASE databases, MEDLINE, Google Scholar, and Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials, from 1980 to October 2022. FINDINGS: A total of 32 studies were included in the systematic review and meta-analysis. It also showed that PCT was close to SCT in terms of overall success rate (82.2% vs. 82.6%, Odd Ratios OR = 0.91, [95%CI: 0.52-1.58], p = 0.74) as well as first-performance success rate (62.9% vs. 65.3%, OR = 0.52, [0.22-1.25], p = 0.15). PCT does not compare favorably with SCT in terms of required time for the procedure (the mean time required for PCT versus SCT incision in the intervention groups was 0.34 standard deviations higher (Mean Difference MD = 17.12, [3.37-30.87], p = 0.01) as well as complications (21.4% vs. 15.1%, Relative Risk RR = 1.49, [0.80-2.77], p = 0.21). CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE: The results show that SCT has an advantage over PCT in terms of time required for the procedure, while there is no difference in overall success rate, first-time success rate after training, and complications. The superiority of SCT may be the result of fewer and more reliable procedural steps. However, the level of evidence is low (GRADE).

Comparison of the Efficacy and Safety of Dexmedetomidine Administered in Two Different Modes Under Procedural Sedation and Analgesia in Plastic Surgery.

Background: Dexmedetomidine (DEX), a highly selective α2-adrenergic receptor agonist, is now widely used in procedural sedation and analgesia. This study was designed to observe and compare the efficacy and safety of DEX administered in two different modes. Methods: In total, 100 patients were randomly divided into two groups to receive intravenous DEX 1 µg/kg over 15 min followed by 0.4-0.7 µg/kg/h infusion or DEX 1 µg/kg over 30 min followed by 0.4-0.7 µg/kg/h infusion. Heart rate (HR), mean arterial pressure (MAP), respiratory rate (RR), bispectral index (BIS), Ramsay Sedation Scores (RSS scores), the lowest respiratory rates (LRR), incidences of respiratory adverse events and frequencies of body movements were recorded. Recovery time, recall of intraoperative events, pain scores in PACU and satisfaction of patients and surgeons were assessed. Results: The BIS at time points from 5 min after anesthesia to the end of surgery in the intervention group were significantly higher (p < 0.05). The RSS scores at time points from 5 min after anesthesia to immediately after induction with DEX were significantly higher in the intervention group (p < 0.05). The HR at time points from the beginning of surgery to 30 min after local anesthesia, the MAP at time points from 30 min after local anesthesia to the end of surgery, and the RR at time points from 5 min after anesthesia to the end of surgery were significantly higher in the intervention group (p < 0.05). Patients in the intervention group had higher LRR, lower incidences of respiratory adverse events, and shorter recovery time (p < 0.05). Conclusions: Dexmedetomidine infused with a loading dose over 30 min had less impact on patients' hemodynamics and respiration and could shorten the recovery time after anesthesia in procedural sedation and analgesia. Clinical Trial Registration: ClinicalTrials.gov, identifier: ChiCTR1900027958.

Comparison of the Sedative and Analgesic Effects of Dexmedetomidine-Remifentanil and Dexmedetomidine-Sufentanil for Liposuction: A Prospective Single-Blind Randomized Controlled Study.

BACKGROUND: Dexmedetomidine had sedative and analgesic effects and did not produce significant respiratory depression at therapeutic doses. AIMS: To compare the sedative and analgesic effects and safety of dexmedetomidine combined with remifentanil or sufentanil in patients undergoing liposuction. METHODS: A total of 100 subjects were randomized 1:1 to two groups: Group R and Group S. First, patients were administered midazolam 0.02 mg·kg-1. Anesthesia was induced with an intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine 1 µg kg-1 (15 min) and remifentanil 0.1 µg kg-1 min-1 (Group R) or sufentanil 0.1 µg kg-1h-1 (Group S). Anesthesia was maintained with an intravenous infusion of dexmedetomidine 1.0 µg kg-1h-1, midazolam 0.015 mg kg-1h-1, remifentanil 0.1 µg kg-1min-1 (Group R), or sufentanil 0.1 µg kg-1h-1 (Group S). Hemodynamic and respiratory changes, modified OAA/S score and BIS values, postoperative Visual Analogue Scale pain scores, satisfaction of the patient and surgical team with the procedure, and adverse events and recovery time were recorded. RESULTS: Group R received significantly less midazolam and midazolam per hour compared to Group S (Group R vs. Group S: 3.4 ± 1.7 mg vs. 5.1 ± 2.0 mg, P < 0.0001; 1.5 ± 0.7 mg/h vs. 1.9 ± 0.6 mg/h, P = 0.002). The incidence of physical or verbal expressions of pain at the start of surgery was significantly lower in Group R compared to Group S (2 [4.3%] vs. 12 [26.7%], P = 0.003). Patient satisfaction with the procedure was significantly higher in Group R compared to Group S (3.9 ± 0.3 vs. 3.1 ± 0.3, P < 0.0001). CONCLUSION: Dexmedetomidine-remifentanil and dexmedetomidine-sufentanil were effective and safe sedative and analgesic agents for liposuction. Hemodynamic stability was maintained. Dexmedetomidine-remifentanil might be associated with improved analgesic effects compared to dexmedetomidine-sufentanil. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE II: Evidence was obtained from at least one properly designed randomized controlled trial. This journal requires that authors assign a level of evidence to each article. For a full description of these Evidence-Based Medicine ratings, please refer to the Table of Contents or the online Instructions to Authors www.springer.com/00266 .

Neonatal mortality and leading causes of deaths: a descriptive study in China, 2014-2018.

OBJECTIVE: The present study estimated the national and urban-rural levels and causes of neonatal deaths in China annually between 2014 and 2018 to provide data support for the further end of preventable neonatal deaths for China and other low-income and middle-income countries. METHODS: The study was based on data from the National Maternal and Child Health Surveillance System. All neonates of surveillance districts (gestational week: ≥28 weeks) who died after delivery have been involved in the study. The mortality rate and the leading causes of death for neonates were analysed. RESULTS: The neonatal mortality rate (NMR) of China has steadily decreased from 5.9 deaths per 1000 live births in 2014 to 3.9 deaths per 1000 live births in 2018. The NMR in 2018 of urban and rural areas was 2.2 deaths per 1000 live births and 4.7 deaths per 1000 live births, respectively. The leading preventable causes of neonatal deaths are the same in the urban and rural areas were same, which were preterm birth, intrapartum complications and pneumonia. Mortality rates of these three causes fell significantly between 2014 and 2018 but contributed to a higher proportion of deaths in rural areas than urban areas. The proportion of preventable deaths accounted for 74.6% in 2018. CONCLUSIONS: The NMR of China has decreased steadily from 2014 to 2018. However, the inequality between urban and rural areas still exists. The goal of government interventions should be to reduce the health inequality of neonates and further take targeted measures to eliminate preventable neonatal death.